Don’t expect Reason in the Interview Process
Mar 9th
This is a follow-up to the Reflections on Strategy Discussions post. A further reflection on interviewing now that I have some actual feedback.
Think: No reason or rhyme.
So. If you think about interviews too much your head will explode. That is about the best advice I can give you about interviewing. A couple of things now that I have actually put my resume into the ocean of other resumes in the marketplace.
First. A fresh resume is like fresh meat.
Think of it like sharks smelling fresh blood. Regardless of the current economy there are a lot of companies looking for people out there. In addition there are the executive search people (I read somewhere think in The Economist that total searches are down but most companies’ profitability is up) who make their living off placing people. A new resume on the market is something they all seem to look at (or at least it feels that way with the sheer number of questions and resume ‘hits’ I received in week one alone and while week 2 wasn’t as high it still was higher than I thought it would be).
Having been a business development director I know at this stage you cannot have the attitude of “you know I am not feeling like I am a good fit for what you are asking me” when you get a contact (even though in your wildest imagination you cannot figure out why they would be interested in you for that particular opportunity) but rather “well, here is the honest answer and maybe also think about this.”
At this stage I can’t think about it as interviewing but rather “educating the gatekeeper community” so I can get in the consideration set at some point if the right opportunity appears. The best advice I give most people here is don’t get too anxious for fighting for a face-to-face (or an interview) but rather give as much relevant information as you possibly can so they understand you are qualified.
This part seems reasonable to me. But. Here is where reason gets thrown a curveball.
Second. The face to face.
Wow. No reason to the rhyme. Over past couple of weeks I have talked to two companies about basically the same position (had the same title and basic responsibilities). They were basically the same (same industry, one was a little larger in organization size then the other, pretty much the same philosophically and culture type). Met face to face with both. Said pretty much the same to both (it is actually kind of amazing how often people ask the same types of questions and want to discuss similar things if you are talking about similar responsibilities). And I have already written about how I didn’t feel like it went particularly well (the discussions) with either.
So the net result?
The slightly smaller organization suggested I wasn’t qualified enough for the opportunity (saying that there were several other candidates that were very qualified they were interested in more than me) and the slightly larger organization suggesting I was over qualified for the opportunity (basically saying just that). And these conversations (one by email and one by phone) happened in a 48 hour span. And let’s be clear, I did not meet enough people to even be able to assess from my own perspective the chemistry aspect of the overall organization with me. (so I would be hesitant to suggest they would know for sure).
So. The one I would have guessed I was overqualified for thought I was not qualified enough and the vice versa on the other (which makes me wish I had more vices to help me think my way through it).
Once again. Your head will explode if you try and figure out the logic behind the interviewing process.
I have walked out of interviews in my life feeling like I have nailed it and received the “sorry, loved you but don’t love you enough” as well as I have walked out feeling like my follow-up would have to be Mensalike to get back in the game and received a “loved you and lets show you how much we love you.” It’s a wacky thing this whole interviewing thing. Not a lot of reason to it. But lots of reasons to drink.
Reflection on strategy expertise Discussions
Mar 8th
So. I have talked with two agencies the past several days about a director of strategy position. I don’t think either discussion went particularly well. Okay but not great.
The weird thing is I am pretty good at uncovering meaningful (see “relevant” in a definition somewhere) insights and isolating a strategy that not only generates results but is open enough to allow some creative output to deliver that insight. (ok. how about other people have told me I am good at this so it isn’t like I stare in the mirror and go “what a handsome man you are” .. although I am tempted to try that upon occasion without laughing as an exercise ..). I also believe because I don’t have a traditional account planning background my strategies tend to be less esoteric and more practical.
I hate gobbledygook (that’s another word for bullshit) and kind of think developing a strategy is a complex challenge but in the end all about simplicity.
Hey. They didn’t ask me to speak in gobbledygook terms it’s just that sometimes if you don’t it gets tougher to talk about. Simplicity just ain’t easy to explain.
Anyway. I believe developing a strategy is very straightforward (or how you go about doing it). What makes it complex to explain is that almost every strategy development challenge is different.
And I think that hurts me in some discussions because some traditional account planner (I use the words traditional loosely) has some high falutin’ process and a ton of strategy documents highlighting a ton of sometimes concise strategy statements (sometimes meaningless) to showcase.
And here is the thing. It is kind of a numbers game. If you pony up enough of these account planner type strategy statement things sooner or later you show one the other person kind of understands and you get to talk about it.
I have lots of examples but not that consistent P&G one strategy statement philosophy which I think I may need because talking about strategy gets weird if you don’t have them.
So. Why don’t I have that “consistent one strategy statement” philosophy? Several reasons.
I know when I talk about strategy it must seem all over the place. Mainly because the process I have stored in my pea like brain is very very consistent (but no one really wants to talk about the process) but the output (which everyone wants to talk about) is very very inconsistent (and that is something philosophically I believe is correct).
What I mean is that regardless of how simple you want a strategy or an insight depending on what you arrive at it could be captured in two words (and awesome situation until you realize that you still have to write the paragraph after it to share the depth of the insight) or it could be captured in three sentences (which people inherently suggest “couldn’t it be more concise” but outside people grasp it quickly and move on to other discussion like “why is the coffee so bad in the cafeteria” or “why are snacks good in one meeting and not so good in another”).
The process I use to get to the varied output is very simple and straightforward (because it is simply a logical way to tear apart things to assess what it is you really need to do).
The output from that consistent process construct is varied.
That’s it.
Look. I started my career on P&G brand work so I am steeped in that P&G formulaic positioning statement belief. Oh. And because I worked at JWT I am steeped in a strong methodical strategic thinking process (although I was there long enough that our “output statement” changed a number of times as we shifted to whatever the strategic process idea du jour was). Oh. And because I am a student of the industry I am steeped in Bates’ infamous “USP” (a hard-headed insistence on judging a product by what it does, not by how good it looks, a Unique Selling Proposition).
Oh. Maybe that’s the problem. I don’t have one tried & true output I stick with (probably because what I realized was consistency of process dictated that the output may vary depending on the business challenge or situation).
Having worked at a variety of agencies as well as evaluated a variety of consulting & research companies strategy output, not only does everyone have a different process (and while some of the differences are slight they are different) but everyone also has a different “output” form. And I am flexible enough to not worry about those things and focus on what needs to get done.
Agencies like to have an output form (that is consistent). I guess the difficulty I have with that is sometimes it is like putting a square peg in a round hole depending on what the challenge was and what the solution was.
So I guess that makes judging my output (what I have done) a little more difficult because I personally care more about judging the process of how you got to the strategy. I don’t care if you come up with Oscar Mayer being “capturing the joy and innocence of childhood” versus Marines being “elite warrior” versus SunTrust Bank being “large bank resources with small bank service.”
Maybe I should care. But I guess in the end all I really care about is finding a great insight and help build a great strategy.
Interviewing to discuss it sucks though.
Lastly. (because I all of a sudden I am on the interview discussion thing).
Talking about strategy and strategy thinking. I think you get to a point in your experience when it becomes tough to explain what is so simple to you it has become just “what you do” and not “something you have to think about doing.”
Oh. This isn’t about having earned some respect because of past experience. That is a completely different post.
What I mean is, for example, assessing research. At a point in my type of career experience you kind of have to know how to interpret research. Not implement a methodology (although we all certainly understand the basics and can probably write and develop basic methodologies) but certainly to review what someone else has completed and interpret the information. We all know how to do it in varying degrees.
Anyway. I admit. I don’t know what to say when someone asks me “can you interpret research” other than “yes.” (or “gosh, I don’t think I could have gotten to where I got to in my career without knowing how to do it.”) By this time I have looked at so many frickin’ tracking studies, omnibus studies, segmentations studies, sales tracking information, MRI computer runs, focus group write-ups, A&U studies, whatever … I think I can pick out how many rum drinkers in multi person households own tricycles for god’s sake (which I actually did by mistake when I worked on Mount Gay rum).
In fact, that may be the issue. Going back to the basics in a professional credibility discussion when you have done so many things you feel like you don’t have to explain it. No. that’s not it. It’s just I don’t know how to talk about it without actually doing it. It’s like talking about breathing. How do you breathe? Shit. I don’t know. I don’t think about it but I sure am good at it.
As for the background credibility discussion (once again this isn’t about respect it is more “belief in what someone can do without having to explain some things) I guess in my sports interest warped mind I find myself on occasion in these interview type settings saying:
“Hey, I have batted .320 in the national league for 8 straight years. Sure one year I led the league in home runs and another I led the league in doubles and one season I had a boatload of singles and had a huge on base percentage but basically year in and year out I bat .320. So. Even though I am talking to you about playing a season in the American league and I have never batted against American league pitchers what makes you think I won’t bat around .320 again? I don’t know if I will lead the league in home runs or doubles but I can pretty much guarantee I will bate .320. In fact let’s assume if you need home runs I have the ability to do so and maybe we don’t need to talk about how I hit home runs instead of doubles. So why do keep asking me about how I hit? What is my philosophy at the plate? Shouldn’t we be talking about if I fit into the team chemistry and am I the right guy who can hit .320 for your lineup?”
Anyway. Certainly a rambling post but maybe it helps people to know that even with my experience some interview or job discussion experiences can be frustrating on occasion. Explaining things that you have done for years, with some success, can be difficult. Even the simple becomes complex.
So. My friend says “I have prostate cancer”
Mar 7th
I heard these words a couple of weeks ago and it has taken me some time to get my head wrapped around this and gather my thoughts. But I think I am ready now.
So. Somewhere in one of my best friend’s emails probably after an inappropriate joke and asking me about how I was doing now that Tigger has passed away he casually throws in …
“Hey, I have prostate cancer.”
Umm, what?
“Oh, but I caught it early and it is treatable so I should be good.”
Umm, (deathly silence on my part)
(in my head) When did we stop being bulletproof?
More silence.
Me at a loss for words? (some of my friends just fainted)
I typically know, or can figure out, the right thing to say. That has always kinda been my gift. I am rarely a conversation generator but more of a listen & respond words kind of guy. And most of the people who know me would be surprised if I didn’t have something to say (even if it was a stupid thing).
So, in this case, I ignored it assuming it was the last thing he would want to talk about and after a flippant “holy shit” moved on to something lighter. And then ignored it. Or maybe better said, I hid.
Yet.
(in my head) when did we stop being bulletproof?
Several days later I followed up with something to insure he knew that I knew this was a big deal. But I fear once again words sometimes just aren’t up to the task at hand.
And I know why I’m having trouble thinking clearly about this.
“so I should be good with this …”
More than the cancer word that is the phrase that keeps poking me. Over and over again. One of my biggest fears is losing one in my tight circle of friends. We happy few … are … well … few.
It’s something that scares me shitless and because of that I am tempted to completely shut down when it comes to thinking about it. I am a loner type. Always have been. Comfortable being alone without being lonely. So the small group of friends who pierce that loner space are a small club of cherished characters. I don’t want to lose one of the club. Shit. I can’t. How does something small become smaller without disappearing? I guess that is the fear. For him. For me. For we happy few.
As good friends often do he offers me little to no details and quickly changes the subject leaving me in the dark. A dark that is filled with worry for my friend. I wonder what’s in his head and what I can do. I would drop anything I was doing to do whatever I would need to do. I would certainly even pray that maybe it wasn’t real but that damn email is still sitting in my inbox.
This is fucking real. Really real. It doesn’t get realer than this. Look. It’s not really about the details. Even if I had more details on this I would still worry. Because this is real. (“so I should be good with this …”)
Just the thought that he has cancer and … well … it makes you think of the “D” word (I won’t even type it). I would like to go into immediate denial. Shit. I would like it to be me instead. I am sure he would also (the former and not the latter). But he won’t. He is too good to deny it. Too strong. He has always prided himself on the fact that he’s in the same shape he was in his 20’s if not even better shape. He’s in great health, or at least he/we thought. Like me, he’s a low level hyper “keep moving forward” kind of guy. So I doubt he is worrying about this, or at least doesn’t show it, and is already thinking about what comes next. Moving forward.
But. (in my head) When did we stop being bulletproof?
Shit. Mortality is a dark question that looms in your own head. Life is typically content to share subtle reminders as you get older – panting through what used to be an easier run, the fire engine in front of the senior complex, your heart racing in bed last night – all of which increase the rattling in your head at odd moments. And then every once in awhile Life feels compelled to drop a less subtle hint on your doorstep. “Hey, I have prostate cancer.”
Inevitably mortality looms as “the” question. When?
It’s the question that kind of becomes a dull throb if it lingers a little too long. I know I think of it more often. My grandfather passed away at 54. My father at 58. Shit. Even without that I have seen mortality face to face in the past. At far too young an age. And probably not as young as others.
But.
One thing I am sure of.
The older you get you are always too young to face it.
But. When did we stop being bulletproof?
——————————–
Ignorance is a Choice: I have written these words many times on my site. Nothing captures the essence of this thought better than my friend’s situation. He chose to not be ignorant. He chose to learn more. He chose life. He chose his family. He chose to give hope to his friends and family. He chose to do something rather than ignorance. All men could learn from this. I do not believe I have the symptoms. But I also do not have health insurance. I can tell you that when I do I will get checked. Maybe for the simple fact I never want to have my friends receive the other email instead of the one I received.
Postscript: please don’t email me and ask about my friend. It will be his choice if he elects to share it with people. It is not my choice and please don’t put me in the awkward position to have to say I can’t tell you. Thanks.
A book to read. Warsaw 1920: Lenin’s Failed Conquest of Europe
Mar 5th
Wow. What a good read. Especially if you like obscure but interesting history. I had no clue that in 1920 that Lenin decided to invade Poland (which had only recently become a country again after being split between Russia, Germany and Austria for over a hundred years). The history of Poland is interesting in itself (pick up James Michener’s Poland if you want a relatively easy historical lesson told in a good storytelling way).
This is a short book. It shows how close the new Soviet Union came to including Poland (and more geography if they had been successful and kept on going) as early as 1920. It also shows Poland’s resourcefulness (they didn’t really have a qualified experienced general) and fortitude in the face of some fairly overwhelming numbers. If you are interested in obscure historical moments that had an impact (because some things happened in this war that affected Soviet attitudes in WW2) then pick up this book.
Addictive song: Sick Puppies “Odd One”
Mar 5th
I was introduced to Sick Puppies by the “Free hugs” campaign on YouTube (which uses the Sick Puppies’ “All the Same” song). By the way. If you haven’t seen the video or heard the song it’s awesome.
Anyway. Odd One by the Sick Puppies is on their new Tri Polar cd. If you don’t know Sick Puppies, think a younger version of 30 Seconds to Mars or a Breaking Benjamin or even a Switchfoot type band. Strong melody with a big rock riff mixed in.
Odd One caught my ear and eye (because I saw the video on MYX channel…oh… and if you haven’t spotted that channel it is actually MTV with music videos…all up-to-date music all the time…awesome).
This Australian band has a knack for creating that anthemic sweeping rock sound and their lead singer kind of drags out notes to smooth over some of the rock heavy swings in the songs they write. The Sick Puppies (Shimon Moore, guitar and vocals, Emma Anzai, bass and some vocals, Mark Goodwin, drums) have toured with Evanescence, Deftones, Velvet Revolver, Chris Cornell, Flyleaf, Chevelle, Breaking Benjamin, 3 Doors Down and Finger Eleven. I have always been a sucker for this sound.
Olympics Recap Part 2: Last Random Thoughts
Mar 5th
The National Anthems
How awesome is it to hear all the different national anthems? While just like hearing a song on the radio, too often some anthems wear down their appeal after awhile, but I admit that after a special event the American national anthem can still send a chill up my spine. I continue to believe the Canada anthem is one of the nicest and most listenable. Several like Austria and Czech Republic and Swiss are nice orchestral pieces. And then Finland and Estonia and Belarus have more ‘power’ orchestral things. Anyway. It makes the medal podium thing a little more interesting particularly when some country you just don’t hear of that often gets there. Oh. And I guess I was surprised by China and South Korea anthems. (I don’t know what I expected but it wasn’t what they had. It’s like there is a Chinese Mozart hovering somewhere in the Ming dynasty who wrote some crap for them).
And how would you like the music guy’s job? I am sure nowadays they have everything on computer (but could you imagine when some guy in a booth was scrambling with some plastic LP or even a cassette tape to get it right?).
Bobsled
What’s up with all the crashes? Ok. It is a 4,800 foot track with a 500 foot vertical drop and they get to just above 90 miles per hour but, c’mon dudes, you train all year round for one of the most random events in the world so you won’t crash the only time every 4 years anyone even watches this stupid event. After four-man bobsleds from Croatia and Latvia crashed during training on Monday, officials from the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (I just wanted to type that out because I am awestruck there is a “Bobsleigh & Skeleton” Federation) postponed the remainder of the practice sessions and now they plan to shave an inch or more of ice from that curve and in a few other areas. (on a separate note Gillette Fusion has negotiated the rights to shave the ice). Coaches say the changes are relatively minor and will make the track more navigable. WTF. It is supposed to be the world’s most difficult isn’t it?
And just as I was starting to think these guys were tough because after some crashes and they stood around comparing rug burns (oops. ice burns), where most of them look like they could give The Rock a run for his money (some of these dudes are big slabs of guys), their tough guy image took a huge fucking hit today when The Netherlands’ four-man bobsled team withdrew from the event because pilot Edwin van Calker is not confident driving his sled on the track at the Whistler Sliding Centre. Say what? Not confident? WTF. He is fucking scared. Once again. You train nonstop for this one event and you get scared?
“This is a personal decision on Edwin’s part,” bobsled coach Tom de la Hunty said. “From a buildup of numerous factors, including his crash in two-man bobsleigh, the tragic accident in men’s luge and external family pressures, all of which resulted in Edwin not having confidence in piloting.”
So. Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall with the other three guys who just got screwed in participating in the Olympics? (While I assume there were massive amounts of Heineken involved, I am hoping for Edwin’s sake the biathlon guns reside in a different wing of the complex).
Logos & Mascots
Probably because I haven’t figured out what the mascot of the Vancouver Olympics is (which is probably good seeing as I personally had to live through Izzy – the idiot – logo mascot for the Atlanta Olympics so I am scarred) I think I will write something about the Olympic rings (just because I was curious and looked some information up).
It was after the 1912 Stockholm Games (the first Games featuring athletes from all five inhabited parts of the world) a design of five interlocked rings, drawn and colored by hand, appeared at the top of a letter. The ring design was used as the emblem of the IOC’s 20th anniversary celebration in 1914 and a year later, it became the official Olympic symbol.
The rings have been explained as “A white background, with five interlaced rings in the centre: blue, yellow, black, green and red…is symbolic; it represents the five inhabited continents of the world, united by Olympics, while the six colors are those that appear on all the national flags of the world at the present time.” The original designer used a loose interpretation of “continent” that included Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and Oceania. No specific ring represents a specific continent.
The next big conflict on the horizon (and what it could mean to America)
Mar 4th
Because I read The Economist all the time the continuing conflict between China and the United States rattles around in my head (they keep writing about it in varying degrees of concern to lack of concern).
But I start thinking about it again as we (the US) continue to live up to our agreement with Taiwan with regard to arms support. Our last ‘act of support’ included 114 Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters and communications equipment for Taiwan’s F-16 fleet. Oh. But it does not include F-16 fighter jets, which Taiwan’s military had been seeking.
All of this kinda pissed off China (who would love add Taiwan to their geographical portfolio despite what they say publicly).
Do I think we will go to war? Nope (I hope).
This little $6.4 billion arms deal for Taiwan will hardly alter the balance of power.
But China has been very clear with regard to wanting the deal stopped. In fact, Beijing publicly warned the US not to go ahead with arms sales to Taiwan.
But. This new growing conflict has some striking similarities to something we have seen in the past.
It does remind me of the good ole USSR – USA cold war (where we teetered on the brink of some significant conflict on occasion). In fact, the similarities are numerous. And just a little scary.
| Country | Population | Army (counting reserves) |
| Old Soviet Union | about 300 million | approx. 3 million |
| China | about 1.3 billion | approx. 3 million |
| USA | about 305 million | approx. 2.5 million |
| Taiwan | about 22 million* | approx. 2.1 million |
*all crammed in 36.1 square km of geography
It may not appear easy to understand why China is apparently prepared to confront the United States at this time on the two issues at hand:
- Arms for Taiwan
- Obama’s plans to meet with exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama.
Shit. USA has been selling armaments to Taiwan for 61 years since the communists drove Chiang Kai-shek from the mainland onto the island then known as Formosa. And even though lately it seems at least China and Taiwan have “warmed up” enough to talk, China still claims Taiwan as its territory though they have been ruled separately since Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist army was defeated by Mao Zedong’s Communist forces. On top of this little issue, the Americans are also trying to find some sort of settlement between the Tibetan exiles and Beijing, which seized control of Tibet in 1950.
So. Here’s the deal. (and let me put the Tibet issue off to the side cause the monks in the Himalayas don’t have a lot of missiles at their disposal). On one side you have China, with the world’s largest regular army and have more than 900 missiles along its southeastern coast aimed at Taiwan. The Taiwanese military with about 300,000 regular army and 1.8 million in reserve is waiting on the island. Ok. Look. I am no expert but that seems like a whole bunch of people with a lot of guns staring at each other. Do I believe anyone is going to be hasty? No.
But. Once the first domino falls it sure is difficult to stop the rest from tumbling.
So. This may be the understatement of the week as I read some articles: “The Taiwan issue is the most important and sensitive one in relations between the two countries <USA/China>,” Dai Bingguo, China’s highest ranking official responsible for foreign relations said.
I am pointing all this out not only because it kinda makes me a little nervous but also because I think the good ole USofA could benefit from the rumblings that are occurring.
Conflict. Or the threat of conflict creates a varying level of responses.
One big response is it gives focus.
When you don’t know your enemy, or maybe better said, there are a variety of objectives to select from, actions and the plans become unfocused (that would appear to be our current situation).
Am I suggesting war is good? Nope.
Am I suggesting we as a country could benefit from rising tension with a country that has more people and a larger army? Yes.
For awhile I believe our country has floundered. Our direction has been unfocused. It’s not that we are doing bad things, but in our scattered attempts to better ourselves the truly effective actions just haven’t been achieved. Sure. Small steps are good.
But this is like talking about capitalism.
The best companies are the ones that recognize and battle their competition. That’s why monopolies often struggle. Without competition it is easy to ignore any sense of urgency and permit yourself (and your organization) to stray from focused improvement.
Countries are the same (aren’t we just a big business organization anyway?). For some time we haven’t had focus. Al Qaeda is so nebulous it is difficult to know where to focus your effort to improve success. When Soviet Union was our focus we – the organization as a whole – prospered. If we ever doubted direction we only had to see the red flag with the hammer and sickle to regain focus. Education. Manufacturing. Aerospace. Medicine. All prospered through innovation and progress. There was increased urgency and focus.
I guess you could argue it is responsive focus rather than proactive focus (which you always hope you generate all by your lonesome). But. If you think of America as a fragmented organization, finding a balance between “responding to perceived threats” and “proactively putting yourself ahead of possible threats” is actually the best action direction. Somewhere in the gap between the two is the focus point.
And the key word in this entire discussion? Threat.
So. If China provides that focal point for America then maybe all this tension is good.
Oh. And last thought. I also believe if we as a country get focused on some of the right things, that will enhance our ability to avoid letting tension evolve into conflict. A focused America is pretty daunting (see Cold War and Soviet Union as a prime example).
Moloko on Jools Holland – Song “Forever More”
Mar 3rd
Forever More is on the CD Statues by Moloko.
Later…with Jools Holland is one of those random shows that appears on Ovation and has five bands on at the same time (kind of like a concert in the round) and each of the bands crank out two or three songs during the hour long show).
The show I just saw was older but it opened with a band I had never heard of before Moloko. Wow. They were good. Very good. They opened with this song Forever More which is almost a jazz fusion hip hop techno disco song. The lead singer, Róisín Murphy, has some of the Natalie Merchant gypsy energy on stage and a husky voice. (I will write a little later because Moloko broke up in 2003 or so and she is now solo)
Anyway. High energy group with a nifty sound.
And now Róisín Murphy is back with a solo career. She not only has a great voice and sound but she is also a fashionista changing outfits onstage between songs in concert (some flunkey appearing every now and then to grab discarded accessories and bring more). Besides Slash, she must be the only person out there with a hat roadie. As a fashionista she says “I don’t wear clothes thoughtlessly. I like them to have meaning.”
This link showcases Roisin in all her fashion glory.
Musically she keeps getting compared to Kylie Minogue (which really pisses her off). Where the Australian princess fizzes with showgirl affability in disco spangles, Dublin born Róisín, is a more aloof figure, languidly androgynous in sculpted Viktor & Rolf fashion clothes. Kylie sings songs about chocolate and cotton candy. Róisín sings songs about Oxycontin (the neurotransmitter said to be responsible for love she says).
Nevertheless, I can see why industry people make comparisons, because when it comes to crowd-pleasing club tunes and anthemic disco, Róisín’s new album proves she can match Kylie.
Her second solo electronic CD, Overpowered, is catchy and commercial and a far cry from her first solo album, Ruby Blue, released in 2005 and was widely described as “bizarre”. It was promoted using a picture of Róisín dressed in armor milking a cow in the Alps, and by her own admission she “would go into the studio and grunt and then we’d do a great song around it.”
It certainly earned her a reputation for willful eccentricity.
“I’m eccentric maybe, but not willful, and I wish people would stop calling me an edgy, avant-garde, left-field icon as if that were a bad thing,” Róisín says.
When performing, one moment she’s cultivating the untouchable aura of a Hitchcock blonde, the next she’s stage-diving into the audience in a Vivienne Westwood ball gown.
“Am I contradictory? No,” she says. Then, contradicting herself, “Yes. Maybe I compartmentalize myself.” (I love this woman and the whole contradiction thing)
She is a really interesting woman. Róisín, who has a history of philosophy from Aristotle to Alan Turing on her iPod, seldom does anything thoughtlessly. She’s fascinated by science, and says it feeds her songwriting imagination.
“You have to keep your mind open to ideas.” “It’s like taking a pile of vegetables and fruit: when you put them in the juicer all you get is a dribble out of the other end, but it’s rich and potent.”
Awesome stuff. Who thinks of crap like this to say? Reports must love her.
Anyway. Let Me Know is the song to listen to from her second solo album, Overpowered ( a 2007 album). Written and produced by Murphy and Andy Cato of Groove Armada.
Watch Jools Holland on Ovation. Every once in awhile you catch a new band that captures your interest and you can be sure you will catch a familiar band and they sound awesome.
Think + Minds Get Enlightened = Qatar
Mar 3rd
Huh? (Be prepared. This is a mini rant on my own ignorance)
So. The Qatar Foundation has a marketing campaign called Think (“unlocking human potential” is the theme). Immediately I thought I would be re-writing my Nigeria re-branding rant using Qatar as an example. Qatar? Open minded? Schools for fresh ideas? C’mon. It’s a Muslim country.
Uh oh. There’s that damn ignorance popping its head up again.
So I did some searching.
First. Idiot that I am, I needed a map to even be sure where Qatar is. Kind of slightly embarrassing.
Second. Yes. Qatar is an Arab emirate, primarily Muslim, on the northeasterly coast of the Arabian Peninsula bordered by Saudi Arabia to the south; otherwise surrounded by the Persian Gulf.
Here’s the deal. They have an incredible 83% literacy rate. (depending on the numbers you use…USA has an 86% literacy rate). The Qatar Academy, member of Qatar Foundation, recently welcomed leading UK children’s poet and author Nick Toczek to give a presentation of his poetry. Ok. I didn’t expect that either.
Ignorance is a scary thing.
The fact I couldn’t mentally pinpoint Qatar on a map without a physical one is scary. The fact for some odd reason my knee jerk reaction to this advertisement was “wow, how open minded for a Muslim country.”
Scary reminder for me how much I don’t know.
It reminds me that the biggest war being fought is not in Afghanistan, Africa or Israel. It is within the individual. It is the war against ignorance. What I know could probably fit in a thimble.
The sooner all of us recognize that (excluding the people who aren’t that ignorant) the sooner we may have a chance globally.
Ignorance is debilitating.
Conversely, curiosity is surprisingly energizing.
It facilitates debate and dialogue and yes sometimes conflict.
We need to remind ourselves that possibly the two greatest libraries in the history of the world resided in Muslim geography – Alexandria and Cordoba (yup. Muslims controlled the majority of Spain for several hundred years…and they had an open society inclusive of Christians and Jews).
I am not defending the religion of Islam (because I honestly don’t care what an individual’s religion is). What I am fighting is ignorance.
So. Here’s the deal. I am using Qatar as an example of perception versus reality. And the fact my ignorance almost made me look quite silly. Thank God curiosity came to save the day.
In the end I guess, despite the fact I just conducted a rant on my own ignorance, this little learning on Qatar has reminded me of three things:
I need a world atlas
90 percent of Muslims (ok, a big number) are not extremists and have always been students of knowledge
Never trust perception (seek reality). Or maybe better said…Always trust Curiosity.
Olympics Recap Part 1: Some final random thoughts
Mar 2nd
Men’s Ice Hockey
I really really wanted to get excited about this USA ice hockey team thing. And I know NBC and ESPN wanted me to be really really excited (if I had seen one more “miracle on ice” clip I think I would have thrown out all my ice cubes and swear off any ice). But. This isn’t Olympics hockey anymore. This is NHL exhibition. Sorry. Just don’t think this is what the Olympics were created for. This is why we have the NHL.
Women’s Ice Hockey
Ok. I admit. Up until the gold medal game I bet I hadn’t seen more than 5 minutes total of women’s ice hockey. So the game and award ceremony was pretty enlightening.
First. The Canadian women are good. Really good. They skated circles around the USA women and should have scored at least three more goals on top of the two they got.
Second. I admit I also don’t watch many of the actual award ceremonies. But I got hooked watching this one (no. not because it was women.) So. Finland who took the bronze. Every single one of them looked so frickin’ happy and proud it reminds you that winning a bronze at the Olympics is really really special. There is this kind of lightly dazed look on some faces as they look down at that Olympics medal hanging around their neck. I think we forget in all the “who is winning the Gold” discussion how special the entire event is for each of the athletes and going home with a medal, any medal, represents a feat that 99.99% of the world will never truly understand.
Third. This is what the Olympics should be about. As they panned the faces these were girls, okay, young women. They were mostly not professional hockey players (I think there is pro women’s hockey in Europe). Regardless. Lots of young faces beaming with pride, some sadness with the losing team and that kind of young disbelief of “is this is truly happening to me.” Awesome. They should bottle this up.
Celebration controversy
Ok. I will ‘fess up here at the onset in the interest of full disclosure. This lil write up is coming from a guy who celebrated the completion of finals in his junior year of high school by going to happy hour at Hannibal’s in downtown Burlington with a bunch of friends for 5 for a dollar drafts. I was 16 (but I turned 17 in July). That said. C’mon. So the Canadian women drank some beer and champagne and smoked some stogies. And you don’t think the USA women didn’t? or the Swedish cross country team … or … well … any team.
So. How wild would you celebrate? Let me put winning (or getting a medal) in perspective.
There are 6,800,000,000 people in the world.
Ok. Only 82 countries send athletes to the Winter Olympics so let’s say for argument sake that represents 86% of total world population.
So that makes the Olympics countries represent 5,848,000,000 in population.
Approximately 2,600 athletes attend and participate.
That represents .0000004 % of population.
A pretty small and special group.
Then there are 86 events in seven sports at this Winter Olympics.
Let’s call it 258 medals. Maybe 10% of athletes participating win a medal.
So. 10% of .0000004% of total world population receives a medal.
Go fucking celebrate. Get shitfaced if you want.
The fact you won a medal puts you in such a special minority I think we can safely say you deserve a cocktail if you want one.
Cacophony at Curling
Yelling. Lots of yelling. I am unclear whether they yell at each other, the competition or the stone (who seems relatively indifferent to everything). If I had a gold medal on the line and I am sweeping crap out of the way of the stone and someone in a shrill voice is screaming at me I would be quite tempted to shove the broom up their ass. Ok. maybe I would pull them off to the side and say “hey, listen, there are maybe 75 people in this whole frickin’ stadium and they probably got the tickets for free and don’t really care what is going on so I think I could hear what you have to tell me without screaming, ok?”
Next. The announcers.
“How exciting, they have two stones in the house!” (and this is women curling just to be clear).
“Time to skip stones” (and the water is frozen)
“This is double peel territory” (and I think the kitchen is in another section of the building)
And they say all these things not only without laughing but also with true enthusiasm. Awesome. They don’t get paid enough.
Speed Skating
So. Finally they do something in this speed skating thing that I not only understand but also kind of enjoyed watching. This team race thing. And I give huge props to the German team who utilized a baseball tactic to win one race. Coming down to the finish the third (the slowest) gal on the team dives for first base to beat the throw … and wins. Awesome. You would think staying on the skates would be faster but she pulled a Pete Rose (without the gambling) and squeaked out a win for the Germans.
And then there was the coaching error that caused maybe one of the biggest dudes in the entre Olympics a gold medal. Hagar the Horrible from the Netherlands was really really pissed when he won but didn’t win.
All because his coach told him to do something (once again the whole lane thing kinda confuses me) that he shouldn’t have done. Some reporters took Hagar to task for how he responded after realizing he was disqualified. Ok. Look. The dude didn’t lose he was DQ’ed (and no that doesn’t mean he got a free blizzard at Dairy Queen). They could have penalized him seconds, minutes, a lap, whatever and he would still have crushed all the others. But no. No gold. Shit. No medal. No sponsor money (oops. that’s right. that doesn’t matter). Thank god these Netherlanders are passive and high on pot all the time or he may have gone really ballistic. Could you imagine if it had been a Russian (notice I am not picking on some American here)? Yikes. Igor would have obliterated the coach before our eyes. Give Hagar a break. I would have been pissed too.
