So up steps the Sony HVR-Z5. Almost identical, but with better optics, more considered ergonomics and additional settings in almost every feature it is a direct replacement and all of the Z1 accessories will still fit. This looked like the right piece of kit, but who to buy from? With almost every site in a google search for camcorders returning some price comparison or review site it is easy to find these things reasonably cheap (OK – £2,500 isn’t cheap, exactly). The thing is, they are mostly offered for sale with the standard one year warranty, and I had hoped for slightly more.

As usual, for all things video we call a select list of suppliers. Today we were delighted with the service from Jeremy at provisiondirect.co.uk. This company has an enviable reputation for great value and excellent product range. We have recommended them to clients looking to purchase kit, and indeed we have made one or two modest purchases there ourselves. Today was the day for buying again!

Jeremy is one of the most knowledgeable and friendly folk when it comes to pro and prosumer video gear. He is often very busy, but when you do get him, he finds the most brilliant pieces of kit for you, and tells you exactly ‘how it is’ with everything. After talking to Jeremy today I was satisfied that they still provide one of the best routes to buying kit, and the value he gives is second to none. So it was that we bought a Z5 with 2 year warranty at probably the most competitive price available. Not content with that Jeremy also added a few extras for us, which was brilliant… unexpected and not asked for. That’s the kind of person you are dealing with – full of information and very willing to help.

It is with great pleasure that I recommend to anyone looking to purchase a decent video camera, lighting, accessories, sound equipment, anything related to video, really provisiondirect.co.uk.

So when we were asked if we would revisit the same schools to capture the next steps in their journey, and create ‘Virtually Where?”, we were delighted! This new project will explore the progress made in two years and once again be presented at the annual conference. This time, however, it will be an entirely online affair, with videos forming the majority of the experience. Our role is to interview, capture, edit and produce the site and content. Wonderful.

In the course of our first trip to one of the most beautiful counties in England, we happened upon Compo’s Cafe. Anyone who has ever heard of ‘Last of the Summer Wine’ will know immediately who Compo was! We went past it before, but didn’t have an opportunity to stop… this time we did, however. Whilst the restaurant was pretty full and busy, the take away chippie was fine – we ordered a portion of chips and sat outside ion the Yorkshire sunshine watching the world go by. A blissful 20 minutes in a hectic schedule! If you get the chance, visit Yorkshire. And even better, grab a bag of chips from Compo’s Cafe!

Compo's Cafe, Holmfirth

Well, it seems to me that PRSformusic have failed to answer the questions asked in a clear manner, evading the essence of the question. It also seems that they may have mislead people in the answers they gave. I’ll happily stand up and be counted here – they *DID NOT* send a letter to my business before phoning up:

Before we call any business, as part of a licensing campaign, we always send a letter. Our letters explain clearly who we are, whom we represent and the licensing requirement. A typical licensing letter to prospective customers is attached as Appendix A.

And when they did call us, they *WERE* aggressive, suggesting most strongly that we would need a license come what may. Failure to purchase a license would result in action being taken against us. They did not enquire whether or not we listened to music, but asked whether we were aware that by listening to music in the workplace we were obliged to buy a license. Only later in the call did they bother to ask if we actually listened to music.

On the notion of double taxation (note, the question held the phrase in quotes, implying it was not a specific phrase, but a colloquialism):

Secondly, there is certainly no ‘double-charging’ when we license workplaces for the use of music, made by any means including radios. Copyright is a bundle of rights including copying, communication to the public (broadcast) and public performance. These rights are usually licensed separately, with a separate licence fee. To suggest there is ‘double-charging’ undermines the entire basis of the bundle of rights defined in the statutory framework.

So – evading the essence of the question, lets point out that it isn’t a tax. Where do PRSformusic state that they DO NOT collect money from radio stations for broadcasting copyright music? No… I didn’t see it either. So we are left wondering whether they collect from the station AND from the listener… a double collection if you will – a double ‘tax’ on listening to music.

On the question whether their activities have had any effect on reducing the number of people who now listen to music in the workplace:

There appear to be many reasons why commercial radio audiences have declined but we are not aware of any data or analysis that suggested that workplace public performance licences are an issue. Indeed, we have not found any published research on declining radio audiences which cites our licences as a factor.

I will say this again and again and again – it is *PRECISELY* because of your activities, PRSformusic, and the heavy handed way in which you are interpreting and applying the rules as you describe them, that has stopped me from listening to music at work. Period. I attribute this entirely to you, and your activities alone. It’s all very well quoting how good it is for people to listen to music whilst they work, but to encourage them and then charge them for the privilege is tantamount to obscenity, in my opinion. So as far as research goes, yours isn’t very good. There is at least one instance where your activities have reduced the amount of music in the workplace. I would guess there are many, many more examples. On the other hand, I bet there are untold numbers of plumbers, painters, chippies, sparks and other tradesmen who couldn’t give a flying one for your license fee… and still listen to music as they happily go about their otherwise very law abiding ways.

All the more fun then when I found an entire road almost abandoned and had the presence of mind to stand and admire the scenery with my trusty Panasonic Lumix camera. In truth, this sign is but yards from my front door – well, I couldn’t go out very far… it was snowing, y’know.

A quick snap later, and I thought I’d send it off to the BBC picture galleries. I was pleasantly surprised to learn shortly after that the picture was to be used as a main leader on the BBC Essex news website. It clearly made others chuckle as well as me, then.

January 2010 was chilly - welcome to Essex

And as it appeared on the BBC Essex News website:

Welcome to Essex, as seen online

I was telephoned recently by PRSformusic, who were rather aggressively telling me that if we listen to the radio or any other source of music in the workplace, we need a license from them. The cost of that license would be calculated on the number of employees, the number of rooms within the workplace where music is played, and the number of half hourly slots the music is played for in the day. I could hardly believe my ears, so I asked for their web address and further information. Here it is: prsformusic.com

So why are we being hounded like this? Apparently, it’s all to do with paying the artists who created the music the right amount of money each time their work is played. I’m all for that, and don’t condone music piracy at all (something to do with once being in some bands) but I got to thinking that this is actually a pretty bad idea. here’s where my thoughts went…

Firstly, I’m listening to radio – the radio station pay a fee for playing the music to their listeners, and they estimate the likely number of those. I happen to be one, along with my work colleagues. Thus, if we listen together at work, the relevant dues have been paid, haven’t they? Why should we now pay again to hear the music the radio station is broadcasting?

Secondly, what if we were out for the day in a park, with a radio and a  football and having some social time as a group? This would also count as listening to music and so a fee would be payable.

Thirdly, what if music is from an internet streamed service… same thing applies, apparently. In fact, the only time it doesn’t is if we listen to music through headphones in private and don’t allow others to hear what we are hearing. So that means we can’t share the enjoyment, I guess. Which puts me in a tricky position – as an employer, if I find an employee listening to music through headphones and I can hear the music too (i.e. they play it loud enough) then I am responsible for paying a license fee. The natural end result of this is I ban music in the workplace, during working hours and everything.

Eventually, I can imagine this will reduce the amount of listening to radio stations and thus audiences will shrink. Ultimately, people won’t hear the new releases and won’t go out and buy the music. How excruciating that would be for the struggling artists! Ultimately, with no outlets (as radio stations close) they have no audiences.

However, listening at home is fine, as long as you are not having a party. And I guess as long as your neighbours can’t overhear you -if you’ve got noisy neighbours playing music, report them to prsformusic rather than environmental health. They’ll extract a license fee to end all that shenanigans!

And what happens if you play in a band and do covers of well known music – does the band have to pay a royalty now?

All in all I can’t help but think this is utter nonsense, completely self-defeating and the biggest load of rubbish yet to come out of any legislation ever. Since records began (pun intended) people have shared their music by playing it for friends, or recording it and passing the record on as a gift. I guess that won’t be allowed now either! Parks are full of people playing music and enjoying themselves. Countless painters and decorators, builders and other tradesmen, factory workers and workshops run all day listening to the radio. It has been a way of life for literally decades. At the birth of radio families and groups of people would gather around the ‘wireless’ to enjoy a tune or two. You’ve only got to watch ‘The Boat that Rocked’ to understand the culture of this.

The only possible solution is for us all to create a track of two using Garageband or anything that allows us to make a tune, register en masse as creators with prsformusic and then sit back and wait for the royalties to come in from them. I rather doubt they will, somehow. Would be good if everyone in the UK did this, (and in any country around the world) as I would think the result would simply be to overwhelm the company. Who don’t appear to be anything more than a group of people who are exploiting copyright law and have maneuvered themselves into a rather too powerful position. It’s not even a government tax (which would have been less of a surprise).

So prsformusic, for being the most aggressive and short sighted company, stripping your fees out of those you purport to pass on to the artists and generally being complete and utter kill-joy bastards to those who live life whilst enjoying the music that has been so freely available for so long, you get today’s ignominious award for the biggest contribution to the death of music. I’d love to see this challenged in a court of law… any decent barristers out there want to take this one on?

Oh… prsformusic, we don’t play the radio at work anyway. Honest.

However, I can say that I was fully aware of that each time I have booked, and the fact I re-booked goes to show that I accept their policies and terms of service.

I would say leave Ryan Air alone. They are still cheap, and you know what you are going to get well in advance. You know for a fact they will charge you heavily for food in flight, for carrying baggage, for making changes to your bookings, for turning up late, for turning up early… for turning up at all!

Despite this, you have the option of booking with them, or not. This seems like a definite case of not reading the small print… if Ryan Air were hiding these facts from you (and yes, I agree that their web site is complex and not particularly user friendly), then you would have cause to complain. But because Ryan Air are so up front with all of it, and you know in advance this is what it is about, then book the flight with them if you accept the terms they offer. If not, pay more and go elsewhere to get your flying sorted.

This sort of awards cerony generally happens at university graduations, and I’ve never seen a ‘FE’ version until now. Even better, Cleveratom were one of dozens of companies sponsoring the awards, so I got to stand up and present a trophy, certificate and small cheque to a couple of students.

The event was excellent! Well organised and run and cheery in just about every way! It was held at the Forum (nibbles and dinner) and St. Peter Mancroft church just opposite. It was a delightful feeling to see the look of joy on the young people’s faces as they collected their awards, and to know that Cleveratom played just a tiny part in it all.

We sponsored two awards, and next year I would hope we sponsor more, but I am reliably informed that we can’t do more than three, no matter how much we want to!

Well done to Harry Greiner - an admirable Master of Ceremonies, who had to keep on top of just who was collecting the awards as many students couldn’t make it and were represented variously by families or members of the students’ union. A quick handshake for all was followed by a few rapid photographs – a copy of which I should get to put on the office wall. I can’t wait!

Pictures show the ceremonies inside St Peter Mancroft, and the evening at the Forum. What I didn’t get a picture of was the dance group from the college performing at the Forum, or the Norwich Youth for Christ Gospel Choir, who performed flawlessly.

These two products, side by side, have very different applications!! I wonder what course hair actually is?

If you look very closely at the label on the right, at the bottom in the black bar it clearly reads ‘course’… oh dear – that’s a pretty large error for a multinational company. Strangely, the label on the left, in yellow, spells it correctly as ‘coarse’.

The instructions from our friends at Google are simple enough – use MS Exchange, add in your account details and you are good to go… but must first enable mobile devices in your Google dashboard (obviously this doesn’t apply to a personal Google account, only a business or academic one). In the instructions it lovingly tells you all will be well, but doesn’t mention what to do if all is decidedly unwell.

Every time I have tried to do this, I have managed to get my main default calendar only. It doesn’t matter if it is iPhone 2.0 or 3.0… still the same. And still the frustration mounts!

Having upgraded to version 3.0 today, I was fired up and ready to try a final time. Not easily put off when facing defeat, I tried for three hours, all to no avail. What a waste of time. I then read some other blogs and came across a third party service – www.nuevasync.com – and since it is free, decided to try it.

Lo and behold, after typing in the right details to Nuevasync, my iPhone shows ALL of my calendars, not just the general one. Glory be!

Now, if Nuevasync can do this, I’m pretty sure it is possible for Google to do it. I don’t see why we need a third party in the loop here, but for goodness sake, nobody let Nuevasync go out of business!

I now get to see all of my calendars in iCal on my phone, can add events and they sync to the main google calendar, add others, and have others add to my diary (yup, it’s a preference setting for work based calendars)… it ALL works as it should.

If you are as frustrated as I was, go to the Nuevasync web site, sign up for a free account and edit the settings. You’ll be running in about three minutes where before you were plodding.

Just be a little careful with your contacts and email though – if you enable these through Nuevasync, you *will* lose everything off your phone when the first sync happens. Be sure that you have got everything you need backed up, or in Google… or both!

Award winning portrait of 2009

I like art – I enjoy a trip to the National Gallery, Tate Modern and many other places besides. I must confess though that I never really understand what I am looking at.

To me, a piece of art is good because I like it. Like a good wine – there may be plenty of people able to tell me why a cheap wine is no good, but when I taste it, if I am not offended, I carry on drinking and possibly enjoy the flavour and how it combines with my meal… to me a cheap bottle of plonk could be every bit as good as a fine wine hailed the world over. It depends on how I am feeling, the circumstances surrounding the moment, the company I am with and so on. Finery, it seems, is within the taste buds of the drinker!

Art is a complex issue for me. There are days when I enjoy looking at a painting, and days when the same painting seems to draw indifference from me. I love portraiture, for example (probably because I enjoy photography and particularly capturing emotion in people’s faces). I don’t tend to think too hard about it, I look and see the qualities I have captured and consider it a photo worth keeping and showing, or one to sit deep inside a folder somewhere on my hard drive, probably never to see the light of day again. Occasionally I delete them too.

What has baffled me ever since I began looking at art is the language surrounding the subject. This is what I never really understand. To me, it is as inaccessible as the jargon that surrounds many professions, often guarding the divide between being a lay person and being in the profession. Academics are good at this, talking with a high level of language that mere mortals can’t usually follow very easily. This protects the status of the profession, by making sure that only those who can access the language are able to rise to the highest levels. In many ways, the language used is a tool of the trade, and seems to get further away from the way most people talk. Perhaps it will soon be recognised as a different language entirely, when only a minority can master the complexities.

So it seems to be with art and me. I am unable to understand the language of the artist and struggle to see the relationship between what is often a beautiful image and the short sentence or two that goes with it. Take for example the announcement of the BP Portrait award on the BBC news web site today. Fantastic image, lots of detail and interesting lines that keeps me looking at it, and enjoying it. The artist, a 44 year old art teacher (uh oh… mixing art AND academia now), has this to say about his work:

“I challenge the fixed notion of an idealised image of childhood and substitute it for a more unsettling, complex representation that exists in its own right as a painting.”

Now, I don’t know about you, but this baffles me. I don’t have a fixed notion of idealised childhood. I am not sure that there is one – yet here is the winner announcing there is, and so I am lead to believe there must be, and that I have somehow overlooked it. I then look at what is unsettling in the image – perhaps that the age of the person is slightly imperceptible – could be 12, could be 30. It’s the clothing, the stance, the look in her eye, perhaps. None of this is unsettling really. If you met the person in context you would know the age more readily, but in the abstract world of portraiture, we have to rely on clues the artist gives us. Perhaps this is why it is unsettling – there are few clues. The clothing certainly seems to suggest an older person…

But it exists in its own right as a painting? What does it mean? It certainly *is* a painting, and it certainly exists. Could it simply mean that even if it wasn’t trying to challenge or unsettle you, it is still quite a nice painting? Is what he says reminiscent of the way I critique my own photography? It’s a nice image…

And how I wish this was the only example of such tom-foolery that seems to adorn the world of art. Why not simply say something along the lines of “A lot of people may not see the age of the child in this image, which can be confusing, and start to challenge your ideas about what your stereotypical child might look like. However, it also is a nice image, so enjoy it for that if you don’t want to think about the deeper meanings that you can draw from it…”

I suppose even that is going to cause concern with some folk. I just wish I could understand art a bit better, or more specifically, the language that artists use to explain their work to those of us without a clue.