Not the day...shining armour....with a K

Just another quick note that I feel has to be said.

The Dark Knight

Heath Ledger's role as The Joker

Oh. My. God.

Seriously

, no joke, one of the best pieces of acting I've ever seen. And

 not just because he died shortly after. I realise that many people will go and see the film just because of this fact (much like more 

people have come to Weston pier this year, AFTER ITS BURNED DOWN, than last year, but i digress) but even so, his role throughout was incredible, his monologues, his appearance, even the way he moved, it just blew my mind. But sadly enough, you can almost see how playing a rol

e of someone that....insane, can drive a person mad, especially considering the 

stories of him locking himself away in order to play the character better. I can only feel privileged that someone would dedicate themselves that much for a role in a film. For entertaining a mostly ungrateful general public.

So for that, Heath, wherever you are in the cosmos, I thank you.

(and you're forgiven for being a gay cowboy)

"You wanna know how I got these scars?...."

It's about time I asked, Amy Winehouse?? Really?!

Been a while since I wrote anything on this humble page of mine, but considering im now on the verge of being a university student of music journalism, i should get back into the habit of writing. Therefore, this gives you the reader (all one of you...Dad!) a chance to hear my views on a certain artiste that is clogging up the airwaves, and the press, and for a change its not Mr Doherty!

The singer in question goes by the name of Amy Winehouse. I'm sure you've heard of her. Everyone else has. And oddly enough, they all seem to love her too. Whether its her 'amazing voice', 'brilliant songs', 'daring public image', i dont know. Either way, I'm at a loss. Because I just dont see any of it. Controversial maybe? To openly say that one of the biggest stars in Britain, if not the world, is in my opinion, a bit shite? Hell, thats what this job* is about!

Okay, I admit, if I'm going to make a claim like this, I better back it up with some kind of evidence hadn't I? Well, allow me to begin. Her voice. Brilliant some people say, Refreshing others, unlike anything else. How come then, I find that I cannot understand a word she says because every note has a warble or some kind of...excess, that prevents it being heard? I know that I cant really talk when it comes to not understanding what vocalists are saying with some of my music tastes, but still! At least with even the more common examples of Modest Mouse, or even Dylan, there is some musical intrigue too.

I suppose one of the other things that bothers me, is that, in a similar sense to Doherty a few years ago, there is a media intrigue to her because of public bust ups with family members (Yeah, he wants to send you to Rehab, cos you're on smack and he's looking out for you!) or husbands (you dont need to sing about it, I really do know that you're no good!) and the whole being-on-drugs-and-still-making-music...thing. Dont get me wrong, drugs and music can be a beautiful combination! Just look at Dark Side! But when it becomes more about the drugs than the music, but still they end up on front pages of Magazines, and above headliners on festival t-shirts (as if Amy should have been above Kings and Jay Zizzle!) while everyone else is left in the shadows, then it starts to get to me! Particularly considering the lack of, in my opinion, real talent.

I've heard people say that she is so good because of the uniqueness of her style. It being a sort of hybrid of pop, soul and jazz, which is only really being matched by the likes of Duffy, and that because this style of music was originally only being done by black people, then it shows great creativity or bravery or something, but i dont really see how that makes someone good. I mean, people still dont like Eminem, being one of the very few white artists in his genre. I just dont see how what goes for one person, does not for another, and vice versa. 

I know that to some people who read this (if this was put out to a mass audience) would still disagree. Would still think that she's 'got balls' (as she said about Jay-Z in a field in Pilton recently) But thats their opinion, im not trying to change minds, hell, im not Hitler. I just hope that some people will see the other side of the argument. See that perhaps she is just a smackhead who cant sing and has hair that is taller than her! Or maybe not. Either way, just dont ever play that godawful cover of 'Valerie' near me!

But wait, that was by Mark Ronson wasn't it? *rolls eyes*

*I realise I dont actually have a job in this yet, but hey, I'm practicing!

Production value

I've noticed something that is becoming a bit of a trend within the music industry, and I cant help but feel that I may be the only one who seems to notice/care about it. That is, that with a lot of new songs coming out that are produced by rather well known people, (e.g Mark Ronson, Timbaland) are being credited to said producer, rather than the band themselves. Something which in my opinion is bizzare. It comes to mind after the ridiculous over-playing of Amy Wankhouse's shocking cover of The Zuton's 'Valerie'. (I seem to be the only person who hates her for some reason, despite the fact she's shite!). While it is clear that it is her singing it, and her backing band performing it, the song is still classed as being by Mark Ronson but only 'featuring' Miss Winehouse. Not taking anything away from producers, im sure it's a challenging job, but come on, surely, even if it was Ronson's idea to do it, it should still be accredited to Amy?? Or would that be too obvious?
Another example of this strange new thing is 'Apologise' by OneRepublic, or should that be 'featuring' OneRepublic. This song, which was entirely written by the band, was only slightly remixed by big name producer Timbaland, with the only difference really being a touch more bass and a more obvious drum beat, along with the kind of annoying 'eeh, eeh, eeh' bit that he does over the top. Despite this minimal change it is still classed as being 'Timbaland featuring OneRepublic. Taking basically all the credit away from the band, despite them being the writers of the song.
My main concern with this is why. Why do the producers take all the credit away from a band who wrote the song originally only because they twiddled some nobs and pushed some buttons? If this is the case, one can only fear what happens in the future. Will there not be any bands anymore? Will everything be released under the producers name, with the dreaded 'featuring' the only credit any band gets? Who says it isn't going to go any further and just be the label that gets any name? Will we be hearing about that new Geffen album featuring Metallica? Or Domino records new album, featuring Arctic Monkeys? I for one hope that surely common sense will prevail soon enough and people will see that the likes of Timbaland and Mark Ronson are NOT the ones who are writing the songs, are NOT the ones performing the songs, and are only producing it, meaning that their names should be on sleeve notes where they belong.

But then again, common sense kind of seems to be lost on the general public when it comes to music. I mean come on, who actually thinks Amy Winehouse has a good voice?!

An attempt at sporting journalism

Just been thinking, with regards to football and the strange, confusing ways in which the industry as it is now becoming, works, whether that, if it were not for the events of the Heysel disaster, we would be seeing a different football team on top of the football tower?
Now this is not just because I am an Everton fan that is bitter about the club being barred from the Champions League after winning the old English First Division and the Cup Winners Cup in the mid-80's, in fact quite the opposite, with the team now being back on the rise and on the verge of breaking in to the 'Top 4' (although recent performances leave room for improvement) after a successful run in the Eufa Cup. Just curiosity, considering that at the time of the incidents in Heysel, Everton were arguably, along with the gobshites across the park (as much as it pains me to say that) firmly on the top of the pile in terms of domestic football. And following victory in the Cup Winners Cup, and league success, we would have been entered into the Champions League. One merely has to speculate as to how well the team would have done. Most would agree that chances of success there would have been high, which begs the question, we do well in the Champions League, perhaps even win it, therefore gain more recognition across Europe, and indeed the world, therefore attract more quality players, therefore get more success in the league and Europe, therefore more recognition and so on and so forth, until we reach today, and perhaps it is a different team from the North West of England (no, not you kopites) that are the most well known team in the world?

Funny that, isn't it?

Anyway, it would appear that I am toeing the line of controversy now, so i'll just leave that thought with you.

In that contemplative, looking-back-on-life stage..

Been thinking a lot recently. Not about anything in particular, just life and all the little absurdities that come along with it. Why people are the way they are, what makes someone a good person, or indeed a good friend, to what extent does one 'bring it on themselves', that kind of stuff. Having only watched 'High Fidelity' the other day (great film, and book, would recommend both to anyone with an interest in music, and relationships, that kind of stuff) it could be said that im in one of those 'what does it all mean' sort of moods, but still, the thoughts are there all the same.
It is difficult to determine why life is the way that it is, why it all pans out the way it does, whether or not there is some omniscient being watching over it all. Would be good to know what people are thinking when they look at you, when they joke with you, or about you. If they're laughing with you, or at you. But then, alas, we weren't created that way. How were we destined to be though? Was it ever intended for us to become 'rulers' of the world? Were we meant to thrive and adapt and evolve? None of this is really relevant to the feelings and thoughts that I am having, but still are worth questioning.....to an extent.
Basically, i guess, it all boils down to the way that someone can have friends, and have a fairly active social life, but still feel alone. Someone can be on top of the world, then brought back down to the lower ends of life in an instant. Maybe its the way that society has indoctrinated us to feel a necessity to be liked, a necessity to have all the latest gadgets, trends, fashions, all that malarky (irony is beginning to creep in, from the guy with the iPod, fcuk jacket, Levi jeans, and Vans shoes, but still...) a necessity to be out on the weekend, 'on the pull' as it were. But what happens when that doesnt all work out? When you dont have the coolest clothes, when you dont have the girl, when you dont seem to 'fit in' with society's 'norms', what then? Are we destined to be outcast? Left alone to sit in front of your computer writing your feelings on a blog site that only your dad will read, because only he knows about, or cares about it? Seems that way. But then who am I to complain, 'you bring it on yourself'.
Ah well, c'est la vie.




Don't worry dad, i'll be fine! ;-)

Be Here Now? Doesnt appear to be!

When the band Oasis comes to mind, the primary albums that people immediately spring to, and indeed the band themselves class as their biggest successes would be, somewhat obviously, ‘Definitely Maybe’, ‘(What’s the Story) Morning Glory?’ and possibly even b-side collection ‘The Masterplan’ (perhaps THE best b-side compilation ever!). While it can be said that there was a blip around the middle of their decade spanning existence, with the relative flop of albums ‘Standing on the Shoulders of Giants’, and more so ‘Heathen Chemistry’, the band still recognise the partial success of both of these, with recent best-of ‘Stop the Clocks’ including a solitary song from each album. However, the band’s 3rd studio album, ‘Be Here Now’ appears to have been completely forgotten about, which to me begs the question of why?
When the album was released in 1997, just over 10 years ago, it was a success, much like, if not more so, than the previous 2 albums, with two of the three singles taken from it reaching number one in the charts, and the other single peaking at number 2. This does therefore not seem to suggest an album that is lacking in quality, and although there are not as many stand out classics as there were from ‘Definitely Maybe’ or ‘What’s the Story…’ the three singles, (‘D’you Know What I Mean’, ‘Stand By Me’ and ‘All Around the World’) are fantastic, and indeed the rest of the songs do not seem to be merely filler songs. So why then does the band seem to ignore it? With the sell-out ‘Familiar to Millions’ gig at the old Wembley Stadium only containing one song from the album with just one album released in between it and the tour. It can be seen from listening to it that there has been a development or progression from the sound that made the first two albums so successful, with it sounding rockier than the brit-pop sound that made them so famous. But even this could surely not be a sign for it to be cast away and forgotten about? Because even in sounding slightly different to the aforementioned successes, the signature vocals of Liam Gallagher, and the awesome guitar of elder brother Noel are still ever present.
Even though I am sitting here saying how the band do not seem to appreciate the album much at all, it does still gain recognition from other areas, as last year Q Magazine wrote a special report on the making of it, being the 10 year anniversary, and a collaboration of photographs taken whilst the album was being recorded and on the world tour that followed it being published in the book ‘Was There Then’, by Jill Furmanovsky. Which still begs question as to why the album that, of the 3 singles, 2 went to number one, when the only other single to do so beforehand was ‘Some Might Say’, is still not appreciated or recognised by the band themselves?
However, it could be argued that, while it did bring them more success, it was perhaps too much success. As beforehand, the band was still very much from the working class lifestyle of Manchester, and after the success of the first two albums, this hugely changed. Perhaps shown by the ironic artwork of the band all standing outside a rather large country house (an attack on the single of then rivals Blur?) with such frivolous items as an old gramophone, and a fancy car in a swimming pool, shows that maybe the band were reaping the benefits of fame, and maybe had the feeling, as many do now, that they no longer have many real issues to write about. Perhaps this can be why the band disregards it, as a way of trying to forget their own luxury?
Though on the other hand, one has to remember that, as it was the first album that I ever bought (the original copy I still own, and play, after 11 years, which don’t half make me feel old!) and I am prone to a certain degree of bias towards it! But that is beside the point; the main point of this argument is that, in my opinion, the band should still recognise and appreciate one of, although not quite the, better albums they have recorded.

Better to burn out than to fade away

Just to rid you of any suspicion, no, this is not about Neil Young, or indeed about the suicide note of Kurt Cobain, but more about the way that a lot of songs end. Perhaps one of the most annoying things about music, apart from some of the mindless rubbish in the form of X Factor, Razorlight, various 'R & B' artists, etc, is the way that a large amount of songs fade out at the end. My question is why?! Why must a song, that in some cases has been particularly fantastic all the way through, end on such an anti-climax?? It almost makes me think that they just could not be bothered to think of a way for the song to end, so thought 'I know, we'll play the main riff over and over rather than properly finish it!', which to me is rather a shame, not least because 2 of my favourite songs of all time, (New Order's 'Blue Monday' and 'Slide Away' by Oasis) both fade out at the end. Yeah fair enough they might say that, as said in the humourous 'Montage' song in Team America, 'if you fade out it seems like more time has passed', but thats not what I look for in a song, I would much rather have it end on a held note after the main chord progression has been played a couple of times than have it fade out with said progression continuously playing, that way it would at least be like the song has actually finished. I think the line, which I have used as the title of this particular thought process, sums it up best, so in the words of Neil Young, yes kids, Neil Young, listen to 'Hey Hey, My My'...or 'My My, Hey Hey' (there is a difference!) and you will see, I feel that, when it comes to a decent song, of any genre, be it pop, dance, rock, punk, anything, it really is better to burn out than to fade away.