Sunday, November 17, 2024

Ten Matt Redman deep cuts that changed my life

A few years ago I was asked to write about some Matt Redman songs for a post on my church's website. That post never ended up materialising but it would be a shame to waste the work. So here is an introduction to ten lesser-known Matt Redman tracks. They're not my favourite ten, or the best ten. Just a selection that demonstrates what I've always said: that Matt Redman is the greatest worship songwriter of all time (joint, with King David).


Deep calls to deep (The Friendship and the Fear, 1997)



Not all of Matt’s songs are blockbuster congregational anthems. The vast majority of tracks on his 1997 album ‘The Friendship and the Fear’ are simply intimate glimpses into his own worship life, and ‘Deep calls to deep’ is a great example.


Based on Psalm 42, this is a song about longing to simply meet with God. The opening bars set the mood of calmness but with the drums giving a sense of persistence to the music. The lyrics are simple and honest: ‘When can I go to meet with God, my soul is weak, my body tired’.


There is a watery imagery throughout the song - ‘deep calls to deep’ is thought to evoke the idea of the deep sea as well as the deep places of our hearts and God’s. ‘The roar of your waterfalls’ is a direct quote from Psalm 42 in the NIV. Other lines include ‘I thirst inside for heaven’s touch’ and ‘let your waves sweep over all the dry places Lord’.


The song takes its time - the tempo is slow, the first verse is repeated, there is plenty of space between stanzas. Clocking in at 6.32, there is a sense of unhurried waiting which echoes the lyrics perfectly. But it doesn’t drag - interest is maintained through varied backing vocals and string arrangements, but always led by that persistent drum beat that doesn’t change between verse and chorus and really links the theme of the song to the music. The worshipper is willing to sit and wait, without changing his heart posture, for as long as it takes until he receives the Water of Life.

This is always the album I go back to when I need to just pause and be with God, and this track is one of the main reasons why.



Hearts Waiting (These Christmas Lights, 2016)



There aren’t many good modern Christmas worship songs. ‘From the squalor of a borrowed stable’ is a decent song but only the first of four lines are actually about Christmas. ‘Light of the World’ is great, but it's twenty years old and still insists on rushing to Easter (‘I’ll never know how much it cost to see my sin upon that cross’). I’m sure there are some good ones, but there don’t seem to be many. And I’d wager that few, if any, hit the heights of ‘Hearts Waiting’.


This is the centrepiece of Matt’s Christmas album, ‘These Christmas Lights’. He manages to reference ‘O come o come Emmanuel’, ‘Joy to the World’ and the Hallelujah Chorus. The first half of the track is solid - the lyrics flit between waiting for God to come (‘come, o come, Emmanuel’) and joy at his arrival (‘joy to the world’). The piano and electric guitar interchange beautifully from verse to chorus to compliment the melody. It’s solid Matt Redman (which is still as good at the best of anyone else). But the second half is where the song really lifts off.


Matt is a master of many things (see ‘Never Once’, below, for comments about double choruses and singing in the storm!), but one is the simple but effective bridge (think ‘you give and take away’ - simple, but devastatingly powerful in the context of the song). Here is another one. After concentrating on the wait for God and the joy of his arrival, we hear the echo of the Hallelujah Chorus declaring the eternal sovereignty of Jesus. It’s no longer enough to celebrate God’s coming amongst ourselves, now it’s time to declare his Lordship to and over the whole of creation. The volume picks up, the drums make full use of the snare, and the piano/guitar accompaniment is joined by the trumpet.


After a pause to catch breath and another chorus, we re-enter the bridge with a syncopated drum fill. It gives me goosebumps every time, especially when Matt abandons the lyrics to sing above the choir ‘he is the promise, his name is Jesus’ - I recommend listening at a volume that is slightly too high, for full effect! Join me in petitioning worship leaders everywhere to add this masterpiece to their Christmas repertoire!



Flames (Unbroken Praise, 2015)



I’ll be the first to admit that ‘Flames’ isn’t the most sophisticated of Matt’s songs. The fire metaphor is unsubtle, the melody is nothing to write home about, and the sound is poppier than I’d prefer. But a wise man once said ‘even a very average Matt Redman song is better than almost anything you’ll find elsewhere’ (ok, so that was actually me, but I still hold to it).


What I love about this song is it’s unashamedness. It’s not quite on the level of ‘Undignified’ (‘na na na na na na hey’, anyone?) but it’s in that direction. Worship songwriters can sometimes take themselves too seriously and while Matt is very serious about what he does, he tempers that with a willingness to write songs like this. The theology isn’t deep (it’s barely there) but the passion is clear. And it’s really catchy, which helps. I also take music very seriously, sometimes too seriously. I’m notorious for my very narrow music taste. Songs like this remind me to relax once in a while.


All that being said, it is actually a good song. The riff is ear-catching. The synthesiser in the chorus is suitably epic. The metaphor of flames, offerings and altars is strong and coherent. And with the refrain ‘let all our hallelujahs be yours’, Matt manages to take an incredibly common worship concept (‘God I give you everything’) and reskins it into a novel and memorable phrase. And even I can’t quite resist smiling at the re-entry to the chorus after the bridge (around the 3.17 mark).



Upon Him (Let There Be Wonder, 2020)



It can be difficult to write songs about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It’s been done so often - how does one create something that isn’t just the same as what has gone before? But I think it’s important that worship songwriters continue writing new songs about the core of our faith, lest we get too familiar with what God has done and get numb to it.


‘Upon Him’ does this well. The refrain ‘Upon him, upon him’ refers to both our sin and punishment being put upon Jesus, and us pouring our praise upon him in response. Matt is a master at contrasting God’s action and our response through mirrored phrasing (see also: the bridges of ‘We shall not be shaken’ and ‘The glory of our King’ - which occur within 4 tracks on the 2009 album ‘We shall not be shaken’ - and also ‘We are the Free’ from 2011’s ‘10000 reasons’).


The strength of ‘Upon Him’ is in the simple declaration of the death, resurrection and future coming of Jesus in the chorus, and the response given in the bridge (suitably accompanied by a soaring electric guitar). None of this is novel or unique - the themes here have been used countless times in the history of church worship - but Matt has an unrivalled ability to use and combine phrasing and melody to stir the heart in ways that other songwriters do not (or, at least, not as consistently and prolifically - 16 albums of the quality he produces, in 31 years, is ridiculous, both for the ability to write and record so many excellent songs in only 27 years, and for the ability to maintain such a high standard over such a long time period!).


I often struggle with worship songs becoming over-familiar and, basically, a bit boring and overdone. I can’t think of a single Matt Redman song that this has happened with. They stand the test of time, and ‘Upon Him’ is an example of a song which says nothing new, but somehow says it in a new way.



Anthem of the Free (Anthem of the Free (Soul Survivor 2003) - 2003)



The title of this song should tell you what it’s like - celebratory and anthemic. Opening with Matt singing the chorus over electric guitar chords, the first half minute builds as the bass guitar comes in and then the chorus repeats with the full band. The lyrics are simple, focused on the praise of Jesus being sung around the world for all eternity.


The structure of the song is very simple - it has only one verse, and the verse, pre-chorus and chorus together take only about a minute to sing. These are repeated, and then just as the song sounds like it might be about to end, a similarly straightforward outro (it’s the same line repeated 4 times) extends the celebration and brings the theme from our current praise to that of eternity.  Attention is retained throughout via the relentless driving pace of the song (in the chorus the snare drum is heard on 3 of every 4 beats) and the intricacy of the bass guitar which definitely sounds more like Matt’s 90s recordings than his more recent stuff.


Christian corporate worship has been described as a cross between a love song and a football chant (Chris Juby, c.2008). I love this description, but we don’t actually sing many songs with those football-terrace qualities of anthemic melodies and simple but evocative lyrics. ‘Anthem of the Free’ is one of these. It stirs my soul and raises my pulse.



Never Once (10,000 Reasons, 2011)



One of Matt’s greatest skills is to write songs about persevering through suffering and trials, and worshipping God throughout. ‘Blessed be your name’ is the most well-known of these, but many will also be familiar with ‘You never let go’. Another is ‘Never Once’ - I actually rate other examples such as ‘Questions’ and ‘Songs in the night’ slightly higher, but I want to write about ‘Never Once’ because it also features another classic Redman quality (and even takes it further than any of his other songs). ‘Never Once’ is interestingly a little different from the other songs just mentioned because it is sung from the perspective of having completed the trial, rather than being sung from the midst of the suffering. It looks back and says ‘you were with us the whole way’.


The two short verses (which both feature right at the beginning) say the same thing in different words, and the pre-chorus and chorus are very straightforward. The song builds into each chorus, with the nice touch of leaving the guitars to crash out some slightly dirty chords every other beat, while the piano takes the role usually assigned to an electric guitar of complementing the melody with high-pitched riffs. As with most of Matt’s songs on this theme, the chorus and/or bridge include heavy percussion on every beat, giving the sense of steadiness, perseverance, and continually putting one foot in front of the other to keep moving.


The other classic Redman feature here is the double chorus - there is a chorus that features throughout the song but then at the end there is another chorus with the same melody but new lyrics. The finest example of this feature is on ‘You alone can rescue’ (though not the album version), but ‘Never Once’ also displays it well. It is subtly done - the music basically doesn’t change, there is barely even a drum fill to mark the transition. But the lyrics move from proclaiming that we were never alone to declaring that we will continue to keep going - the only time the song looks forward. The way ‘Never Once’ takes this feature further than any other song is that before the second chorus (at 3.08) there is actually also a second pre-chorus (at 2.30) which has the same effect. It’s these sorts of touches that help the song become significantly more than it otherwise would be - and Matt is a master at them.



Missions Flame (Facedown, 2004)



It’s nice to have some worship songs in minor keys. From the opening bars, Missions Flame has that slightly disturbed, minor feel - from the relentless guitar riff in the verses, the organ chords underneath everything, the harmony from the backing vocalist. The music is a joy throughout, and the lyrics are equally strong - I want to highlight two elements in particular.


The similarities and differences between the two verses are very clever. The lines all rhyme in the same way, and both verses begin and end with the same words (‘Let worship’ / ‘Send us out’). Between them they are like two sides of the worship/mission coin - verse one describes worship as the fuel for mission and verse two describes it as the aim of mission. The balance and symmetry is excellent.


Later, in the bridge, comes the line ‘...will sing your praise, will sing your praise’’ (describing how all of creation will sing praise to God). Then at the end of the bridge you think the line is repeated, but the careful listener (or one who googles the lyrics) realises it is now ‘we’ll sing your praise, we’ll sing your praise’ which evokes the worshipper adding their own praise to that of creation. Additionally, this line is repeated to delay the return to the chorus - this heightens the anticipation, and the payoff is enhanced adding the hi-hat to the cymbal on the first beat of the chorus.


The whole song is masterfully and intelligently crafted. It was once said (by Chris Juby, again) that ‘when Matt Redman leads worship it feels like he’s been praying about it for literally years’. His recordings feel like they’ve had the same attention and dedication paid to them.



Wake up my soul (Wake up my soul, 1993)



This is as far back in Matt's back catalogue as it is possible to go. Track number one from album number one, this was released when Matt was 19, meaning it was probably written when he was just 18. There is nothing on the album that is commonly sung in churches but there is some great stuff in there.


The title track is the highlight and is a simple song about running the race of discipleship. Even back then, Matt had the ability to take a common theme and to write a song that somehow stands out. The lyrics hold strongly to that theme and are creative without getting distracted from the point, although the two verses do lack a sense of diversity - the second is basically the same words as the first but, rather than asking for the Spirit, acknowledging receipt of the Spirit. The music is led by the piano, supported by bass and synth - not an electric guitar in sight (that role is played by the sax). Gosh, 90s worship music was different, and I miss it!


The genius moment in this song is at the end of verse two (2.42) when, instead of heading back to the 8-line chorus or even to a bridge, Matt curtails the final line of the verse and then sings lines 7, then 8, then 7 (again) of the chorus, but all with a different tune, to lead into the sax (i.e. electric guitar) solo. All boosted by the ramping up of the drums and backing vocalists. It's bonkers and it's glorious. It's the best moment of the song and demonstrates that, even way back then, Matt could take things to another level. Any other songwriter would simply return to the chorus and it would be fine. Matt injects something different, an X-factor that separates him from others.



Praise God (Lamb of God, 2023)



Yet another song on that great theme of worshipping through trials and adversity, 21 years after ‘Blessed be your name’ showed us what Matt can do with this idea. Since then we've had ‘You never let go’, Through it all’, ‘Never once’, ‘Songs in the night’,  ‘Questions’ and now ‘Praise God’.


This latest one is probably the simplest of the lot lyrically. The gist is ‘there's always a reason to praise God, when blessings flow and when they don't’. But the actual lyric is ‘when it seems they don't’ which is an important distinction that I don't think is emphasised in the previous songs on this theme.


Musically, this song has similar features as discussed earlier, such as a relentless driving kick drum in the verses, representing the determination to keep moving forward despite it circumstances. This is contrasted as we enter the first verse, where the drums, and indeed all the instruments, are stripped back. However in the second chorus the music ramps up instead, before building into and through the bridge.


The bridge is the climax of this song with the way it contrasts ‘my way’ and ’your way’ - another example of the lyrical mirroring that so often characterises Matt's work. This song stands out from most of the others with its tone of defiance - not merely holding on to God (though there's nothing wrong with that) but proactively fighting back against the temptation to despair, and ‘still go your way’. Like ‘Flames ‘ it's simple but very, very effective.



So there you are. Ten songs you might be less familiar with, but hopefully a taster of the breath, depth, and outright genius of Matt Redman’s catalogue. I could have chosen a completely different set of ten songs and written about them with just as much enthusiasm. There's so many out there - go listen to them. Thank me later.

Saturday, January 04, 2014

Albums of 2013

Here is my ranked list of albums I have got in 2013.

Unranked
Editors - The Weight of Your Love
Although I got this album in the last year, I don't think I know it well enough to rank it yet.

17.  Keston Cobbler's Club - One, For Words
I saw these guys supporting To Kill a King.  They were really fun live, but their album is quite boring.  The music gains a huge amount when played live.

16.  Cathy Burton - Source of Every Hour
Meh.  S'ok.  Not much more to say.

15.  Treacherous Orchestra - Origins
Very different, quite entertaining.  Hard to listen to a whole album though, it's pretty intense.

14.  Rend Collective Experiment - Homemade Worship by Handmade People
Some ok stuff, some really good stuff.  The style isn't really my thing though.

13.  Lifehouse - Almeria
It's fine, but not much more.  Lifehouse's first two albums were incredible.  The next four were fine, but far less impressive.

12.  One Sonic Society - Forever Reign
Good, especially the title track.  I should keep following this band.

11.  Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
I bought this out of curiosity.  It is Oasis-y, but I like that.  Decent album.

10.  Matt Redman - Your Grace Finds Me
Not one of his best, but still fairly good.  Even a weak album from Matt is better than most other worship albums.

9.  The Killers - Battle Born
Strong.  Some great tunes.

7=.  To Kill a King - Cannibals with Cutlery
This band has real quality.  Some excellent songs on here.  Deep stuff.

7=.  Switchfoot - Oh, Gravity
I got five Switchfoot albums at the start of this year, and the weakest of them is in joint 7th place.  Ths is an excellent band, an this is a very good album.

5=.  Bastille - Bad Blood
Surprisingly mainstream for me.  This album doesn't really have a weakness.

5=.  Switchfoot - Nothing is Sound
More good quality music.  Simple as.

4.  Switchfoot - The Beautiful Letdown
A bit of a leap, I think, from the previous 2 Switchfoot albums, to the next 3.  This is a mint album.

2=.  Switchfoot - Vice Verses
This really has been Switchfoot's year.

2=.  Of Monsters and Men - My Head is an Animal
I really like this album.  And it doesn't decline in the second half.

1.  Switchfoot - Hello Hurricane
To be honest, all five Switchfoot albums on this list are very good.  The order could change on another day, but Hello Hurricane currently tops the list.

Wednesday, January 01, 2014

Films of 2013

For a couple of years, I have ranked every film I have watched that year and written a bottom to top list here at the end of the year.  this year will be similar, though only the top 9 will actually be ranked.  Below that, things will be more merged.

Do not watch this film

Films I wished I had never watched:
Shame.  "It has Carey Mulligan and Michael Fassbender in", I thought, "it must be great".  It wasn't.  It was awful.  A slow-moving string of sex scenes.  One of the worst films I've seen, ever.  Mulligan is great, as is Fassbender.  But they were wasting their time.


Films I watched but they weren't that good:
Lion King 3.  The story of the Lion King from Timon and Pumbaa's point of view.  Vaguely entertaining at times.  At least it was only about 70 minutes long.

Terminator.  Mindless action, slow moving and uninteresting plot, classic loopholes involving time travel.

The Tourist.  Entertaining but, if I remember correctly (I can't remember it that well), completely unconvincing in the final third.

Mulan.  It's ok.  Fairly standard Disney animated film, with all the features and flaws you'd expect.

Tangled.  Similar, though slightly more interesting than Mulan.

Blade.  Some cool stuff, but mostly just quite silly and over the top.

The Nativity.  Kind of funny, kind of moving, but mainly just exasperating and incredulity-invoking.

The Great Gatsby.  Leonardo DiCaprio and Carey Mulligan need to choose better films to act in.  Had the fatal flaw of not actually having an interesting plot


Films that were reasonable:
3:10 to Yuma.  Christian Bale was the attraction.  This was a reasonable film.  I have nothing against it, just nothing much to write home about either.

The Greatest.  Carey Mulligan was the attraction.  This was a reasonable film.  I have nothing against it, just nothing much to write home about either.

Promising but disappointing
The Adjustment Bureau.  Nice idea.  Gripping and exciting.  Horrible, awful ending, and very poor explanations of what is going on.

Jarhead.  Better than most war films I've watched, probably because there wasn't a huge amount of war in it.  Having said that, I wouldn't bother watching it again.

Saving Mr Banks.  Fun but unsatisfying - not enough about the creation of Marry Poppins as a character, and not enough links between the two main plotlines.




Decent films, places 10-6:
10.  Goodfellas.  It's decent, not not as good as all the Top 100 lists make out.  Lacks a driving narrative.

9.  The Kingdom.  Quite interesting, kept my attention very well.  I enjoyed this film.

8.  Contraband.  Not much more than a standard action/heist film, but it does that well.

7.  Brassed Off.  Simple film, but very well done.

6.  Gravity.  Very tense, very exciting.



Top quality, the top five, the ones I'd really recommend:
5.  Monsters University.  An excellent film in it's own right, very entertaining.  Brilliant references to both university life and Monsters Inc.  One of the very best Pixar films.

3=.  This is England.  Full on intense.  Brutal and real.  Excellent acting all round.

3=.  Catching Fire.  Quality, just like the first film.  Everything the first one did well, this one matched.  The one main weakness was the rushed ending.  If they can avoid screwing up the transition from one final book into two films, and stay faithful to the book, this will be an excellent trilogy.

1=.  Les Mis.  You have to be a special film to reach top spot, even joint top spot, when there's a Middle Earth film in the list.  Les Mis was superb.  Fuller review here.

1=.  The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.  By no means perfect.  Major flaws.  But the good stuff is so good, and the adaptation is so difficult, that even with it's problems, it's still an excellent film.  More discussion here.

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Soundtrack of 2013

Here is my list of songs that I've been listening to a lot this year.

Bastille - Pompeii

I discovered Bastille while watching the video to Choices by To Kill a King (see below), investigated them on Youtube, liked them and bought the album.  I then discovered that Pompeii had just been released as a single and was at number 2 in the charts.  This was the most mainstream I have ever felt.

Bastille - Weight of Living, Pt. 1

I love the understatedness of this.  A much smaller, simpler song than a lot of Bastille's stuff.  The middle eight is just lovely.

Live - They stood up for love

A much older song.  If it wasn't for Run to the Water, this would be my favourite Live song.  Epic music and deep lyrics.  Live have genuine quality.

One Sonic Society - Forever Reign

We've sung this in church a bit this year.  The lyrics, while simple, are very good, and the melody is one of the best I've ever heard in a worship song.

Of Monsters and Men - Little Talks

I know, I know - I'm not normally this 'in touch'.  To be fair, I didn't discover this song through the charts or the radio - I heard a different OMAM song on the tv and proceeded to buy the album.  Little Talks appeals to the ska-lover in me.  Playing the chorus with just brass first time, with that incredibly catchy riff, an then adding in vocals second time round - that is genius.

Of Monsters and Men - Lakehouse

Of Monsters and Men's album fulfils one of my requirements of a great album - it has a strong final third.  Two of the three tracks from the album that are on this list are tracks 11 (this one) and 12 (see next).  I'm not sure why I like this one so much.  It's something about how big they go in the chorus I think.

Of Monsters and Men - Yellow Light

This sounds like Sigur Ros on one of their good days.  That is reason enough to like it.

Rend Collective Experiment - Build your Kingdom here

I'm not a massive fan of the new pop-folk craze but I can deal with it in small doses.  The lyrics and violin/trumpet solo are excellent enough that I love this song.

Switchfoot - Awakening

I know it's a bit idiot-punky.  But it does it well enough that I'll forgive that.  I unashamedly enjoy this song, at least partly for the cheeky 5/4 bar at 3.10-3.12.  Sneeky but effective.

Switchfoot - Faust, Midas and Myself

Switchfoot happened to me this year.  I've tried them before several times and not bee that impressed.  This time it clicked.  This song is here because it's just different.  Interesting.  And because of 3.47-4.07.

Switchfoot - The Shadow proves the Sunshine

I chose this song because it's one of their more chilled, quieter songs.  Hard to put my finger on exactly what I like, but, like may of their songs, it just sounds great.

Switchfoot - Twenty-Four

Epic.  "You're raising the dead in me" and "I am the second man" - brilliant lyrics.  And the outro - wow.  This song gives me goosebumps.

Switchfoot - The War Inside

It's between this and Twenty-Four for my favourite Switchfoot song at the moment.  This song, like They Stood up for Love (above) just stinks of absolute, all-round quality.

To Kill a King - Cold Skin

TKAK are a special band.  You should investigate them.  I like lots of things about this song, you can listen to it yourself.  I particularly enjoy ow much the guitar sounds like it belongs in a Libertines song.

To Kill a King - Choices

You see how lovely this performance is?  How it's so 'community-y'?  That's how it is when they do it live too.  They get the support acts on stage to perform with them and it ends with the whole gig singing 'ooh-ooh-ooh'.  Lovely song.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - Review

I have seen the second Hobbit film twice.  Here are my thoughts so far, in a semi-structured order.
  • Martin Freeman is still excellent.  I feel this needs emphasising, otherwise it will be overlooked.  He is currently the stand-out feature of these films.  The way he portrays Bilbo is...I want to say perfect.  I can't think of anything wrong with it.  He is incredible.
  • The whole Beorn sequence, so memorable from the book, was very nicely adapted and really well done.  However, it felt short and rushed.  More time could have been spent developing Beorn's character, especially as he will return later, and also the dwarves characters (more on this later).
  • The references to LOTR, such as Jackson's cameo at the start and the line about athelas being a weed, are still making me smile.
  • Tauriel's inclusion was fine.  I don't care if she wasn't mentioned in the book.  There would have been elves like her, in her role within the community.  There's nothing wrong with putting her character in to help develop the story.
  • Linked in with this, I was in favour of having the orcs continue to hunt the dwarves.  I wasn't sure about this at first, but I think it keeps the pace of the story going, and it will link in nicely with Azong's return in film 3.
  • The Tauriel/Legolas romance was understandable but needed to be done properly or not at all.  I felt it was not developed sufficiently to carry weight.  Instead, time was given to the Tauriel/Kili relationship.  Now this was a farce.  No way this would have happened.  Tauriel wouldn't have got into that sort of conversation with a dwarven prisoner.  Dwarves and elves are still at loggerheads at this point in the story.  And the sheer number of times she saved his life started to annoy me.
  • The barrels sequence was good, but over the top.  It was fun, but took it all too far.  Legolas' dwarf surf?  Bombur's barrel bounce?  They're clearly trying to make these films 'entertaining' by throwing in ludicrous stunts, forgetting that stunts and effects aren't that impressive these days, now that you can put anything on screen and make it look realistic.  Impressive filming nowadays is about clever adaptation, a gripping story and engaging characters.
  • The Dol Guldur scenes were great.  Gandalf vs Sauron, awesome.
  • Laketown looked absolutely perfect.  Wonderful design.
  • There wasn't enough development of the Master of Laketown.  In fact, there wasn't enough development of the characters in general, but particularly of the Master.  I wanted more backstory about his rule over the town.
  • Smaug looked brilliant.  He was brilliant all round - the voice, the design, the animation, everything.  Lots of people have said this, but it's still true.
  • The Bilbo/Smaug scene was brilliant  Possibly even as good as riddles in the dark.  The tension was incredible.
  • I'm not convinced by the decision to leave 4 dwarves in Laketown.  It feels like it was only done to promote the Kili/Tauriel thing.  It did give the end of the film a kind of double-focus - the Lonely Mountain and Laketown - and allowed intercutting between them.  But my jury is still out on this one.
  • I think there was too much fighting in Laketown.  As I said above, I'm fine with the continuing orc-chase, but the fighting in Laketown got a bit ridiculous.  It was over-emphasised at the very least.  Yes, it provided a good second climax to the Smaug action (see above point) but I guess it felt unbalanced.
  • Dwarves vs Smaug.  Ludicrous.  Ridiculous.  Unnecessary.  Unconvincing.  As 'Mithril' from theonering.net said, "what made me cry out upon leaving the theatre 'I want a do-over' was the Indiana ones escapade that they were taken on.  Not only was it completely outrageous but it was confusing and unbelievable.  Start the forges?  What?  Melt millions of gallons of gold in minutes?  What?  Stand on the nose of Smaug 'Oh, greatest of calamities' and not get eaten?  WHAT!!?!?!?!????!"  Quite.  It was a farce.  And what was the deal with the massive gold statue at the end?  Was that there from the past?  Did they just make it?  Was it explosives that blew it up?  What made it melt?  A flipping joke.
  • Ed Sheeran's closing song was good.  Not on the level of the Rings credit songs, but still good.  I enjoyed it.
  • The music was, overall, less noticeable than in Rings or An Unexpected Journey.  I'm not sure why.  Fewer new themes perhaps?
  • Most of the dwarf characters were still undeveloped.  Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Kili and Bofur excepted.  Bombur still hasn't had a line.  It was about 5 hours into the trilogy before we found out Fili is heir to the throne.  Too much time is spent on foolish 'action' sequences and not enough on character and story.  The way they have made them all look unique is outstanding, but this has not been replicated in terms of character development.
  • Smaug should have died.  They ended the film in the wrong place.  Instead of the disastrous action scenes inside the mountain, and the mostly unnecessary elves vs orcs in Laketown, they should have had Smaug attack Laketown as he does in the book.  It would have been a wonderful set piece, and would have eliminated the issue of having the dwarves split up.
  • Alternatively, cut some of the stupid action, including the Lonely Mountain fiasco, and spend more time on characters (including Beorn and the Master).  The problem with this would be the lack of a conventional climax to film 2.
  • These hobbit films, despite their problems, are the most impressive adaptation I have come across.  To adapt a children's book into a catch-all film, link it pretty seamlessly to a previously made epic and very popular film trilogy, and draw in multiple other Middle-Earth storylines like dwarven history and the rise of Sauron, is truly remarkable.
  • There were several glaring continuity errors.  The most obvious was how Bombur destroyed his barrel and then jumped back into it, seemingly as good as new.  Two others that annoyed me were the spontaneous appearance of a horse in Laketown, which until that point appeared to contain no horses, just in time for Legolas to ride it; and how the gold in the Lonely mountain was conveniently melt-able when the dwarves needed it to be, but didn't melt at all when Smaug breathed fire on it.
I don't really know what to write in summary.  It's a great film.  Some of it is jaw-droppingly good (e.g. Smaug, Dol Guldur, Beorn, Freeman).  Some of it is overly ridiculous (Kili/Tauriel, Dwarves vs Smaug).  It's still the greatest adaptation I have seen, and because of the difficulty of the adptation, my criticisms should be taken with a pinch of salt - especially as this is the notoriously difficult middle film.  Bring on part 3.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Harry Potter and Myers-Briggs

Recently, there were a few suggestions on the internet about which Harry Potter characters were which of the 16 Myers-Briggs personality types.  Here, I will analyse three of these, plus on suggested by a friend of mine.  You will need knowledge of both the Harry Potter series and Myers-Briggs in order to understand.  I will assume such knowledge.
The difficult thing with Myers-Briggs is that the combination of the four letters can give unexpected personalities.  For example, I am INTJ.  Looking at the N/S spectrum in isolation, I am slightly more S than N.  However, when looking at the personality as a whole, I am INTJ rather than ISTJ.  This also happens with Harry Potter characters.  Therefore I shall analyse both the individual letters assigned to a character, and the overall personality description, before giving my own suggestions for personality-character matches based on individual letters and then overall personalities.

For reference, here are the descriptions of the 16 personality types.

The most popular internet suggestion, together with my comments, was as follows:

ISTJ: Snape.  Not a bad choice, but Snape fits INTJ better.  He’s not that fussed about order and organising his life.
ISFJ: Neville.  Partially correct, but I’m not convinced he’s a J.  Lupin fits this better
INFJ: Lupin.  Material possessions?  Really?  DD is far better for this one.
INTJ: Malfoy.  Snape is INTJ.  However, Malfoy is close.  I get the impression he could be one when he grows up.
ISTP: Harry.  Not really.  He doesn’t analyse lots of information, he tends to act more on impulse.  Probably an F, not a T.  Hermione is closer to this, though I don’t think she’s quite here.
ISFP: Hagrid.  I think Hagrid might be a marginal E.
INFP: Luna.  She fits pretty well here.  I.  N.  F.  P.  All seem to fit.
INTP: Hermione.  She is clearly a J and almost certainly a T.  She’s more of an ISTJ.
ESTP: Ginny.  Pretty good.  We don’t actually have loads of info on Ginny but she could  fit here.
ESFP: Twins.  Pretty good match.
ENFP: Ron.  Good again.  Twins and Ron are quite similar.  Maybe they could swap types.
ENTP: Sirius.  Yes.  Though the twins could fit here too.  Or maybe Sirius is an I?
ESTJ: McGonagall.  Possibly, but she’s not extreme enough to fit here.  Moody is the one for here.
ESFJ: Lily.  She might well fit here, but why choose her when Molly is a mor major character and definitely fits?
ENFJ: Dumbledore.  DD is an I.  End of.
ENTJ: James.  Maybe.  We don’t know that much about James, but this might be right.

The second suggestion:

ISTJ: Hermione.  Yes.
ISFJ: Cho.  Yes, but Lupin more so, and he’s a more major character so we can be more certain about him
INFJ: DD.  Yes.
INTJ: Snape.  Yes.  A good start!  But these first 4 are the easiest ones.
ISTP: Hooch.  Maybe.  She’s very minor though.  This is the hardest personality type to fit with a character.
ISFP: Harry.  Harry is actually quite hard to place.  He is FP for certain.  But he seems quite happy with conflict so I don’t think he fits here.
INFP: Luna.  Same as last time.  A good fit.
INTP: Neville.  No!  Where did this idea come from?
ESTP: Sirius.  Maybe.  He seems to fit in a few EP places.
ESFP: Ron.  Could be this, or the next one.  As could the twins.
ENFP: Tonks.  Maybe – but twins/Ron are more major and fit at least as well here.
ENTP: Twins.  I think they are Fs.  Sirius fits better here.
ESTJ: McGonagall.  As above, Moody is here.
ESFJ: Molly.  Yes.
ENFJ: Fudge.  Possibly.  He might be ENFJ gone wrong.  But I don’t think so really.
ENTJ: Lucius.  Maybe but, like James, we don’t know much about him.

The third attempt, by a friend of mine.  She left some blank if she saw no clear fit.

ISTJ: Hermione. Yes.
ISFJ: Lupin.  Yes.
INFJ: DD.  Yes.
INTJ: Snape.  Yes.
ISTP:
ISFP: Harry.  He seems to fit the letters, but he doesn’t fit the avoiding conflict bit in the description.
INFP: Luna.  She ends up here a lot.  She certainly fits the letters.  Idealistic?  Catalysts for implementing ideas?  I’m not sure.
INTP:
ESTP: Sirius.  See comments above.
ESFP: Ron.  See above.
ENFP: Tonks.  Ditto.
ENTP: Twins.  Ditto again.
ESTJ:
ESFJ: Molly.  Yes.
ENFJ:
ENTJ: Ginny.  Maybe.  She’s hard to place.  Definitely E, but other than that it’s unclear.

And the fourth attempt:

ISTJ: Hermione.  Yes.
ISFJ: Hagrid.  No.  He’s not accurate or painstaking, in general.  He’s quite oblivious to others.
INFJ: DD.  Yes.
INTJ: Snape.  Yes.
ISTP: Hooch.  See above.
ISFP: Harry.  See above.
INFP:  Lupin.  He fits here to an extent, but is batter as ISFJ.
INTP:  Voldemort.  Interesting.  And also good.  Very good.
ESTP:  Malfoy.  Er, no!  Flexible and tolerant?  I think not.  And he’s an I.
ESFP:  Ron.  See above.
ENFP:  Twins.  Ditto.
ENTP:  Sirius.  Ditto, yawn.
ESTJ:  Percy.  Good.  He fits the letters.  I like him here.
ESFJ:  Molly.  Yes.
ENFJ:  Maxime.  Possibly, but she’s a minor character.  That’s not a no though.
ENTJ:  McGonagall.  Maybe.  She’s a hard one to place, seems to fit in a few slots.

Finally, here are my suggestions.  Preceded by some caveats:
1.       The four scales (I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P) are scales – not absolutes.  One can be a slight E or a massive E, for example.  But when a person is labelled with four letters, the extent of their letters is not shown.  The only way to accurately represent this would be on a 4-dimensional graph.  In short, this system is limited.
2.       I am an INTJ.  However, I am more S than N.  But overall, I am more INTJ than ISTJ.  This happens with other people as well, especially if they are only marginally on one side of the scale.  Therefore I have produced two sets of personality-character matches below.  The first is based on the four individual letters, in isolation, without regarding the personality descriptions.  The second is based purely on the descriptions, without considering the individual letters.
3.       ISTP was a really hard one to match to a character.  It’s certainly not Harry, as in one internet suggestion.  The others either left it blank or went for Hooch – but there is very little information on her.  She’s only really in one scene in the whole saga, other than refereeing quidditch matches.  In fact, it was only as a came to write what comes below, after analysing this all for several hours, that I belatedly realised who fits it.
4.       It is hard to differentiate between the twins, because they are almost always together and doing the same things.  George is obviously a little more considerate than Fred, but that’s about it.

Firstly, based on the individual letters.  Sometimes more than one character seems to fit.

ISTJ: Hermione, Draco
ISFJ: Neville, McGonagall
INFJ: Dumbledore
INTJ: Snape
ISTP: Arthur
ISFP: Lupin, Harry
INFP: Luna, Hagrid
INTP: Voldemort
ESTP: Twins
ESFP: Fudge
ENFP: Ron
ENTP: Ginny, Sirius
ESTJ: Moody
ESFJ: Molly
ENFJ: Bella
ENTJ: Scrimgeour, Percy, Umbridge

And now, purely based on the descriptions.  Bold sections are phrases or words that particularly fit the suggested character.  Italics is where the match is weak.

ISTJ: Hermione.  Quiet, serious, earn success by thoroughness and dependability. Practical, matter-of-fact, realistic, and responsible. Decide logically what should be done and work toward it steadily, regardless of distractions. Take pleasure in making everything orderly and organized – their work, their home, their life. Value traditions and loyalty.
ISFJ: Lupin.  Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Committed and steady in meeting their obligations. Thorough, painstaking, and accurate. Loyal, considerate, notice and remember specifics about people who are important to them, concerned with how others feel. Strive to create an orderly and harmonious environment at work and at home.
INFJ: Dumbledore.  Seek meaning and connection in ideas, relationships, and material possessions. Want to understand what motivates people and are insightful about others. Conscientious and committed to their firm values. Develop a clear vision about how best to serve the common good. Organized and decisive in implementing their vision.
INTJ: Snape.  Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long-range explanatory perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Skeptical and independent, have high standards of competence and performance – for themselves and others.
ISTP: Arthur.  Tolerant and flexible, quiet observers until a problem appears, then act quickly to find workable solutions. Analyze what makes things work and readily get through large amounts of data to isolate the core of practical problems. Interested in cause and effect, organize facts using logical principles, value efficiency.
ISFP: Neville.  Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what’s going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others.
INFP: Harry.  Idealistic, loyal to their values and to people who are important to them. Want an external life that is congruent with their values. Curious, quick to see possibilities, can be catalysts for implementing ideas. Seek to understand people and to help them fulfill their potential. Adaptable, flexible, and accepting unless a value is threatened.
INTP: Voldemort.  Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.
ESTP: Twins.  Flexible and tolerant, they take a pragmatic approach focused on immediate results. Theories and conceptual explanations bore them – they want to act energetically to solve the problem. Focus on the here-and-now, spontaneous, enjoy each moment that they can be active with others. Enjoy material comforts and style. Learn best through doing.
ESFP: Ron.  Outgoing, friendly, and accepting. Exuberant lovers of life, people, and material comforts. Enjoy working with others to make things happen. Bring common sense and a realistic approach to their work, and make work fun. Flexible and spontaneous, adapt readily to new people and environments. Learn best by trying a new skill with other people.
ENFP: Hagrid.  Warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. See life as full of possibilities. Make connections between events and information very quickly, and confidently proceed based on the patterns they see. Want a lot of affirmation from others, and readily give appreciation and support. Spontaneous and flexible, often rely on their ability to improvise and their verbal fluency.
ENTP: Sirius.  Quick, ingenious, stimulating, alert, and outspoken. Resourceful in solving new and challenging problems. Adept at generating conceptual possibilities and then analyzing them strategically. Good at reading other people. Bored by routine, will seldom do the same thing the same way, apt to turn to one new interest after another.
ESTJ: Moody.  Practical, realistic, matter-of-fact. Decisive, quickly move to implement decisions. Organize projects and people to get things done, focus on getting results in the most efficient way possible. Take care of routine details. Have a clear set of logical standards, systematically follow them and want others to also. Forceful in implementing their plans.
ESFJ: Molly.  Warmhearted, conscientious, and cooperative. Want harmony in their environment, work with determination to establish it. Like to work with others to complete tasks accurately and on time. Loyal, follow through even in small matters. Notice what others need in their day-by-day lives and try to provide it. Want to be appreciated for who they are and for what they contribute.
ENFJ: Ginny.  Warm, empathetic, responsive, and responsible. Highly attuned to the emotions, needs, and motivations of others. Find potential in everyone, want to help others fulfill their potential. May act as catalysts for individual and group growth. Loyal, responsive to praise and criticism. Sociable, facilitate others in a group, and provide inspiring leadership.
ENTJ: Scrimgeour.  Frank, decisive, assume leadership readily. Quickly see illogical and inefficient procedures and policies, develop and implement comprehensive systems to solve organizational problems. Enjoy long-term planning and goal setting. Usually well informed, well read, enjoy expanding their knowledge and passing it on to others. Forceful in presenting their ideas.

So there you go.  Some characters fit really well, Like Snape, Hermione, Sirius, Moody and Molly.  Others are weaker, like Hagrid and Ginny.  Some people fit different types under the two systems.  But I reckon that my effort is more accurate and more conclusive than the previous four.  Which is why I bothered to post it, I suppose.

Saturday, September 07, 2013

2 issues with education

Rant time.
I have a lot of issues with teaching, Ofsted, Gove etc.  Here are just two of the more major ones.

Number One.

Back in the day, teaching was very different from how it is now.  The teacher would stand at the front and either dictate or write on a blackboard.  The class would copy the notes down in silence, then learn them by heart and regurgitate them in an exam.  Memory was rewarded.  It was flawed, but there was a kind of logic to it.  The idea was to move knowledge from the teacher's head into that of the pupils, and the test assessed how well the pupils had absorbed the knowledge.

These days, teaching is almost unrecognisable.  There are discussions, role plays, projects, posters, experiments, games.  There is coursework (for now).  It's a more difficult way of teaching, but it's a more effective way of teaching.  Understanding, rather than memory, is the key.  There are still tests, but there is also coursework - project-style assignments completed over a few weeks, with access to notes, books, the internet, and teacher guidance.  The sort of thing that might be required in an actual job.  This reminds me of a tweet I saw a few months ago:

"Today at work I memorised huge quantities of facts and then regurgitated them with pen & paper over 3 hours. #Saidnoone #courseworkmatters"

Exams used to be focused on the task of 'spew-everything-you-know-about-this-topic-onto-your-exam-paper'.  Interestingly, most university courses seem to operate this style of exam.  The assessment style of recent years includes exams, but exams that go at least some way to assessing understanding as well as knowledge.  It also includes coursework, which assesses understanding of a topic and also skills such as communication and time-management.  This is a better method of assessment, and is also more suited to the more modern, interactive, learner-centered teaching style.

TANGENT: I originally wrote the above paragraph as one hideously complicated sentence.  I thought I'd keep it in here in case you want to read it and marvel at it's sub-clauses:
The assessment style of recent years, which includes exams - but exams that go at least some way to assessing understanding as well as knowledge, rather than the older-style (and, interestingly, university-style) exams focused on the task of 'spew-everything-you-know-about-this-topic-onto-your-exam-paper' - but also coursework, which assesses understanding of a topic and also skills such as communication and time-management...is a better one, and is also more suited to the more modern, interactive, learner-centered teaching style.

But my main point is not that things are better today than they used to be.  My main point is about whether the assessment is suited to the teaching.  In yesteryear, the assessment ('spewing') kind of matched the teaching (dictation).  Then both changed, and the assessment, with the inclusion of coursework, matched the interactive teaching.  And the plan for the future?  Make teaching more and more interactive, fun, learner-centred, insert-jargon-here, but move assessment back to the traditional method of learning and regurgitating facts.  These two styles do not match.  Traditional teaching and traditional exams, while flawed, do match each other in their flawedness.  Modern teaching and modern exams also kind of match.  Making the teaching more modern and the exams more traditional makes no sense.  This is not about which method is better, it's that the future proposals surrounding assessment of pupils in this country, before they are mad, over-demanding, out-of-touch, are simply illogical.


Number Two

I recently saw a news article about how nurses and midwives will face three-yearly checks, basically to make sure they're doing a good job.  Doctors have a similar system.  Okay, fair enough.  But this got me thinking about doctors and nurses would be assessed.  Observations?  Interviews?  Maybe they should be assessed on whether the patient they are caring for lives or dies.  Yes, that would be good.  If the patient lives, the doctor is a good doctor.  If the patient dies, the doctor is clearly not up to scratch and should at least be monitored closely, and possibly removed from his or her job.

Clearly madness.  A doctor should not be judged by whether the patient lives or dies, because such things are only partly in the doctors control.  Some patients, no matter what treatment they are given, are sadly going to die sooner or later.  In fact, we all die eventually.

What does this have to do with teaching?  Let me explain from the perspective of my school.  But first, some context.  When teachers and schools are inspected or observed - by Ofsted, or the local authority, or just other teachers, they are graded on a scale: 1 (outstanding), 2 (good), 3 (used to be 'satisfactory' but is now 'requires improvement'), and 4 (inadequate).  A lesson can be judged as any of these four levels, and the school as a whole can also be given a level.

Last year in my school, all teachers were observed as part of performance management, and also in other contexts.  78% of lessons were judged as good or outstanding.  Not bad.  So, you'd think that the school as a whole would probably be good or outstanding, yes?  No.  Because, if the exam results are level 3, nothing else can be graded above a three.  So a school could be observed by Ofsted, who might grade every single lesson and teacher, and every other aspect of the school, as outstanding, but if their results 'require improvement', then the school will get a level 3.  And how are the results levelled?  In absolute terms.  Not compared to pupils' levels upon entry to the school, not in terms of progress, but simply by the number of pupils who get the 'magic' 5A*-C grades, including English and Maths.

So, regardless of who the pupils are, what their skills were when they arrived from primary school, what special needs or disabilities they have, how academic they are...they, their teachers and their school are judged on how many grades they get.  It's the equivalent of judging a doctor solely on whether the patient lives or dies.  Schools are judged by something over which they have limited control.  Teachers can make a difference to the grades that a pupil achieves, but probably not as much difference as parents can make, and certainly not as much difference as the pupil themselves can make.  It is, again, illogical, to judge teachers and schools by something over which they have such limited control.

End of rant.  For now.