thephoenixmusicgroup’s blog

Since finishing college in August last year I've had a very hard time adjusting to the so called real world. I graduated with something most people see as useless (media), though I did it  for the enlightenment and the fact that I like it (education is not all about getting a job, even though some idiots think it is). I got a job four months afterwards but got fired for being crap at it (and probably too tired, early mornings I am not suited to).

I have read a lot about job interviews on the internet, my god some people are incredibly fucking stupid. People not getting hired because they have long hair. Wtf is with that. If I were the interviewer I would hire someone with long hair, actually it wouldn't factor much but not getting hired for it strikes me as being incredibly narrowminded. I wouldn't work for such organizations regardless but that level of stupidity really annoys me (incidentally I was enraged by the way Hurricane Katrina was managed, so stupidity of all sorts really angers me).

What annoys me even more is when people describe it as "thats the way it is, get used to it." I fundamentally disagree that thats the way it is,  its set up by other people and to speak about "the way it is" suggests a certain level of brainwashing and mute acceptance for an unjustified status quo. Theres nothing natural or permanent about the "real world." Its been carefully constructed by the ideology of businessmen (of whom most  are incredibly shortsighted fools---->the waves of corporate crime and environmental disasters attests to this) Speaking for myself I will never conform to this moronic form of thinking of getting my hair cut, nor will I ever blindly accept things as the way they are. The old adage, live by the sword, die by the sword rings inherently true.

It may seem trivial, farcical even to get so worked up about hair length but it indicates a deeper systemic problem with the way society works. I will categorically avoid using introvert and extrovert definitions as people cannot be labeled, as much as we would like to label them. We are complex and multi faceted. However I do believe that  "the real world" favours those who conform, who tolerate the nonsense politics that surround them, who are more likely to obey and keep their heads down.

The problems with the "real world" are multifarious. We work jobs we hate to buy things we don't need. Why get up so early in the morning to go to "sell" things to people. I think the following corporate sectors are useless to society because they contribute nothing positive in a human sense

1. sales
2. advertisements

Now these sectors oil the wheels of capitalism but when I think about it they do nothing other than increase the profits of some faceless company. Pitted against the achievements of art and science its obvious that these two areas are fundamentally useless to humanity's progress.

The second bold pronouncement I will make is that the current system of capitalism is flawed. It is flawed as it elevates market logic to a pedestal which supersedes human interests. The institutional structure of global capitalism means that social issues get pushed aside in pursuit of profit margins or because CEOs/people in positions of power within corporations are unable to act in an ethically correct way due to external pressures eg other corporations/vested interests in the same field.

I believe that a system of monetary exchange is acceptable but it must be harmonized to environmental and social concerns. The pursuit of status and profit should be tempered with an enlightened approach to life, where science and art and the betterment of human society in general takes precedence over business. Hence we don't need viral advertising, at least marketing wouldn't hold such influence over the public mind.

Now I realize that the generation of wealth is important to the stability of society. But WITH (note not under, the language of servitude) the current model of capitalism we are getting nowhere...the reason we get recessions and economic turbulence can be attributed in part to greed and the political quagmires which results from that greed, where questions are ignored, where unjustified power structures aren't challenged, where there is an unspoken agreement to allow "gamblers" on the stock market hedge bets to increase their own personal wealth at the eventual expense of the wider public. Based on the evidence this is what I believe has caused the global credit crunch.

Contrary to what those in positions of power would have us believe, all of us have the power to enact change. The creation of powerful social networks which can hold corporations to accountability, and the politicians who are so enamored with them, would achieve this goal. Unfortunately the divide and conquer strategy is a powerful one. People are increasingly atomized and institutionalized, so much so that they cowed by a sense of self defeat. So a more equal society is unattainable. The problem is you will always have idiots who need to feel they are worth something in the blind pursuit of power and profits.

However, I believe it is possible to mould a more just society, one where people aren't discriminated against the backdrop of engineered uber conservative corporate requirements--->e.g. getting your hair cut. I also believe in that harmonized society which I have already described, if anything alternative societies can work  e.g. The Kibbutz in Israel would suggest that. Its by no means perfect and it has its own flaws, indeed the fact that parents were encouraged not to raise their own children would strike me as being one. And such societies existed in an unforgiving wider meme pool of capitalist societies.

If anything the time for change is now. Lets not let the suits, those who champion conformity, backstabbing, ruthlessness and obedience, take over.

Reflections on the passing of time. Time does seem to speed up exponentially as you get older, could be something to do with taking things for granted as life becomes more routine. You lapse into a semi conscious state with regards to individual moments which become less striking as you experience them more and more, and so those moments mesh together, the hours, days and weeks become like a blur and then you ask yourself, where has the time gone? Hence the importance of long term planning, which I see little of among the architects of human civilization. We also need to seriously forge ahead with solar system colonization, again rising populations, declining mineral resources and so on spell out only one thing, lets expand into space, the petri dish is getting crowded (note I don't view humanity as bacteria, but the analogy is valid, in relation to an environmental container and the rapid expansion of a populace).

My how time has flown.

What to say. We've finished the demo. Not entirely professional but its the best we can get it within our means. I shall be perfecting it within the next few days but its ready to go like a hot potato. So I hope ye who have actually ventured across the hyper link divide have, or will, as the case may be, enjoy it. I'm tired today. Was up all night finishing the beast.

On the subject of time I will venture to say what the true tragedy of life is: TIME. Every moment is born to die. Every nano second and nano second within that nano second etc is history. So time is the saddest thing ever. Each moment you will never get back, it is lost, gone, dead forever and it reflects the ultimate tragedy (and greatest fear) for our existence which I wont mention. Now time might be circumvented somewhat. Consider the fact that the advance in medical technologies will ensure greater lifespans, especially with respect to stem cell research (they have already grown a mans bladder from his own stem cells). Also consider the fact that while unlikely right now, in 20 years, if we take into account the current rate of progress in computer tech, we could create an artificial intelligence which will far exceed our own given its faster processing speed, and which will then be able to find solutions to problems and barriers which have plagued us thus far. Now both eventualities are within the realms of possibility. Ok quantum computers are shit at the moment and we cant even build ones that handle a proper quantity of qu bits without hitting the decoherence problem, and thus we cant create a proper quantum computing device for AI (our brains are massive parallel quantum computing units) but I don't think these problems are at all insurmountable for any great period of time. I would like an artificial brain to solve all our problems. Its greater intelligence would find solutions to satisfy everyone. It would just need to be programmed with morals and of course I'm assuming, but I dont think anyone is going to be stupid enough to program a consciousness which far exceeds our own to be an asshole, as it would be counter intuitive to our survival as a species which is not what we have been programmed through evolution to do.

So time is inescapable. Even if we live for millenia theres no escaping the fact that the universe will die and all along with it, though by that stage, if we live that long, we'll have figured, or the AI which governs us, or maybe the AI will enhance our minds to be among equals, anyway we'll probably be inhabiting alternate realities. Maybe it never ends. Maybe there is no beginning. Maybe we are eternal but we haven't reached that stage yet.

This is what I will say though, anything is possible, rules and conditions are made to be modified or broken, I say this as a rule of thumb and not as a rule.

More reflections: I don't really entertain the notion of sentient universes anymore. I think the case for teleological interpretations of phenomena as being equivalent, with respect to being valid in an ontological sense in the universe, to the mechanical processes which give rise to them are tenuous at best.

There are no problems. Everything is irrelevant as everything is transient and merely a set of functions of this huge container we call the universe. What we call life, humanity, consciousness, we often don't understand the true implications of these terms. Ive realized lately we're just functions. Life is a function. Generations rise and fall. Strands of personality types continue to exist, I bet you could find your soul mate in the 16th century. Life is just mechanistic, born from the stars, its nothing more, nothing less. Thats why despite all the emotions we experience, all the interactions whether positive or negative with people, it doesn't matter.

Reality is absurd and cruel. What I think of people is merely a result of me possessing certain personality traits brought about by evolution. I am subservient to my programming just as you are. Our minds are just further functions in a ceaseless chain of events beneficial for survival.

And I find this view of life profoundly nihilistic. Still its the most likely, or the one that seems most likely to me. And yet...I think this view brought about by scientific observation...its very tentativeness offers some small almost meaningless source of consolation. But if there is a multiverse (which doesn't seem out of the question no matter how much physicists hate it) I think universes with consciousness would be favoured over and above ones which were automata sets of functions. In that case, maybe through cosmic natural selection there is a god and gods. Conscious entities of which we are a part, who are omniscient and omnipotent insofar as they are beings but who may not be so with respect to the multiverse which they inhabit. I would like to think that, to take solace in the notion that its not just cruel and random, which it often appears to be, made worse by the fact that what I take to be cruel and random is not actually so but just what I perceive it to be through evolutionary programming.

I think cosmic god entities arent out of the question. But even if they don't exist, at least the platonic interpretation of miniature events which coalesce to give rise to phenomenas ready for perception like music/art/program interfaces, this form of interpretation counts for something, it may be no different from the arrangement of events which give rise to it, ie. the teleological may be dominated by the mechanical but if the teleological dominates over the mechanic in our minds then theres nothing that can take away from that. And I might add science is a method, people often confuse science with a philosophy of life which is simply wrong. There are many ways of describing reality but they have different applications, for example politics, art, music etc, each offer an equally valid view of life but in different ways, so comparison is meaningless.

Something I wrote one year ago on a full moon, hence the anger of the post as the gravitational effects of that orbiting body effected my cognitive processes.

On commercialism and art.

One thing that I cant understand is how commercialism, the process of making money, whatever you want to call it, has become so intertwined with art. I find it saddening that everything has to become subsumed within a system of exploitation and the taking of personal advantage. In my opinion accountants can get lost with their demographics and just let the artist get on with it.

Ask yourself this, when you are told that you wont appeal to the mainstream demographic, just how was the information collected? What we're the questions asked? Could it really be the case that these business types just want to confirm what they already think they know? Because maybe they're the product of a culture that was originally shaped and informed to keep the plebs under control since the 16th century and the advent of capitalism. Yes think of it this way...say there were no elites back then, say that in Europe there was overall a free culture of expression, think the Wiemar republic. Now think of this, if there were no restrictions on edgy art, things which were subversive, maybe mainstream culture now would appreciate what is traditionally seen as experimental or not having sales potential. So maybe those at the top, are just the products of a process in which the ruling classes mould their descendants and everyone else in their own image, according to a framework they set in place to ensure the propagation of their power and values, which subversive or intellectual art would obviously threaten (because throughout history it has done so, but always in a marginalized impotent position, which continues to this day). Because if anything there has been a progressive dumbing down in order to reach the lowest common denominator which has been indoctrinated through a subtle historical legacy to be what they are.

And get this, appealing to the lowest common denominator, the wide demographic, can sometimes make poor economic sense. Example: The Next Gen Star Trek movies excluding First Contact were flops. Why? Because studio execs wanted them to appeal to the teen demographic. If these films had been made in the true tradition of the series then they probably would have been successful as that tradition made it possible for the films to be made in the first place!

Mc Donalds food tastes good, but its not particularly rewarding, theres no artistry in the food. But it appeals to the majority. So under a capitalist model, shouldn't everyone eat Mc Donalds, and other unhealthy mass produced foods. Who gives a shit if they die, welfare systems cost money, lets scrap them. So profits soar yeah, good, go capitalist ignorance for the human cost, for true beauty, for everything that might possess a degree of depth.

My attitude is that art should be devoid from monetary concerns. That culture should be altered so that a small hegemony cannot dictate what is good art or not, so that a small clique of successful artists cannot take over while the public consciousness becomes solely fixated on one type of art while stubbornly refusing through blind ignorance to even sample some of the great other stuff out there. A lot of these problems can be blamed on the capitalist infrastructure.

You can argue that the impetus of profit motivates artists to write catchy tunes. But I think if you remove the concept of money altogether you'd still get catchy tunes, because some artists want wider recognition at some point or just like to appeal to a wider base or think along the same lines in a creative way as everyone else does.

In summation I dont like capitalism, its a cruel system of exploitation. We enjoy a high standard of life because its predicated mostly on destroying the earth and subjegating third world countries into an endless cycle of debt and misery (with the starving people waiting to die, yes, crawling around in mud with flies picking on them, that is where our luxury comes from). And dont forget the fact that we are among the 10% richest of the world. That says nothing good about this whole system.

But I entertain no hopes as to a replacement system because we are too un-evolved and too stupid (ie selfish and purile) to come up with and even sustain a better one.

I voted yes today, for anyone who doesn't know the Lisbon Treaty its a document of 3000 ammendments to existing treaties in the European Union (EU) which is intended to make the EU function more efficiently with regards to its recent enlargement. 12 new member states were accepted in the past few years. The EU was originally comprised of 15 states, so it now consists of 27. It is also, basically, another form of the EU constitution which was rejected in 2005 by French and Dutch voters, if I recall correctly.

Essentially the treaty has been ratified in most countries. However Ireland's constitution means that the treaty must be passed with a referendum. Therefore, unlike most countries, the Irish are obliged to vote on it.

For the past 4 weeks there has been a lot of media coverage on the treaty. What is notable is that it was a voting process based more on the treaty and policy than on personality or party allegiance. Which is unusual given that most political elections are decided by spin and party allegiances.

I'm assuming, based on hearsay and media coverage, that a lot of people didn't bother to read the treaty or summarized versions of it. Myself included actually. There were Yes and No campaigns to sway voters either way, the former of which was totally disorganized. It was surprising that the government didn't publicize the treaty ages ago given that they wanted a Yes vote. At least then they could turn things in their favour.

Anyway I'll focus on the two campaigns in relation to the treaty itself to explain why I think a Yes vote was the right choice.

The No campaign essentially stated that under the treaty, the democratic rights of EU citizens would be reduced, that political power would be centralized among a few unelected EU MEPs and Commissioners, that health and public services would be privatized, that trade unions would become irrelevant, that Ireland would lose its influence in political decision making, that a few big countries e.g. France and Germany would hold sway over others, that tax harmonization (one of the Lisbon proposals) would result in American companies leaving Ireland, (given that Ireland has an extremely low tax rate of 12%), that Ireland would be forced to accept abortion as a legal right and that conscription would be introduced with the Lisbon proposal for a united European military. Moreover they argued that the reason the treaty was difficult to read was so that people wouldn't be able to understand what they were voting on.

Now the Yes campaign conveyed opposite arguments to these assertions. So who puts forward the better argument?
Well for me I think that despite the obvious ineffectual aspect of the Yes campaign, it presented a truer version of the treaty.

Lets make a note that the EU charter of fundamental human rights is legally binding to the treaty, therefore the provisions of the charter are enshrined in the treaty.

So lets start with trade unions. The charter acknowledges the rights workers to engage in collective bargaining with employers. Now collective bargaining normally entails negotiations between trade unions and employers, therefore the charter recognizes trade unions by implication or at the very least, the potential for them. In addition the charter safeguards workers rights in relation to wage, working hours and so on. The major trade unions in Ireland also support the treaty. So tbh I disagree with the argument of the No Campaign that under Lisbon we would be in a workers situation of a race to the bottom, slaving for unaccountable multinationals. The charter expressly protects our rights. 

Secondly, the No campaign mentions the privatization of health care, that the current EU commissioner wants to allow private health companies to operate across borders for people to have more choice with regards treatments. The charter however states that all EU citizens will have access to universal healthcare ie healthcare that is nationalized, ergo public hospitals will not be swept away in a sea of privatization, the status of public healthcare is protected in the charter. Moreover, it is one thing for private health companies to function alongside national institutions, quite another for those companies to replace them. This will not happen, as a result of the charter. Private health care may also introduce an element of competition in relation to its public counterpart, diversity in the public sphere and the market which is linked to it, is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't think France either would want to sacrifice its health system, one of the best in the world to privatized interests. So co-existence with the generation of profits from private health care companies is what is aimed for, not replacement of national systems which is what the No campaign states.

Thirdly democratic rights are not reduced. The EU parliament, made up of MEPs elected by EU citizens will have its mandate with regards to policy areas expanded under the treaty through co-decision with the EU council of ministers. The council and parliament will effectively approve or reject the proposals of the EU commission.

Double majority voting which is entailed in Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) will also ensure greater transparency to electoral processes.  QMV therefore means that decisions reached by the Council will need 55% of member states to approve representing---65% of Europe's population. To ensure that bigger countries can bully their interests into effect, it takes only 4 members states to block decisions.

Now one of the main arguments of the No campaign is that Ireland will lose its commissioner on the EU commission for  5 years. Well we have 12 new member states, its unfeasible it seems to fit all of them onto a commission. To make policy implementation more efficient, commissioners from each country will be rotated on a five year basis, therefore we might lose a commissioner but so does France, Germany, Italy etc. Remember also that the council has the final say on proposals which works in conjunction with the parliament which in turn is elected by the people. Now its possible to conceive of the council and commission being intertwined, but with the parliament intertwined with the council I think in a situation of serious important the commission would ultimately be subject to public pressure, if such pressure were to exist. Such pressure should exist though because people should be more engaged in the affairs of state which affect them, however boring they may be. Otherwise expect to be nannied if you want to be nannied, at the end of the day its a simple fundamental- a person who acts in a certain way will generate responses from others who will treat that person in a certain way accordant to their self projection. 

Now onto tax harmonization. Ireland has been given the right to veto any changes to its own tax rates. Our economy has prospered significantly from low tax rates for American companies. The No campaign states that Lisbon will remove those rates under a common tax band for EU countries, therefore American companies will leave and our economy will go bust, as its primarily a service economy . Wrong. (a). As stated we can veto any changes  (b)  The treaty will through the liberalization of borders and the promotion of trade among EU nations enhance our relationship to EU markets, therefore we prosper through membership of the EU (c) American companies already approve of the Treaty, its in their interest to have low tax rates, therefore why would they approve if they thought Ireland is going to lose its low tax rates. There has been talk by the French of introducing a Common Corporate Tax Plan (CCTP), but its subject to the approval of member states, and can be shot down easily. In fact it probably will be, nation states are going to want their own tax rates for their own interests.

As regards the military, no conscription is a myth, war is bad for the EU, its leaders do not want to go down that path. The purpose of an EU military is peacekeeping efforts. All Ireland has to do is ensure that its army is up to date and modern, which it and most other countries are doing anyway, again having a modern military is a good insurance policy for any nation. And the military is for benign peacekeeping efforts, we should therefore contribute to it.

Also the Lisbon treaty enables the EU to have a stronger unified voice on international policy, a good thing if you ask me. In addition the treaty promotes the

Abortion won't be imposed on Ireland either (although I have no problem with in principle). Its a complete myth concocted by Libertas, one of the No campaign organizations. In fact the Archbishop of Dublin has stated that the Lisbon treaty does not alter Ireland's legal stance on abortion.

Finally I think these arguments can be unified in relation to how you want to perceive the EU. In my opinion the EU is a legal and economic network between nations that can act internationally as one entity. In essence its a commonwealth. It is still made up of member states, and if the elected MEPs who elect those to the commission etc, (much in the same was as national parliaments function), were to fundamentally betray our fundamental rights as EU citizens, which we enjoy today, not only would it be illegal (against the charter) there would be, or should be, mass uproar. The national administrations which comprise the EU superstructure, would have to acquiesce by virtue of their proximity to their own electorate, thereby prohibiting, in theory, against the kind of autocratic superstate envisioned by No campaigners. In addition there are provisions against autocracy through QMV and member state blocking. What the treaty does is ensure that Europe works more smoothly without being tied down in litigation and lengthy negotiation between member states over trivialities, it enhances trade which benefits nations, and allows Europe to act with one voice in relation to foreign policy. Although I'm firmly, on what could be described simplistically, as the left, I recognise that good economics means more opportunities and freedoms and greater stability. I'm totally against insidious unfettered capitalism but the treaty appears to advance responsible trade and market development through the advancement of policy making connected to the reduction of carbon emissions and the general preservation of the environment. Lest we not forget the enshrinement of workers rights in the charter. So a free for all capitalist orgy it does not advance.

If we see Europe as a network, which can manifest itself as a powerful entity on behalf of nations when their collective interests are at stake, rather than as a constraining super state waiting to be canonized as a monarchy/fascist dictatorship, the Lisbon treaty makes sense. It just improves the flow of communications and functions in the network.
Our rights are protected. Our national constitutions still exist, we still vote for our governments and MEPs who represent us in Europe.The existence of the Internet as a source of information that cannot be uniformly controlled further re-assures me that we are not entering a totalitarian 1984 state. And in a changing global order, where America is in decline with China and India emerging as global super powers it would be a good idea long term to band together as one Union for whatever situations that may develop. (I'm aware it sounds like 1984 with 3 superpowers but the book is a work of fiction and it may not end up like that).

One final note, The Nature of the Campaigns and other miscellaneous info: what also persuaded me to vote yes was the fact that the No campaign relied heavily on "what if" scenarios are the basis for their arguments. Hypothetical situations do not convince me, even though some No campaigners made certain good points. Those hypothetical situations could easily be substituted with hypothetical situations under a Yes campaign aegis. In addition, Libertas is run by Declan Ganley a US defence contractor CEO, hardly impartial on Europe then and the lies spun by Libertas were another reason to question the No vote. Deliberate mis-information hampers a campaign in my view. Now the Yes campaign was also blighted by hypothetical "what ifs." Eg Ireland will become a pariah of Europe if we vote no. However thhe majority of their arguments were based on existing facts rather than speculation.
In addition French politicians threatening us to vote yes should be ignored, they're idiots, and rather than using personal reactions their arrogant remarks for voting no, looking at the facts is a better precedent for deciding which way to vote.

So those are my reasons for voting yes.

Btw album is finished

.

More from symphonie schizo, dating back 5 years. Again uber shitty recording quality but meh. This Is The End is a special one as I wrote it in 2003, its about an epic battle with a higher dimensional being. Wrote it before and following Witness, a rock music festival which is now called Oxegen, although the majority of the song was written after. I just wanted to make it as long and proggy as possible.

Yesterday I was in the pub and forgot to bring my wallet so I could only stay for a drink. No problem, but I thought to myself, wallets are such big annoying contraptions, thats why I prefer to leave it lying around at home and bring in just enough money to buy a ticket or some basic food. But the obvious problem with this is the surprise "lets go to the pub" idea wherein you discover you don't have enough money and you'll have to leave early. Bah. Anyway I was thinking about this while having a drink with friends and had the idea that you could use your mobile phone to download credit from your bank account which could then be sent the account of a pub/shop/store etc. It would totally reduce the need for atms and credit cards. It could revolutionize economic transfers and I would become a billionaire. Today my brother told me the idea is already being tested out in local towns by companys/research groups. Damn!

Burn The Witch is the eponymous debut single from Stone Gods, a band forged from the ashes of The Darkness, minus titular rock icon Justin Hawkins.

The song combines heavy crunching guitars with a memorable guitar lick, while Riche Edwards on vocals shrieks like a Banshee from Hell, evoking comparisons with the epic wailings of Bon Scott and Bruce Dickinson. Furthermore, the band display a discernible ambition when halfway through the song they launch into a complex frenzy of relentless riffing. With these stylistic features in mind, Burn the Witch can be argued to continue the tradition of old school heavy metal in the vein of Iron Maiden, Motorhead ACDC and black album era Metallica. Therefore, no points for originality but the song is pulled off with such show and panache that it manages to transcend its obvious musical references.

Lyrically Burn the Witch directs a venomous contempt at its subject with a sense of abandoned glee. The communal aspect of this contempt, in addition to the atmosphere of outrage and unease in the music, strongly calls to mind imagery from films like the Wickerman. So while it doesn’t mark any new ground in the annals of rock, as a piece of menacing South of England heavy metal Burn the Witch fails to disappoint. On the basis of this record Stone Gods are likely to be a formidable live band.

Ah taking a break from music just to post up a review on one of my favourites songs from Porcupine Trees Fear of a Blank Planet

Porcupine Tree have come a long way since its inception in 1988 as an in joke between Steve Wilson, its founder and creative catalyst, and his friend, Malcolm Stocks. Evolving into an underground phenomenon in the early 90s as a fusion of dance music and psychedelic rock in the vein of Pink Floyd, the band have never fitted into any scene and have continually displayed a marked capability for musical innovation.

This is all the more evident with their new single, Way out of Here, taken from their Grammy nominated album Fear of a Blank Planet. The song incorporates the albums thematic pre-occupations of growing up in the early 21^st century through the central protagonist, who is alienated, nihilistic and heavily medicated.

The song itself mixes nightmarish soundscapes with mournful guitar playing and plaintive vocals before launching into a contemporary metal chorus which soars with the accompaniment of synths. In the grand tradition of the Porcupine Tree songs, the production is immaculate. Every instrument plays an integral role to the song and as such there is no superfluous fluff.

A sense of rage and sadness permeates throughout which reaches its apex when a crunching heavy metal riff is juxtaposed with the emotional desperation of the chorus.  Gavin Harrison’s drumming is notably superb in this section for adding to the intensity. The song concludes with a cod reggae bass line, which would not be out of place on Police record, and haunting synths that recall the terror tinged aural landscapes of Radiohead’s Ok Computer.

Perhaps the most impressive feature of this song is Wilson’s ability to seamlessly combine a wide range of different musical styles into one coherent whole as something which can only indelibly be described as Porcupine Tree. In a decade dominated by retro Indie bands and disposable pop, Porcupine Tree stand out as thoroughly modern musical pioneers.