Scrubs is a half-decent little TV show with an often surreal sense of humour, and I used to like it a lot.
At least, I used to like the first three or four seasons a lot, before it started to go abruptly downhill.
But now, a few episodes (mostly early ones) aside, I can't stand it. Why is that, you ask? Two characters.
Elliot Reed and John Dorian.
Let's start with Elliot. She is a giant slag.
No, really. She seems to have some kind of phony morality in the TV show, but she is a slag.
In the very first episode of the show, she sexually manipulates JD in order to get ahead, something she repeats in the fourth season to her own detriment. The show seems to think we should be rooting for her in this situation, but it's her own stupid fault.
In the third season, meanwhile, while in a long-distance relationship with Sean (who gets utterly screwed over by her once before as well, by the way, and doesn't deserve it either time) she sleeps with JD, before immediately hooking up with Sean again.
She then has the nerve to take the moral high ground on JD when he feels that, you know, having sex with him might have been a sign that she likes him or something like that.
Which brings us to JD. JD is an IDIOT. An unlikable, annoying, immature idiot who says stupid things, does horrible things to people and is generally a jerk.
It'd take me far too long to list them all here, but I may as well give a few examples.
He constantly says incredibly insulting things to people, usually his closest friends ("You're supposed to struggle, not me" to Elliot in series four).
He nails a widow AT HER HUSBAND'S FUNERAL. I don't care how long he was in a coma or how good an emotional state she claims to be in... HER HUSBAND JUST DIED. You could at least wait until you got home for goodness sake, because I'd say she may not be in the sanest state of mind.
He is so weak emotionally that he can't even break up with someone and so needy that he'll just cling onto anybody who throws him even a second glance.
With these two the focal point of the show - along with Turk, who to be fair I adore - I just can't stand to watch it any more. JD constantly makes the wrong decisions when it's so easy to see what he should do (and unlike in say, Peep Show, it's not entertaining) and Elliot is just a slag still.
So, forget you Scrubs.
30 December 2009
29 December 2009
Christmas songs
Christmas is my favourite time of year. For all the talk of higher rates of suicide and such, there is just a magical feel to Christmas for me no matter how commercialised it may get.
I'm sad it's now over - and also that I didn't get around to making this post before it took place.
One of the things that many people loathe more than anything else is the Christmas music.
In principle, I should loathe it too.
My ambition is to be a music journalist and I style myself as a connoisseur. And Christmas music is some of the worst of the worst, right?
Wrong.
There's a whole bunch of artists who I will only listen to at Christmas, and no matter how bad the songs may be, I love Christmas so much that I will listen to virtually any Christmas song when this time of year rolls around.
So in no particular order, here are some of what I think are some truly classic Christmas songs.
This is probably my favourite Christmas song. I never listen to Jethro Tull except for this song at Christmas. I adore it. It doesn't actually mention Christmas itself, to be fair, but it does mention the Winter Solstice and that's good enough for me. I actually get a lump in my throat every time I hear that opening flute.
Shakin' Stevens, another terrible, awful musician but with a Christmas song that I really can't argue with. Has a faintly bizarre video but the sentiment of the song is about as Christmassy as you can get.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUxxXIwGvK0
This one won't embed by request, but it's Proper Chrimbo by Avid Merrion. This song isn't just Christmassy by itself, but is also a very funny video for any number of reasons. My personal favourite is Bob Geldof shamelessly abusing Merrion and the both of them dropping their wine glasses on the floor.
Reuben are a band I miss a great deal, who made three great albums before splitting. Their third was a bit miserable and the videos a bit serious for my liking (mostly) so I was happy with this return to their style of madcap humour. The lyrics in this song sum up a Christmas, especially in Britain, so brilliantly. The best lyric is probably either 'look out for Mistletoe or I will kiss your face' or 'sorry about all of that "nailed to a cross" business.'
A lesser known one, this, I've never heard it played on TV or the radio. It starts off with the typical blink-182 toilet humour but then the closing refrain is fairly euphoric and emotional.
This version of 'Little Drummer Boy' is taken from an utterly bizarre Christmas special starring David Bowie and Bing Crosby which was aired after the latter's death. The pairing makes no sense, the song is odd and the whole thing is just baffling. Good tune, though.
I'm sad it's now over - and also that I didn't get around to making this post before it took place.
One of the things that many people loathe more than anything else is the Christmas music.
In principle, I should loathe it too.
My ambition is to be a music journalist and I style myself as a connoisseur. And Christmas music is some of the worst of the worst, right?
Wrong.
There's a whole bunch of artists who I will only listen to at Christmas, and no matter how bad the songs may be, I love Christmas so much that I will listen to virtually any Christmas song when this time of year rolls around.
So in no particular order, here are some of what I think are some truly classic Christmas songs.
This is probably my favourite Christmas song. I never listen to Jethro Tull except for this song at Christmas. I adore it. It doesn't actually mention Christmas itself, to be fair, but it does mention the Winter Solstice and that's good enough for me. I actually get a lump in my throat every time I hear that opening flute.
Shakin' Stevens, another terrible, awful musician but with a Christmas song that I really can't argue with. Has a faintly bizarre video but the sentiment of the song is about as Christmassy as you can get.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUxxXIwGvK0
This one won't embed by request, but it's Proper Chrimbo by Avid Merrion. This song isn't just Christmassy by itself, but is also a very funny video for any number of reasons. My personal favourite is Bob Geldof shamelessly abusing Merrion and the both of them dropping their wine glasses on the floor.
Reuben are a band I miss a great deal, who made three great albums before splitting. Their third was a bit miserable and the videos a bit serious for my liking (mostly) so I was happy with this return to their style of madcap humour. The lyrics in this song sum up a Christmas, especially in Britain, so brilliantly. The best lyric is probably either 'look out for Mistletoe or I will kiss your face' or 'sorry about all of that "nailed to a cross" business.'
A lesser known one, this, I've never heard it played on TV or the radio. It starts off with the typical blink-182 toilet humour but then the closing refrain is fairly euphoric and emotional.
This version of 'Little Drummer Boy' is taken from an utterly bizarre Christmas special starring David Bowie and Bing Crosby which was aired after the latter's death. The pairing makes no sense, the song is odd and the whole thing is just baffling. Good tune, though.
2 December 2009
Compilations, continued
Yes, artist compilations, be they b-sides, best ofs or greatest hits can often go awry.
Of course, sometimes a hits compilation is just what a group needs. Other times, even if the group doesn't need one, they can still turn out to be fantastic compilations.
One example of a compilation done right is The Who's Then And Now, which originally came out in 2004 but was updated in 2007 to include a song from their then-new album Endless Wire.
Like so many of the bands of the sixties and seventies, The Who had a bunch of non-album singles which were vital to understanding their progression yet never made it onto an album. Singles like 'I Can't Explain' or 'Magic Bus.'
As such, best-ofs are very useful for groups of that era. Then And Now was something like their seventh compilation, but the dangling carrot on it was the two new songs (one new song in the 2007 version) tacked on the end.
This is one time when the extra material was not simply a way of getting completists to buy it. There hadn't been a new Who song recorded since 1982 and the death of John Entwistle in 2002, so a new recording was big news.
What's more, these new recordings are pretty great. 'Old Red Wine' is a decent enough tune, but not one to write home about. 'Real Good Looking Boy,' however, is an epic, immaculately written and played song that well deserves its place in the Who's catalogue.
It also shows how wonderfully Roger Daltrey's voice has aged; he can't hit those high notes any more but his burly growl is a delight to hear again.
What's more, the rest of the album has all the hits, from the early mod stuff (which I hate) through their shaky middle period (like the one song I like from The Who Sell Out, 'I Can See For Miles') and up to their soaring AOR period on the three cuts from Who's Next, which is undoubtedly one of the finest albums ever made.
Another artist with a quality greatest hits is Robbie Williams. Although his musical background suggests someone who is undoubtedly a singles-only artist, he actually had some quality albums; nevertheless, his hits collection would be his defining statement, and it is that.
The selection of it is incredibly smart. It cuts a few of his lower charting singles, doesn't include his awful cover of George Michael's 'Freedom,' and nothing from his swing album.
It also includes two new songs; a lovely ballad called 'Misunderstood' and an honest-to-goodness electro track on 'Radio.'
Many people hate 'Radio' with a passion; I love it for how ridiculous and bad it is. I can't believe he had the guts to release it as a single. Can't fault the man for it...
Basically, compilations are impossible to quantify. Does the artist need it, or not? Will it be worth buying? Is new material a cash-in, or value for money?
Who knows?
I sure don't.
Of course, sometimes a hits compilation is just what a group needs. Other times, even if the group doesn't need one, they can still turn out to be fantastic compilations.
One example of a compilation done right is The Who's Then And Now, which originally came out in 2004 but was updated in 2007 to include a song from their then-new album Endless Wire.
Like so many of the bands of the sixties and seventies, The Who had a bunch of non-album singles which were vital to understanding their progression yet never made it onto an album. Singles like 'I Can't Explain' or 'Magic Bus.'
As such, best-ofs are very useful for groups of that era. Then And Now was something like their seventh compilation, but the dangling carrot on it was the two new songs (one new song in the 2007 version) tacked on the end.
This is one time when the extra material was not simply a way of getting completists to buy it. There hadn't been a new Who song recorded since 1982 and the death of John Entwistle in 2002, so a new recording was big news.
What's more, these new recordings are pretty great. 'Old Red Wine' is a decent enough tune, but not one to write home about. 'Real Good Looking Boy,' however, is an epic, immaculately written and played song that well deserves its place in the Who's catalogue.
It also shows how wonderfully Roger Daltrey's voice has aged; he can't hit those high notes any more but his burly growl is a delight to hear again.
What's more, the rest of the album has all the hits, from the early mod stuff (which I hate) through their shaky middle period (like the one song I like from The Who Sell Out, 'I Can See For Miles') and up to their soaring AOR period on the three cuts from Who's Next, which is undoubtedly one of the finest albums ever made.
Another artist with a quality greatest hits is Robbie Williams. Although his musical background suggests someone who is undoubtedly a singles-only artist, he actually had some quality albums; nevertheless, his hits collection would be his defining statement, and it is that.
The selection of it is incredibly smart. It cuts a few of his lower charting singles, doesn't include his awful cover of George Michael's 'Freedom,' and nothing from his swing album.
It also includes two new songs; a lovely ballad called 'Misunderstood' and an honest-to-goodness electro track on 'Radio.'
Many people hate 'Radio' with a passion; I love it for how ridiculous and bad it is. I can't believe he had the guts to release it as a single. Can't fault the man for it...
Basically, compilations are impossible to quantify. Does the artist need it, or not? Will it be worth buying? Is new material a cash-in, or value for money?
Who knows?
I sure don't.
29 November 2009
Left 4 Deads volumes 1 and 2.
I'm going to take a break from our usual programming (i.e. the continuation of my previous post) to talk about something else.Left 4 Dead.
Oh, and Left 4 Dead 2.
Something which a lot of television pundits will never truly understand unless they do it themselves is the joy of playing a computer game with a bunch of your mates.
It doesn't have to be challenging, it can just be fun. And possibly the most fun I've ever had playing a computer game is playing Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2.
For the uninitiated, here's some explanation of the games.
The only horror movie to ever genuinely frighten me - and I don't mean stupid jump scares that a fluffy kitten could do if timed correctly - was 28 Days Later, and as such it is one of my favourite films.
Based around a rabies-like pandemic that makes people act like monstrous animals, attacking and pummeling each other to death (of course, a bite makes you become one of them), it's probably the greatest zombie movie that George A. Romero didn't make.
Left 4 Dead is basically like playing that film, and it's magnificent.
As described by Zero Punctuation, there's not much storyline; basically that pandemic has infected a lot of people and the last four - the '4' in the title - have to fight their way through thousands of infected in order to escape.
That's it. No fannying around, no nonsense. Just shoot zombies, lots of zombies, until the zombies run out and/or you get away.
And it is a quite preposterous amount of fun.
It's not all ordinary zombies of course. There's the smoker, who grabs you and pulls you close; there's the boomer, who attracts other zombies to you and blinds you; there's the hunter, you pounces on you and rips you to shreds; the tank, who is tough as hell; and the witch, who just sits crying to herself unless you startle her and then all hell breaks loose.Played with three mates in a darkened room, Left 4 Dead is an often terrifying and overall brilliant game and I honestly couldn't have thought of a way to improve it.
But they only went and bloomin' well did it with Left 4 Dead 2.
Released only something stupid like six months after the original, it's taken everything great about Left 4 Dead and poured chocolate on it.
Possibly the greatest addition is that of melee weapons. With ridiculous comic props like guitars and saucepans to hand, you'd be stupid to not choose the chainsaw, which you just set running and then watch the zombies run into it and fall to bits. It's glorious.
There are also new special zombies; the spitter which has corrosive bile; the charger, which is like a budget version of the Tank; and the jockey, which takes control of you and makes you run around like a loon.
The graphics are better, the weapons are better, the environments are more varied and interesting, and the level on which you wander around a corn farm swarming with witches in a torrential downpour is possibly the scariest thing I've ever seen in a game.
They may not be original, or clever; but the Left 4 Dead games are just outright fun the way a game is supposed to be.
Buy them.
BUY THEM NOW.
26 November 2009
25 November 2009
The pitfalls of artist compilations
Artist compilations are one of the notorious pitfalls of the music business.
There's a never-ending list of questions that come up before the album is listened to or even released. What's the motivation, commercial or artistic?
Should an artist release a greatest hits or best of when they're still together?
And most of all - what should you include, and what shouldn't you?
To try and figure this out, let's take a look at some of the good and bad best ofs, and some of the ones in between.
Let's start off with a band I've touched upon in a previous blog - Nirvana, fronted by everyone's favourite shotgun enthusiast.
Nirvana are a band who'd suit a compilation. So many of their essential songs are b-sides, offcuts or one-off singles on Sub Pop, but 2002's Nirvana compilation was pretty pathetic.
At less than an hour long, the compilation doesn't even make the best use of its space - but the little space it does use is filled with inessential songs.
It also has unreleased song 'You Know You're Right,' which makes it essential for hardcore fans (sigh). It's a very good song but not really worth the asking price alone.
A much better Nirvana compilation could be stitched together by anyone with a passing knowledge of their catalogue - namely me. And even I wouldn't be stupid enought to omit 'Aneurysm' but still put 'Rape Me' on it.
Who else has managed to epically fail at the compilation?
What's that, another band I've already mentioned?
Yes, the Panic Fleet Teachers.
I really must stop making jokes that only I will find remotely funny.
Yes, Manic Street Preachers, after running out of creative juices in 2001 decided to put out a compilation in 2002 called Forever Delayed. (The creative juices must have reeeeally run dry considering the debacle of an album that followed).
Now on song-strength alone, Forever Delayed is predominantly brilliant. What's more, it mops up a couple of single-only releases, 'Motown Junk' and 'The Masses Against The Classes' which were well worth including on an album somewhere.
But it's also an example of what can go terribly wrong with such releases.
It has two new songs tacked onto it. I've noticed a pattern when it comes to having two new songs on your compilation; if you have one song, it might be alright.
If you have two, then one will be great, the other will suck. REM's 2003 compilation In Time had that problem ('Bad Day' was great, 'Animal' was not) and so does this one.
'There By The Grace Of God' is an elegaic, wistful number with a beautiful guitar figure. 'Door To The River' is so forgettable that I might just forget that I'm writing this sen-...
The rest of the album is apparently the bizarre result of committee thinking. Four cuts are taken from 1996's magnificent masterpice Everything Must Go. But only one song is taken from the brilliant, if disturbing, Holy Bible.
How does that work?
There is no fathomable reason for the tracklisting. It doesn't play like a live gig. It's not chronological, and it doesn't have only the big hits (just look at where they charted in the liner notes). And it doesn't seem to consist of band favourites or fan favourites, otherwise as already stated there'd be more Holy Bible.
We end up with room for 'Tsunami,' but no room for 'Ifwhiteamericatoldthetruthforonedayitsworldwouldfallapart?'
Join us next week (or whenever else I bother to write another blog) to find out some of the better artist compilations that've been released.
There's a never-ending list of questions that come up before the album is listened to or even released. What's the motivation, commercial or artistic?
Should an artist release a greatest hits or best of when they're still together?
And most of all - what should you include, and what shouldn't you?
To try and figure this out, let's take a look at some of the good and bad best ofs, and some of the ones in between.
Let's start off with a band I've touched upon in a previous blog - Nirvana, fronted by everyone's favourite shotgun enthusiast.Nirvana are a band who'd suit a compilation. So many of their essential songs are b-sides, offcuts or one-off singles on Sub Pop, but 2002's Nirvana compilation was pretty pathetic.
At less than an hour long, the compilation doesn't even make the best use of its space - but the little space it does use is filled with inessential songs.
It also has unreleased song 'You Know You're Right,' which makes it essential for hardcore fans (sigh). It's a very good song but not really worth the asking price alone.
A much better Nirvana compilation could be stitched together by anyone with a passing knowledge of their catalogue - namely me. And even I wouldn't be stupid enought to omit 'Aneurysm' but still put 'Rape Me' on it.
Who else has managed to epically fail at the compilation?
What's that, another band I've already mentioned?
Yes, the Panic Fleet Teachers.
I really must stop making jokes that only I will find remotely funny.
Yes, Manic Street Preachers, after running out of creative juices in 2001 decided to put out a compilation in 2002 called Forever Delayed. (The creative juices must have reeeeally run dry considering the debacle of an album that followed).
Now on song-strength alone, Forever Delayed is predominantly brilliant. What's more, it mops up a couple of single-only releases, 'Motown Junk' and 'The Masses Against The Classes' which were well worth including on an album somewhere.
But it's also an example of what can go terribly wrong with such releases.
It has two new songs tacked onto it. I've noticed a pattern when it comes to having two new songs on your compilation; if you have one song, it might be alright.
If you have two, then one will be great, the other will suck. REM's 2003 compilation In Time had that problem ('Bad Day' was great, 'Animal' was not) and so does this one.
'There By The Grace Of God' is an elegaic, wistful number with a beautiful guitar figure. 'Door To The River' is so forgettable that I might just forget that I'm writing this sen-...
The rest of the album is apparently the bizarre result of committee thinking. Four cuts are taken from 1996's magnificent masterpice Everything Must Go. But only one song is taken from the brilliant, if disturbing, Holy Bible.
How does that work?
There is no fathomable reason for the tracklisting. It doesn't play like a live gig. It's not chronological, and it doesn't have only the big hits (just look at where they charted in the liner notes). And it doesn't seem to consist of band favourites or fan favourites, otherwise as already stated there'd be more Holy Bible.
We end up with room for 'Tsunami,' but no room for 'Ifwhiteamericatoldthetruthforonedayitsworldwouldfallapart?'
Join us next week (or whenever else I bother to write another blog) to find out some of the better artist compilations that've been released.
24 November 2009
Vox pop horror horror, vox pop horror
As a journalism student, one of the things I dread the most is the vox pop.Vox pop, or vox populi, translates from Latin as the 'voice of the people.'
I am not known for my passion for the opinions of John Everyman and I take great amusement from the comedy blog spEak You're bRanes, a delightful satirical commentary on the comments left on online news.
What's more, the title is (I presume) a reference to the even funnier (and even more satirical) Speak Your Brains segment from The Day Today.
Ordinarily I would link directly to a video above, but seeing as I know Chris Mayer will love to see it again I'm going to embed an example instead so you can't help but see it.
So as someone who generally couldn't care less about public opinion - after all, S Club got to number one, didn't they? - I'm not exactly suited to requesting it.
But that's the least of one's troubles when vox-popping.
First of all you have a lot of legal issues. You can't usually do it indoors, for example, because even places like shopping centres are usually private property and you tend to get moved along.
Secondly, being outside is hell for audio quality. You get wind, you get cars going past to overlap people, it's a nightmare.
Thirdly, if people don't want to talk to you, they can be anything from friendly to perfunctory to flat-out rude.
But the worst part of it for me - other than, as a friend of mine helpfully pointed out, having to do it - is that I feel their pain.
If I see someone on the street with that hopeful look on their face like they're going to try and talk to me, the majority of the time I ignore them. I try to be as polite as I can about it, but the majority of the time I just don't care or it's some annoying sales pitch. Usually I just keep walking.
That's right. If I was trying to vox-pop myself, I wouldn't talk to me, so how can I expect others to?
Nevertheless, vox-pops are the bane of a young journalist, so I can expect to be doing a lot more of them.
Oh well. At least no-one's punched me in the face yet.
Photo from flickr courtesy of Will-Joel-Taylor
22 November 2009
Film classifications are stupid
When I was a kid, film classifications made sense, and they didn't give you the kid-glove treatment.You were just expected to know what a rating meant. A U was for kids, a PG might be a bit iffy for some younger kids, and 12s, 15s and 18s were just obvious.
But these days, you get three paragraphs of blurb with every film certification. The first memory I have of this was for the first Lord Of The Rings film, which was 'Rated PG: May not be suitable for under 8s.'
That's just about acceptable because it makes sense to warn about how old a child should be before seeing something rated PG unaccompanied.
But lately, it's getting ridiculous. Take Finding Nemo.
The box for Finding Nemo, a U-rated film, states that the film contains 'mild peril.'
Mild peril.
How impossibly nervous a child must you have to require warning over mild peril? The film is a U for goodness' sake, how bad can it be?
Even stupider was the introduction of the 12A rating around the time The Bourne Identity came out. A 12A was a film in which, if accompanied by an adult, a child under 12 can go see it.
Isn't that basically a more-officially legislated PG? So what's the point?
Despite the thesis-length explanations on the back of our DVDs, however, our film certification will never be as stupid as America's, which is in part hampered by its relentlessly conservative outlook on things.
First, a little bit of background. In America, censorship makes no sense. If you're on at the right time of night, on the right network, with the right censors, you can swear up a storm and probably shoot your own baby in the face without any problems.
But show a bit of boob for less than a second, a boob on which the nipple was covered anyway, and you will experience a world of pain.
This means that while you can say the c-word and show totally naked men and women on British TV on virtually any channel after 9pm, in America even in films you hardly see any of that.
So to the certifications of American films. You have G-rated movies, which anyone can watch. PG is the same as ours, basically.
Then there's PG-13 which means anyone can see it as long as those under 13 are accompanied by an adult.
But then, there's R-rated, which means people 17 and over can see it... and anyone under that age can see it if they're with a guardian. How impossibly stupid is that?
And God help you if you have a film rated higher than an R, because if it is, no one will see it.
Seriously. Thousands of cinemas across America simply won't show your film if it's rated NC-17.
Simply preposterous.
So yeah. A random, shapeless, gibbering rant for your delectation.
(Photos from flickr courtesy of j-fin and phil d)
20 November 2009
When did rap lose its bass?
I am possibly the whitest man you'll ever meet. 
Well, except one.
And being a white, suburban-bred male that means I'm obviously into rap music.
As ridiculous and stereotypical as that is, I have a genuine appreciation for the poetry of rap and genius of its sampling.
So let me ask you; when did rap lose its bass frequencies?
The hip-hop I love is predominantly late eighties, early nineties kind of stuff.
I'm talking NWA.
I'm talking The Notorious B.I.G.
And most of all, I am talking about André Young, known to me as, your friend and mine, Dr. Dre.
Actually I'm much more of a fan of Biggie. But as far as bass frequencies go, Dr. Dre is what you're after.
Hip-hop was all about the bassline and the beat. Something that'll pound your chest in the clubs and make you want to dance.
Possibly the greatest rap beat I've ever heard is from Dre's first solo album, The Chronic, which has a drumbeat so heavy that it's actually sampled from Led Zeppelin.
If you have the ability, crank the bass up on your speakers a bit and feel how hard that beat hits.
Now let's take a look at some modern hip-hop, shall we? Even Dizzee Rascal has managed a bit of big beat in his time on 'Fix Up, Look Sharp,' but how about the more acclaimed modern hip-hop acts.
Let's say, oh I don't know, Chipmunk.
That is TERRIBLE. And in fact, that's not the worst that's out there. Most snare drums in modern hip-hop sound more like someone cracking their knuckles than they do a beat.
I place most of the blame for this squarely at the door of Timbaland, who has made everything he's involved with sound exactly the same.
Come on people. Bring back the bass frequency in hip-hop.
Well, except one.
And being a white, suburban-bred male that means I'm obviously into rap music.
As ridiculous and stereotypical as that is, I have a genuine appreciation for the poetry of rap and genius of its sampling.
So let me ask you; when did rap lose its bass frequencies?
The hip-hop I love is predominantly late eighties, early nineties kind of stuff.
I'm talking NWA.
I'm talking The Notorious B.I.G.
And most of all, I am talking about André Young, known to me as, your friend and mine, Dr. Dre.
Actually I'm much more of a fan of Biggie. But as far as bass frequencies go, Dr. Dre is what you're after.
Hip-hop was all about the bassline and the beat. Something that'll pound your chest in the clubs and make you want to dance.
Possibly the greatest rap beat I've ever heard is from Dre's first solo album, The Chronic, which has a drumbeat so heavy that it's actually sampled from Led Zeppelin.
If you have the ability, crank the bass up on your speakers a bit and feel how hard that beat hits.
Now let's take a look at some modern hip-hop, shall we? Even Dizzee Rascal has managed a bit of big beat in his time on 'Fix Up, Look Sharp,' but how about the more acclaimed modern hip-hop acts.
Let's say, oh I don't know, Chipmunk.
That is TERRIBLE. And in fact, that's not the worst that's out there. Most snare drums in modern hip-hop sound more like someone cracking their knuckles than they do a beat.
I place most of the blame for this squarely at the door of Timbaland, who has made everything he's involved with sound exactly the same.
Come on people. Bring back the bass frequency in hip-hop.
15 November 2009
1001 albums, concluded
The last album I want to talk about from the 1001 albums series is Manic Street Preachers' Everything Must Go.With lyricist and anti-guitarist Richey Edwards disappeared and presumed dead in 1995, it all seemed finished for the Manics.
Instead, they regrouped as a trio, wrote the greatest song in history (as far as I'm concerned) and created the rock masterpiece that is Everything Must Go.
For the most part, there's nothing fancy about Everything Must Go. In an interview with Q magazine this year, vocalist/guitarist James Dean Bradfield said that 'there are times when I just want to write a good f**king tune,' and he's done just that twelve times here.
The majority of the album is hard-rocking songs played with pride, and sung with the most ridiculous amount of passion you'll ever hear.
But there are subtle undertones and elements you wouldn't expect. The aforementioned 'A Design For Life,' along with other cuts like the magnificent title track, are accompanied by sweeping strings.
The song which best illustrates how unique the Manics are, however, is opener 'Elvis Impersonator: Blackpool Pier.'
Apart from anything else, opening an album that's predominantly fast-paced with the sound of the ocean and a strummed acoustic guitar is an interesting move. But it's the lyrics which are extraordinary, detailing the suicidal contemplations of the titular Elvis Impersonator.
No other band could come up with that kind of image, few other bands would begin an album with a punt out of left field like that.
Everything Must Go may not reinvent the wheel much, but it's simply a classic album without a single song that needs cutting.
14 November 2009
1001 albums, continued
In my last blog, I discussed Iggy Pop's The Idiot.
This time round, I want to discuss Nirvana's In Utero.
I could write a whole other blog entry about Nirvana in general, but In Utero is a fascinating album in and of itself.
Nevermind, as heavy as it was on songs like 'Stay Away' or 'Breed,' had a production that the band weren't happy with, and they enlisted famous Pixies producer Steve Albini.
Trapped by fatherhood and mired in a heroin-enabling relationship with Courtney Love - both of which I'm sure made him very happy at times as well - Kurt Cobain struggled to reconcile his punk ethics with the millions of records Nevermind sold (referenced in the excellent 'Radio Friendly Unit Shifter').
The result is an extraordinary record, a howl into the abyss that was Cobain's life at that point.
On my first few listens, I didn't really see a great deal of difference between the two albums. But when I listened to them back to back, I realised that if the most commercial song and lead single on your album is 'Heart Shaped Box' maybe this isn't as much of a pop record.
The lacerating, metallic riffs on this album are set to wilfully sardonic lyrics from Cobain, claiming on 'Scentless Apprentice' that 'you can't fire me 'cause I quit.'
Indeed, the very opening line of the album is 'teenage angst has paid off well, now I'm bored and old.'
But oddly, alongside these blasts of glorious noise are understated, possibly even bluesy tunes like 'Dumb,' 'Pennyroyal Tea' or the highlight of their MTV Unplugged setlist, 'All Apologies'.
All in all, Nevermind may be the poppier album, but it's by no means the better one. In Utero is a bruising, jagged but at times serene ride - and by far the better album.
This time round, I want to discuss Nirvana's In Utero.
I could write a whole other blog entry about Nirvana in general, but In Utero is a fascinating album in and of itself.
Nevermind, as heavy as it was on songs like 'Stay Away' or 'Breed,' had a production that the band weren't happy with, and they enlisted famous Pixies producer Steve Albini.Trapped by fatherhood and mired in a heroin-enabling relationship with Courtney Love - both of which I'm sure made him very happy at times as well - Kurt Cobain struggled to reconcile his punk ethics with the millions of records Nevermind sold (referenced in the excellent 'Radio Friendly Unit Shifter').
The result is an extraordinary record, a howl into the abyss that was Cobain's life at that point.
On my first few listens, I didn't really see a great deal of difference between the two albums. But when I listened to them back to back, I realised that if the most commercial song and lead single on your album is 'Heart Shaped Box' maybe this isn't as much of a pop record.The lacerating, metallic riffs on this album are set to wilfully sardonic lyrics from Cobain, claiming on 'Scentless Apprentice' that 'you can't fire me 'cause I quit.'
Indeed, the very opening line of the album is 'teenage angst has paid off well, now I'm bored and old.'
But oddly, alongside these blasts of glorious noise are understated, possibly even bluesy tunes like 'Dumb,' 'Pennyroyal Tea' or the highlight of their MTV Unplugged setlist, 'All Apologies'.
All in all, Nevermind may be the poppier album, but it's by no means the better one. In Utero is a bruising, jagged but at times serene ride - and by far the better album.
13 November 2009
Images skills test
The National Football Museum, which has been in Preston since its founding in 2001, is reportedly to be moved to Manchester, much to the chagrin of local football nuts.
With one of Preston's precious few landmarks soon to relocate, I thought for the image skills test I'd take advantage of the opportunity to take some photos of it while I still can.
Firstly, here it is in a 100x100 pixel thumbnail.
Next, here it is in a 200x500 strip.
Then, a 400x300 version.
Finally, the original image in all its glory.
With one of Preston's precious few landmarks soon to relocate, I thought for the image skills test I'd take advantage of the opportunity to take some photos of it while I still can.
Firstly, here it is in a 100x100 pixel thumbnail.
Next, here it is in a 200x500 strip.
Then, a 400x300 version.
Finally, the original image in all its glory.
12 November 2009
1001 albums you must listen to before you die
In a recent HMV sale I acquired the book 1001 albums you must hear before you die, 2007 edition.
The title is at it indicates, really - albums you should hear to consider yourself musically educated.
Sequenced chronologically, it's not, as many people think, a list of the greatest albums ever. It is simply a list of albums that are interesting, fascinating, or influential.
In some cases, they're just notable; and in the case of The Circle Jerks' Group Sex album the whole record is only fifteen mintues long.
I counted, and in total I'd heard 156 of the 1001 in there. I'm pretty happy with that, and since that count I've gone up to 164 through purchases of records I was interested in hearing, so I thought I'd air some of my thoughts relating to that. I'm not going to cover all eight of the new albums I've bought, just a couple of them.
First of all, Iggy Pop's The Idiot, from 1977.
Iggy Pop is one of rock 'n' roll's foremost nutters. He's known for whipping his genitalia out on television, cutting himself onstage and doing enough drugs to make Keith Richards blush. He usually sounds something like this.
On The Idiot, he sounds like he's fronting Joy Division (and oddly enough, this was the record spinning on Ian Curtis' turntable when he was found dead).
It's insane. Industrial beats, multi-tracked vocals and guitars that slither from speaker to speaker sinuously. It's nothing like Iggy had ever sounded before, and never would sound quite like this again.
I'll cover more of them in the coming days. In the meantime, if you like Iggy or Joy Division and haven't heard this yet, you need to!
The title is at it indicates, really - albums you should hear to consider yourself musically educated.
Sequenced chronologically, it's not, as many people think, a list of the greatest albums ever. It is simply a list of albums that are interesting, fascinating, or influential.
In some cases, they're just notable; and in the case of The Circle Jerks' Group Sex album the whole record is only fifteen mintues long.
I counted, and in total I'd heard 156 of the 1001 in there. I'm pretty happy with that, and since that count I've gone up to 164 through purchases of records I was interested in hearing, so I thought I'd air some of my thoughts relating to that. I'm not going to cover all eight of the new albums I've bought, just a couple of them.
First of all, Iggy Pop's The Idiot, from 1977.
Iggy Pop is one of rock 'n' roll's foremost nutters. He's known for whipping his genitalia out on television, cutting himself onstage and doing enough drugs to make Keith Richards blush. He usually sounds something like this.
On The Idiot, he sounds like he's fronting Joy Division (and oddly enough, this was the record spinning on Ian Curtis' turntable when he was found dead).
It's insane. Industrial beats, multi-tracked vocals and guitars that slither from speaker to speaker sinuously. It's nothing like Iggy had ever sounded before, and never would sound quite like this again.
I'll cover more of them in the coming days. In the meantime, if you like Iggy or Joy Division and haven't heard this yet, you need to!
2 November 2009
30 October 2009
Skills test II
View Four Preston news stories in a larger map
This custom Google Map shows four news stories from the 29th October edition of the Lancashire Evening Post. Each icon gives some insight to the story and there are brief explanatory captions, as well as links to the original story and one related link.
29 October 2009
Death toll in Afghanistan still rising.
The number of British soldiers dying in Afghanistan per year is continuing to escalate according to figures released by the Ministry of Defence.
Conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq have raged on since 2001, yet despite the death toll in Iraq plummeting, Afghanistan’s continues to rise.
Whilst the figures released by the MOD only go up to July, 2009 is already the bloodiest of the war so far.
Afghanistan was invaded in 2001 as a response to 9/11 in a relatively bloodless campaign until 2006. A staggering 85 soldiers killed there this year, almost half of the 222 dead as a result of the whole conflict so far.
This compares unfavourably with the war in Iraq, which began in 2003, with that year its peak of violence. A total of 179 British soldiers have been killed there since, only one of which was this year.
Guardian data store: http://www.guardian.co.uk/data-store
MOD figures: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/17/afghanistan-casualties-dead-wounded-british-data
Conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq have raged on since 2001, yet despite the death toll in Iraq plummeting, Afghanistan’s continues to rise.
Whilst the figures released by the MOD only go up to July, 2009 is already the bloodiest of the war so far.
Afghanistan was invaded in 2001 as a response to 9/11 in a relatively bloodless campaign until 2006. A staggering 85 soldiers killed there this year, almost half of the 222 dead as a result of the whole conflict so far.
This compares unfavourably with the war in Iraq, which began in 2003, with that year its peak of violence. A total of 179 British soldiers have been killed there since, only one of which was this year.
Guardian data store: http://www.guardian.co.uk/data-store
MOD figures: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/17/afghanistan-casualties-dead-wounded-british-data
24 October 2009
Question Time? Target practice.
I'm sure that anyone who reads this blog will have seen Question Time, starring none other than our very own Nick Griffin.
Nick Griffin, that is, the leader of the BNP.
What an utterly pointless exercise this was.
This programme was a farce, an utter farce.
I am no fan of the British National Party. My fiancée is Asian, and I used to be so far left that I nearly voted for the Socialists.
But putting Nick Griffin in the figurative stocks and pounding him with sponges (well, questions) is going to achieve absolutely nothing. In fact, it's counter-productive.
Nick Griffin is a politician, and like any politician he will bend the truth and he will answer questions indirectly. These are two things it would appear that he did frequently on Question Time, but they're also things that other people on the same programme seem to have been doing, for as long as it has existed.
Making Griffin a target for a crowd of people is not only exactly what he wants, seeing as you attract attention to him, but it makes him sympathetic. This is the last thing we want to do if we want to stop him from gaining even more power by the next general election.
There have been discussions on the uni campus before about how if there's an association of BNP supporting students, they shouldn't be allowed to meet together in a uni building.
Of course they should be allowed, they have the right to have those viewpoints, as reprehensible as so many of us find it.
But the stupidest thing is, putting him on the programme with such a wide audience gives Griffin the opportunity to actually make some decent points.
The Qu'ran really does say some of that awful stuff in it. The Bible says some equally ridiculous stuff in it too, such as that when a woman is on her period she should stay indoors and sit on a silk pillow, not allowed to touch anyone or anything.
The BNP shouldn't be given this kind of platform. But they have the right to it. And if they didn't have that right, we'd live in far worse a country than we do right now.
A member of the Welsh Parliament (or a Welsh member of Parliament, I forget which) described this programme as an early Christmas present for the BNP, and that's just what it is.
Nick Griffin, that is, the leader of the BNP.
What an utterly pointless exercise this was.
This programme was a farce, an utter farce.
I am no fan of the British National Party. My fiancée is Asian, and I used to be so far left that I nearly voted for the Socialists.
But putting Nick Griffin in the figurative stocks and pounding him with sponges (well, questions) is going to achieve absolutely nothing. In fact, it's counter-productive.
Nick Griffin is a politician, and like any politician he will bend the truth and he will answer questions indirectly. These are two things it would appear that he did frequently on Question Time, but they're also things that other people on the same programme seem to have been doing, for as long as it has existed.
Making Griffin a target for a crowd of people is not only exactly what he wants, seeing as you attract attention to him, but it makes him sympathetic. This is the last thing we want to do if we want to stop him from gaining even more power by the next general election.
There have been discussions on the uni campus before about how if there's an association of BNP supporting students, they shouldn't be allowed to meet together in a uni building.
Of course they should be allowed, they have the right to have those viewpoints, as reprehensible as so many of us find it.
But the stupidest thing is, putting him on the programme with such a wide audience gives Griffin the opportunity to actually make some decent points.
The Qu'ran really does say some of that awful stuff in it. The Bible says some equally ridiculous stuff in it too, such as that when a woman is on her period she should stay indoors and sit on a silk pillow, not allowed to touch anyone or anything.
The BNP shouldn't be given this kind of platform. But they have the right to it. And if they didn't have that right, we'd live in far worse a country than we do right now.
A member of the Welsh Parliament (or a Welsh member of Parliament, I forget which) described this programme as an early Christmas present for the BNP, and that's just what it is.
16 October 2009
Leggings.
Sorry, Olivia, but...
Fashion is stupid.
Fashions as far back as... forever, have been stupid. People will do anything to be in style, and this has led to some utterly idiotic trends in the past.
Look no farther than any 1980s music video, each one a horrifying collision of asymmetrical haircuts, neon and chain-link fences, to see my point.
There was a period where I thought that our generation had squeaked by without too many hideously embarassing trends to look back on in a few years.
But then emo happened.
(No, not emo, emo!).
But no, as if floppy fringes and idiotically tight skinny jeans weren't enough, this year's dumb fashion choice du jour is... leggings.
Leggings.
That is to say, tights, but a bit thicker.
Everywhere you look now, people are wearing leggings and thinking that constitutes being fully dressed from the waist down.
And not just scandalously short dresses and leggings, either. I'm starting to see people wearing cardigans and leggings and thinking this means they're decent.
How is this possible? Leggings leave exactly nothing to the imagination. It's ridiculous.
I hesitate to use the phrase which properly describes it, but let's just say we're seeing a lot of outlines to things we shouldn't be seeing without at least paying for dinner first.
Honestly, I feel embarassed being near people wearing them. I seriously feel like I should avert my eyes the entire time.
It's like being shoved into the girls' locker room against your will, all the time.
So come on girls. Show some class. Leggings are not trousers, they are leggings. You're supposed to wear something over them.
Fashion is stupid.
Fashions as far back as... forever, have been stupid. People will do anything to be in style, and this has led to some utterly idiotic trends in the past.
Look no farther than any 1980s music video, each one a horrifying collision of asymmetrical haircuts, neon and chain-link fences, to see my point.
There was a period where I thought that our generation had squeaked by without too many hideously embarassing trends to look back on in a few years.
But then emo happened.
(No, not emo, emo!).
But no, as if floppy fringes and idiotically tight skinny jeans weren't enough, this year's dumb fashion choice du jour is... leggings.
Leggings.
That is to say, tights, but a bit thicker.
Everywhere you look now, people are wearing leggings and thinking that constitutes being fully dressed from the waist down.
And not just scandalously short dresses and leggings, either. I'm starting to see people wearing cardigans and leggings and thinking this means they're decent.
How is this possible? Leggings leave exactly nothing to the imagination. It's ridiculous.
I hesitate to use the phrase which properly describes it, but let's just say we're seeing a lot of outlines to things we shouldn't be seeing without at least paying for dinner first.
Honestly, I feel embarassed being near people wearing them. I seriously feel like I should avert my eyes the entire time.
It's like being shoved into the girls' locker room against your will, all the time.
So come on girls. Show some class. Leggings are not trousers, they are leggings. You're supposed to wear something over them.
13 October 2009
Faking it in journalism
Not twenty minutes ago, my Print Journalism Practice lecture was completed. The lecture constituted a list of invaluable tips for interviewing as a journalist, such as checking the facts and doing your homework ahead of time.
On the way home, I discussed with everyone's favourite Cambridge native some of the things that weren't mentioned in the lecture that might be useful.
As a music journalist myself, I had one big tip - contextualise what you're doing.
My somewhat cynical tip I've given to other music journos before is that our job is 50% knowing what you're talking about and 50% pretending that you do. But I think maybe that's more accurate than I'd otherwise like to admit.
Yesterday on our way to another lecture, an amusing argument broke out amongst my friends and I over whether Trivium sound like Megadeth.
I am no fan of either band. I listen to plenty of Metallica - though not enough to call myself a fan, my favourite song is 'Mama Said' after all - but never Megadeth. And Trivium I just hated from the few notes of their music I had heard.
However, through my hours of background reading online and in press releases, I know enough about both bands to distinguish between the two without even knowing their music.
Megadeth are icons of thrash, probably second only behind Metallica themselves. They've been around since the 1980s and they still sell respectable amounts of records.
Trivium have existed for about a week and a half, aren't particularly acclaimed and are infamous among most 'real' metal fans for sounding like a rubbish version of Metallica.
I'm not about to kick at Trivium here, nor am I going to defend them, because whether or not the above statement is true is irrelevant. The point is, public opinion is against them.
If I was to write a biography of them in ten years time, the early chapters would involve discussion of how much 'real' metal fans hated them alot of the time.
Megadeth are hugely respected, Trivium are not; Megadeth are original, Trivium are not. They may have some similarities in sound at a basic level - and to the untrained ear - but they are by no means the same group.
Now this may all seem a bit roundabout, but it illustrates my point pretty well. I could contribute to this argument - and indeed write a blog post - despite having virtually no knowledge of either group.
Knowing historical context is vital in music, and not knowing it can make you easily look like an idiot. This is something even mainstream news sources and papers get wrong - such as when E! news managed to refer to Nirvana's Nevermind as their debut album.
So there you have it. My big tip for music - or at least, creative media - journalists; know what you're talking about even if you don't know what you're talking about.
On the way home, I discussed with everyone's favourite Cambridge native some of the things that weren't mentioned in the lecture that might be useful.
As a music journalist myself, I had one big tip - contextualise what you're doing.
My somewhat cynical tip I've given to other music journos before is that our job is 50% knowing what you're talking about and 50% pretending that you do. But I think maybe that's more accurate than I'd otherwise like to admit.
Yesterday on our way to another lecture, an amusing argument broke out amongst my friends and I over whether Trivium sound like Megadeth.
I am no fan of either band. I listen to plenty of Metallica - though not enough to call myself a fan, my favourite song is 'Mama Said' after all - but never Megadeth. And Trivium I just hated from the few notes of their music I had heard.
However, through my hours of background reading online and in press releases, I know enough about both bands to distinguish between the two without even knowing their music.
Megadeth are icons of thrash, probably second only behind Metallica themselves. They've been around since the 1980s and they still sell respectable amounts of records.
Trivium have existed for about a week and a half, aren't particularly acclaimed and are infamous among most 'real' metal fans for sounding like a rubbish version of Metallica.
I'm not about to kick at Trivium here, nor am I going to defend them, because whether or not the above statement is true is irrelevant. The point is, public opinion is against them.
If I was to write a biography of them in ten years time, the early chapters would involve discussion of how much 'real' metal fans hated them alot of the time.
Megadeth are hugely respected, Trivium are not; Megadeth are original, Trivium are not. They may have some similarities in sound at a basic level - and to the untrained ear - but they are by no means the same group.
Now this may all seem a bit roundabout, but it illustrates my point pretty well. I could contribute to this argument - and indeed write a blog post - despite having virtually no knowledge of either group.
Knowing historical context is vital in music, and not knowing it can make you easily look like an idiot. This is something even mainstream news sources and papers get wrong - such as when E! news managed to refer to Nirvana's Nevermind as their debut album.
So there you have it. My big tip for music - or at least, creative media - journalists; know what you're talking about even if you don't know what you're talking about.
6 October 2009
No-one gets The Beatles Remasters
On the 9th of September 2009 - 09.09.09 if you're counting - every single Beatles studio album, plus the Past Masters singles collection, was re-released in a remastered form.
Yesterday I purchased the remastered Revolver and a while back I reviewed a sample of the remasters for www.rockmidgets.com.
Now maybe I'm biased just because of the angle my review took. But am the only one who thinks that literally every single other review has totally missed the point?
Every review I read, be it in the Times or on Pitchfork (don't get me started on how much I despise them) has reviewed the albums one by one based on their merits as records. How completely pointless.
We all know The Beatles were probably the greatest band ever. They were pioneering, they were brilliant, they've sold literally a billion records - what more can you say about them?
These releases are about the mastering. The first four or five albums have only previously been available in mono anyway, that's why they were re-released. We don't need telling again that Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is one of the greatest albums ever made. Tell us how they sound.
They sound great, by the way.
So, I'm going to shamelessly self-promote and say read my review, because mine is the only review that addresses these recordings the way they should be addressed.
Yesterday I purchased the remastered Revolver and a while back I reviewed a sample of the remasters for www.rockmidgets.com.
Now maybe I'm biased just because of the angle my review took. But am the only one who thinks that literally every single other review has totally missed the point?
Every review I read, be it in the Times or on Pitchfork (don't get me started on how much I despise them) has reviewed the albums one by one based on their merits as records. How completely pointless.
We all know The Beatles were probably the greatest band ever. They were pioneering, they were brilliant, they've sold literally a billion records - what more can you say about them?
These releases are about the mastering. The first four or five albums have only previously been available in mono anyway, that's why they were re-released. We don't need telling again that Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is one of the greatest albums ever made. Tell us how they sound.
They sound great, by the way.
So, I'm going to shamelessly self-promote and say read my review, because mine is the only review that addresses these recordings the way they should be addressed.
5 October 2009
Five tips for internet headline writing
In today's Digital Newsroom workshops at UCLan we've been discussing the top tips for internet headline writing, based on this article by Jakob Nielsen.
Having read through the article, and working with Olivia, we've come up with five tip-top top tips for internet headline writing.
1. Use as few words as possible - Headlines are meant to be brief, so that you can get the picture quickly, like in this headline. It tells you everything in five-words, although I suppose one of them is hyphenated.
2. Make every word mean something - Headlines cannot waste words. That means no adjectives, no 'the' or 'a' or 'be'. Take this headline. It's a quote, so every word counts there, and it doesn't even bother to say 'Prime Minister,' it instead says 'PM' to save even more space. Not an ounce of fat.
3. Reveal as much information as possible - A headline should tell you all you need to know, as this headline about a bombing in the Pakistan branch of the UN indicates. I've heard nothing about this story - mainly because my housemate Olivia stole my paper this morning - but that headline has told me virtually everything about the basics of the story in six words.
4. Search engine optimisation - This is apparently a point of contention for many papers, a source of pride to not need to be 'search engine friendly,' but using key words that'll be virtually unique to your headline will make it a lot easier for your article or story to show up. This is why band names like "A" are stupid because of being virtually impossible to find on Google, whereas searching for The Mad Capsule Markets, you know exactly what you're going to get. Those may not be headlines, but you get the point.
5. Headlines should be understandable out of context - For an example of this, look no further than the title of this very post. You're at no loss for knowing what this post is about, all the information is there and you know exactly what's contained within. If you don't deliver on what you promise in a headline, your readership will dwindle as people stop believing your headlines.
Having read through the article, and working with Olivia, we've come up with five tip-top top tips for internet headline writing.
1. Use as few words as possible - Headlines are meant to be brief, so that you can get the picture quickly, like in this headline. It tells you everything in five-words, although I suppose one of them is hyphenated.
2. Make every word mean something - Headlines cannot waste words. That means no adjectives, no 'the' or 'a' or 'be'. Take this headline. It's a quote, so every word counts there, and it doesn't even bother to say 'Prime Minister,' it instead says 'PM' to save even more space. Not an ounce of fat.
3. Reveal as much information as possible - A headline should tell you all you need to know, as this headline about a bombing in the Pakistan branch of the UN indicates. I've heard nothing about this story - mainly because my housemate Olivia stole my paper this morning - but that headline has told me virtually everything about the basics of the story in six words.
4. Search engine optimisation - This is apparently a point of contention for many papers, a source of pride to not need to be 'search engine friendly,' but using key words that'll be virtually unique to your headline will make it a lot easier for your article or story to show up. This is why band names like "A" are stupid because of being virtually impossible to find on Google, whereas searching for The Mad Capsule Markets, you know exactly what you're going to get. Those may not be headlines, but you get the point.
5. Headlines should be understandable out of context - For an example of this, look no further than the title of this very post. You're at no loss for knowing what this post is about, all the information is there and you know exactly what's contained within. If you don't deliver on what you promise in a headline, your readership will dwindle as people stop believing your headlines.
30 July 2009
Definitive Examples Of A Genre (Part One)
As of late, one thing I've been doing a lot of is watching movies. My fiancee and I love to watch ridiculous amounts of movies, good, bad, and often ugly.
One thing I've noticed is that for many genres, the majority of the canon is utterly pointless. This doesn't just apply in movies, but in television, music and other media too, but basically, it seems to me like in a lot of situations, there is one definitive example of the classic. Or at least, to me, the best of its kind. And it means that anything that came after it is redundant, because nothing will ever better it, no matter what.
Examples - and more will follow, as I can never come up with any when I need to such as times like this.
Jimi Hendrix - All Along The Watchtower - This is the cover to end all covers. Now, I'm not being so ridiculous as to say that no-one should ever cover anything again following this. I'm not even saying no-one should cover Bob Dylan again. I'm a massive Dylan fan and covers of his work are often great, and often... not. What I'm saying is that people should stop covering 'All Along The Watchtower.'
Hendrix turned this song on its ear, giving it a ridiculous guitar solo, awesome production and making it one of the defining songs of the 1960s. 9/10 montages of the 1960s will be soundtracked by this. It was such a classic cover that even Dylan himself now plays his version a bit more like Hendrix's.
This hasn't stopped people like Paul Weller and U2 trying to cover it again, and it's totally irrelevant. Indeed on the latter, Bono, that colossal idiot, actually tried to add more lyrics to it. Adding more lyrics to a song by someone referred to as the greatest lyricist of all time on a regular basis? That's just stupid.
When Harry Met Sally - I touched upon this in my last post (has it really been three months???) but there is no romantic comedy that is as good as this one. There just isn't.
Twenty times a year, a new romantic comedy will come out - usually directed by Richard Curtis - and you know who it's going to end. They get together. Obviously. There's no suspense, no investment, no twist, no interest. Who cares?
When Harry Met Sally is in many ways the same as those other films. Without giving away any spoilers, everybody knows how these things end up. But it is just flawlessly written from front to back. The dialogue is razor sharp, the characters all act like one would in real life, not like characters in a movie. There are countless witty observations on love and lovemaking, and both Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan turn in career-best performances as their respective characters.
It is simply a magnificently written film that renders any other romantic comedy pointless. No other film could observe so insightfully, no other film could have you as invested emotionally, and no other rom-com (which are really more com-roms) will ever be as funny. The vast quotability of especially Crystal as Harry is unequalled within its field. See this film, because even if you're single and bitter (as both characters are for a lot of the film) you will find something to love about it.
As I think of more examples, they shall be posted!
One thing I've noticed is that for many genres, the majority of the canon is utterly pointless. This doesn't just apply in movies, but in television, music and other media too, but basically, it seems to me like in a lot of situations, there is one definitive example of the classic. Or at least, to me, the best of its kind. And it means that anything that came after it is redundant, because nothing will ever better it, no matter what.
Examples - and more will follow, as I can never come up with any when I need to such as times like this.
Jimi Hendrix - All Along The Watchtower - This is the cover to end all covers. Now, I'm not being so ridiculous as to say that no-one should ever cover anything again following this. I'm not even saying no-one should cover Bob Dylan again. I'm a massive Dylan fan and covers of his work are often great, and often... not. What I'm saying is that people should stop covering 'All Along The Watchtower.'
Hendrix turned this song on its ear, giving it a ridiculous guitar solo, awesome production and making it one of the defining songs of the 1960s. 9/10 montages of the 1960s will be soundtracked by this. It was such a classic cover that even Dylan himself now plays his version a bit more like Hendrix's.
This hasn't stopped people like Paul Weller and U2 trying to cover it again, and it's totally irrelevant. Indeed on the latter, Bono, that colossal idiot, actually tried to add more lyrics to it. Adding more lyrics to a song by someone referred to as the greatest lyricist of all time on a regular basis? That's just stupid.
When Harry Met Sally - I touched upon this in my last post (has it really been three months???) but there is no romantic comedy that is as good as this one. There just isn't.
Twenty times a year, a new romantic comedy will come out - usually directed by Richard Curtis - and you know who it's going to end. They get together. Obviously. There's no suspense, no investment, no twist, no interest. Who cares?
When Harry Met Sally is in many ways the same as those other films. Without giving away any spoilers, everybody knows how these things end up. But it is just flawlessly written from front to back. The dialogue is razor sharp, the characters all act like one would in real life, not like characters in a movie. There are countless witty observations on love and lovemaking, and both Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan turn in career-best performances as their respective characters.
It is simply a magnificently written film that renders any other romantic comedy pointless. No other film could observe so insightfully, no other film could have you as invested emotionally, and no other rom-com (which are really more com-roms) will ever be as funny. The vast quotability of especially Crystal as Harry is unequalled within its field. See this film, because even if you're single and bitter (as both characters are for a lot of the film) you will find something to love about it.
As I think of more examples, they shall be posted!
25 May 2009
Miscellaneous ramblings (spoiler warnings)
It's time for some miscellaneous ramblings from the consciousness of Gareth 'Bad Back'/'Sexton Crikey' Hughes.
And if you didn't get either of those references, I wouldn't worry, because you weren't supposed to.
So recently a lot of items of various media have passed through my orbit and so I thought I'd write a bunch of haphazard reviews of all of them.
Wolverine - Good Lord this film is terrible. A lot of ladies are bound to love this film due to the abundance of naked Hugh Jackman involved (no full frontal ladies. Too bad!). Comic book fans - such as one Thomas Mawson - are going to have a brain haemorrhage watching this film. I myself, was a fan of films before I was a fan of comics really and I generally put aside most comic book knowledge before watching a film such as this - they don't even try to be accurate most of the time so why bother?
The thing is, this film sucks on a basic level even aside from that. It's not even a mindless action film because the special effects are pathetic and the script is even worse. However, by far the greatest sin is the inclusion of Deadpool.
Deadpool is one of Marvel Comics' most popular characters. A wisecracking 'mercenary with a mouth,' he's funny, he's for some reason aware that he's in a comic and has two (count 'em), two internal monologues. His sense of humour is what made him great, and the casting of Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool was a masterstroke. Except he doesn't talk. He has a speaking sequence at the start and then they shut him up. Now, I have no problem with the character in the film in principle, it's the use of the Deadpool name that's insulting. What on earth is the point in using Deadpool if you're not going to let him talk? Just create someone from scratch, it'd make far more sense!
Don't see this film unless you want to see Hugh Jackman naked.
Gallows - Grey Britain - Okay that review was a lot longer than I planned it to be, so I'll make this a bit shorter. Gallows are an insanely overhyped hardcore band who for once live up to the speculation. Their first album was a masterpiece, and this is one of the most important albums in British music history. It is ridiculously good, it's textured, it's varied, and it's heart-stopping heavy. If you remotely like any heavy music you need to get this album.
Cloverfield - This film came out a while ago but I'm not that big a moviegoer so I didn't bother with it. Having seen it now I'd say this is a bad film executed in a brilliant way. The hand-held, POV camera way of doing it is a stroke of genius, there is no film like this and it's a piece that's right on the pulse of contemporary society. It is, alas, a film that's going to date extremely easily though. What's more, it doesn't really have a story, which is kind of how something like this would work in real life. However it means the film is oddly unsatisfying at its ending. Put that aside though, and this film is put together and edited perfectly.
One Hour Photo - A truly creepy film, with an astonishing performance from Robin Williams in which he is actually subtle. Yes, you read that right. Robin Williams is subtle. The film doesn't really end, though, it's just got a beginning and a middle, then it stops. Its running time doesn't really do it justice either.
The Nostalgia Critic - This is a guy who makes internet videos. He reviews old, mostly terrible films, and he is extremely funny. His voice may get annoying to some - it even bugs me sometimes - but I'd say anyone who has a passing knowledge of old movies and/or enjoys bad films like I do and/or just enjoys people ranting about things should check this guy out.
When Harry Met Sally - Romantic comedies suck. This one doesn't. This is the only romantic comedy you ever need to see, the rom-com to end all rom-coms... yet it's twenty years old. This film is smarter, funnier and just better than any of the films that followed it, and was made during that unique window when Meg Ryan was still endearing and Billy Crystal was still funny.
And if you didn't get either of those references, I wouldn't worry, because you weren't supposed to.
So recently a lot of items of various media have passed through my orbit and so I thought I'd write a bunch of haphazard reviews of all of them.
Wolverine - Good Lord this film is terrible. A lot of ladies are bound to love this film due to the abundance of naked Hugh Jackman involved (no full frontal ladies. Too bad!). Comic book fans - such as one Thomas Mawson - are going to have a brain haemorrhage watching this film. I myself, was a fan of films before I was a fan of comics really and I generally put aside most comic book knowledge before watching a film such as this - they don't even try to be accurate most of the time so why bother?
The thing is, this film sucks on a basic level even aside from that. It's not even a mindless action film because the special effects are pathetic and the script is even worse. However, by far the greatest sin is the inclusion of Deadpool.
Deadpool is one of Marvel Comics' most popular characters. A wisecracking 'mercenary with a mouth,' he's funny, he's for some reason aware that he's in a comic and has two (count 'em), two internal monologues. His sense of humour is what made him great, and the casting of Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool was a masterstroke. Except he doesn't talk. He has a speaking sequence at the start and then they shut him up. Now, I have no problem with the character in the film in principle, it's the use of the Deadpool name that's insulting. What on earth is the point in using Deadpool if you're not going to let him talk? Just create someone from scratch, it'd make far more sense!
Don't see this film unless you want to see Hugh Jackman naked.
Gallows - Grey Britain - Okay that review was a lot longer than I planned it to be, so I'll make this a bit shorter. Gallows are an insanely overhyped hardcore band who for once live up to the speculation. Their first album was a masterpiece, and this is one of the most important albums in British music history. It is ridiculously good, it's textured, it's varied, and it's heart-stopping heavy. If you remotely like any heavy music you need to get this album.
Cloverfield - This film came out a while ago but I'm not that big a moviegoer so I didn't bother with it. Having seen it now I'd say this is a bad film executed in a brilliant way. The hand-held, POV camera way of doing it is a stroke of genius, there is no film like this and it's a piece that's right on the pulse of contemporary society. It is, alas, a film that's going to date extremely easily though. What's more, it doesn't really have a story, which is kind of how something like this would work in real life. However it means the film is oddly unsatisfying at its ending. Put that aside though, and this film is put together and edited perfectly.
One Hour Photo - A truly creepy film, with an astonishing performance from Robin Williams in which he is actually subtle. Yes, you read that right. Robin Williams is subtle. The film doesn't really end, though, it's just got a beginning and a middle, then it stops. Its running time doesn't really do it justice either.
The Nostalgia Critic - This is a guy who makes internet videos. He reviews old, mostly terrible films, and he is extremely funny. His voice may get annoying to some - it even bugs me sometimes - but I'd say anyone who has a passing knowledge of old movies and/or enjoys bad films like I do and/or just enjoys people ranting about things should check this guy out.
When Harry Met Sally - Romantic comedies suck. This one doesn't. This is the only romantic comedy you ever need to see, the rom-com to end all rom-coms... yet it's twenty years old. This film is smarter, funnier and just better than any of the films that followed it, and was made during that unique window when Meg Ryan was still endearing and Billy Crystal was still funny.
26 March 2009
Jade Goody, we hardly knew ye
So on Mother's Day of this year, Jade Goody finally left us for good. Since the revelation of her cancer - and indeed, since her TV debut in 2002 - she has been a controversial figure for many, especially so during her final days. With the Jade Goody gags already doing the rounds, I thought an appropriate blog post this time round be to voice my thoughts on the woman, her 'legacy' and her career.
I apologise in advance if this offends anybody, I hope it doesn't amount at any point to speaking ill of the dead or libel; by the same token I have no interest in pandering to the public opinion of an individual in light of her struggle.
I am no fan of Jade Goody. I was no fan of Big Brother or its celebrity equivalent either, but that didn't stop me watching the show for however many years before finally giving up as it got more and more convoluted. The point is, while I may have disliked her while she was on my screen, the fact of the matter is that nobody forced me to watch Jade Goody on my TV, and it was my fault for watching and finding her annoying. As amusing as a lot of what she said was, it's a bit harsh for people to totally dismiss the girl on the basis of being essentially an ordinary English girl in this day and age, with perhaps a less than average intelligence. I'm also inclined to detest anyone associated with a certain PR expert, because he is fairly well documented as a man without scruples.
The whole Big Brother 'racism' incident is, to me, not an example of racism so much as an example of total ignorance. And there's a great deal more ignorance and stupidity in the world than thinking that all people in the East eat with their fingers, don'tcha thing?
Let's give the girl some credit here. She may have seemed stupid, but either she was actually a lot smarter than she seemed or she surrounded herself with very smart people (which in itself is a clever thing to do). She sold her name brilliantly, doing TV shows, books, perfumes, all sorts of merchandising based on no discernible talent whatsoever, although I'd suggest she at the very least was a good business woman. To be honest, I can't really fault her for that. One of the reasons why, as a music journalist and fan, I've always found it so hard to call a band or artist a sellout is because... well, money matters. And I think most of us would be hard pressed to make the 'right' decision when so much money is involved.
Which brings us to her last days. Any gossip magazine had a story about Jade every week from her diagnosis to her death. Jade has herself admitted that since she was dying, she cashed in on that to cement a future for her children. Now anyone willing to take the criticism she took for that decision, sacrificing her own credibility for the needs of her children, deserves applause. Anyone willing to undertake all of the horror of cancer in the public eye, just to solidify her children's future, deserves praise. And anyone who helps raise awareness of cancer, even if only one case that otherwise would've slipped through the net is find, deserves a medal.
Jade Goody may have been a lot of things both positive and negative. But at the end of the day, she never did anything bad that you couldn't avoid by turning off your TV or putting down the newspaper; and the good that she did was probably well worth all of that.
I apologise in advance if this offends anybody, I hope it doesn't amount at any point to speaking ill of the dead or libel; by the same token I have no interest in pandering to the public opinion of an individual in light of her struggle.
I am no fan of Jade Goody. I was no fan of Big Brother or its celebrity equivalent either, but that didn't stop me watching the show for however many years before finally giving up as it got more and more convoluted. The point is, while I may have disliked her while she was on my screen, the fact of the matter is that nobody forced me to watch Jade Goody on my TV, and it was my fault for watching and finding her annoying. As amusing as a lot of what she said was, it's a bit harsh for people to totally dismiss the girl on the basis of being essentially an ordinary English girl in this day and age, with perhaps a less than average intelligence. I'm also inclined to detest anyone associated with a certain PR expert, because he is fairly well documented as a man without scruples.
The whole Big Brother 'racism' incident is, to me, not an example of racism so much as an example of total ignorance. And there's a great deal more ignorance and stupidity in the world than thinking that all people in the East eat with their fingers, don'tcha thing?
Let's give the girl some credit here. She may have seemed stupid, but either she was actually a lot smarter than she seemed or she surrounded herself with very smart people (which in itself is a clever thing to do). She sold her name brilliantly, doing TV shows, books, perfumes, all sorts of merchandising based on no discernible talent whatsoever, although I'd suggest she at the very least was a good business woman. To be honest, I can't really fault her for that. One of the reasons why, as a music journalist and fan, I've always found it so hard to call a band or artist a sellout is because... well, money matters. And I think most of us would be hard pressed to make the 'right' decision when so much money is involved.
Which brings us to her last days. Any gossip magazine had a story about Jade every week from her diagnosis to her death. Jade has herself admitted that since she was dying, she cashed in on that to cement a future for her children. Now anyone willing to take the criticism she took for that decision, sacrificing her own credibility for the needs of her children, deserves applause. Anyone willing to undertake all of the horror of cancer in the public eye, just to solidify her children's future, deserves praise. And anyone who helps raise awareness of cancer, even if only one case that otherwise would've slipped through the net is find, deserves a medal.
Jade Goody may have been a lot of things both positive and negative. But at the end of the day, she never did anything bad that you couldn't avoid by turning off your TV or putting down the newspaper; and the good that she did was probably well worth all of that.
9 March 2009
Clubbing
So after much cajoling, my girlfriend finally convinced me to go out clubbing with her for her birthday on Saturday. Having been slightly hung over all day Sunday (I'd have been happier to be very hung over in the morning and fine later on) I think I have just about enough thoughts in order to blog about it. So in the immortal words of Kel, awwww here goes.
The night consisted of:
- Getting takeaway and chatting for a while.
- Going to The Ship
- Going to Warehouse
Takeaway was all good but I was missing for a lot of it trying to find some ID, having a shower and getting ready.
Firstly, being what Eric Idle once termed 'merely an amateur drinker,' I didn't down quite as much as everybody else. This is my key problem - to me, drinking is not an activity. It is something to be done in addition to other activities. So as much fun as it was to hang around in The Ship, the pub I consider to be 'my local,' the weight of drinking was not really enjoyable to me, even if I do like a few.
Warehouse was where things kind of fell apart, for a number of reasongs.
- Clubbing is great, if you like to dance. I don't. Meaning I had nothing to do but sit and drink, which I did for a while (although Warehouse don't do my favourite drink). Thing is, all my friends (well, the ones I came with, I found some others upstairs) were dancing.
- If you go with friends, you may as well not have bothered, because the music is too loud to talk to them and on a dancefloor you get separated within seconds. Plus the music is also too loud for them to get a phone message.
- If you don't like the music, too bad, because it's loud as hell and will just keep pounding at you.
- Time may fly when you're having fun, but when you're bored it's verrrryyyy sllllooowwwww.
On the plus side, I expected to be utterly miserable all night, but I did have a bit of fun, and the rest of the time was just plain bored - an improvement on the expected misery. I can see myself doing it again as a favour to my girlfriend (it was her birthday after all) but not sure how often it'll happen that aside. Plus we need to find a club that does Kopparberg!
The night consisted of:
- Getting takeaway and chatting for a while.
- Going to The Ship
- Going to Warehouse
Takeaway was all good but I was missing for a lot of it trying to find some ID, having a shower and getting ready.
Firstly, being what Eric Idle once termed 'merely an amateur drinker,' I didn't down quite as much as everybody else. This is my key problem - to me, drinking is not an activity. It is something to be done in addition to other activities. So as much fun as it was to hang around in The Ship, the pub I consider to be 'my local,' the weight of drinking was not really enjoyable to me, even if I do like a few.
Warehouse was where things kind of fell apart, for a number of reasongs.
- Clubbing is great, if you like to dance. I don't. Meaning I had nothing to do but sit and drink, which I did for a while (although Warehouse don't do my favourite drink). Thing is, all my friends (well, the ones I came with, I found some others upstairs) were dancing.
- If you go with friends, you may as well not have bothered, because the music is too loud to talk to them and on a dancefloor you get separated within seconds. Plus the music is also too loud for them to get a phone message.
- If you don't like the music, too bad, because it's loud as hell and will just keep pounding at you.
- Time may fly when you're having fun, but when you're bored it's verrrryyyy sllllooowwwww.
On the plus side, I expected to be utterly miserable all night, but I did have a bit of fun, and the rest of the time was just plain bored - an improvement on the expected misery. I can see myself doing it again as a favour to my girlfriend (it was her birthday after all) but not sure how often it'll happen that aside. Plus we need to find a club that does Kopparberg!
3 March 2009
Dopes that don't smoke dope are dopey
Seeing as this blog was started for journalistic reasons technically speaking, I don't know if this goes against any of the rules about what we 'should' be posting on the internet. I'm also not sure I care, so here goes.
Marijuannnnaaaaa.
Kids, say hello to our new anti-drugs spokesman.
Ish.
Drug use isn't as black and white as people say it is.
Firstly, if we're to theorise that whatever drug you're taking is actually what it claims it is (that being one of the problems), then there are still smart and dumb ways of doing it, just as there are smart and dumb ways of driving a car, and that can kill or injure you just as badly. But that is a whole other rant.
My second point, which is what today's main rant will be about, is that just because something is strictly speaking illegal doesn't mean it's worse for you than something that's legal.
At least one person I know will doubtless point out the pros and cons of all of them, and probably correct any of my factual inaccuracies regarding drugs too.
Heroin and crack are probably the stupidest drugs to try. I think it's the highest addiction risk (I heard somewhere that either or both can get you after one use) for least value for money. Anyway, point is, those are pretty dumb. Other ones aren't as idiotic as people would have you believe in the media, but it varies.
Interesting side note, I read a hilarious interview with Kings Of Leon in Q talking about their cocaine use, in which they talked about how with one use of cocaine they knew it was stupid and not worth it. The VERY next quote was 'after two years on that stuff...'. That's hilarious.
Anyway, the point is, one of the most hotly debated drugs as far as legalisation, declassification, masturbation and exacerbation is marijuana.
Let's not bullshit about this.
- Marijuana is not as bad for you as smoking or drinking.
- If nicotine or alcohol were discovered tomorrow, they would be class A in an instant.
- If the government could tax cocaine, we'd all be on the nose candy.
Marijuana has no proven physical addiction. It's all mental, but the mind is a powerful thing and so it creates symptoms of withdrawal. Even these aren't as bad as those from kicking the booze or the fags - if you're addicted in the first place, and some lucky bastards don't have addictive personalities anyway.
It hasn't actually got, as far as I know, that many proven negative effects - there's only correlational studies, but you can find correlations to a lot of weird shit if you try hard enough. The most prominent one is that it increases likelihood of schizophrenia. Ironically, I believe certain newly pioneered treatmrents for schizophrenia include amphetamines. Go figure.
Something a good man I know called Aaron King pointed out to me was that it's somewhat of a typical student outlook to be in favour of marijuana being legal. He's right, and as such I know my voice will probably never be heard. The main problem there is that I'm not a marijuana user myself, and wouldn't be even if it was legal.
But I've got pretty bombed on stuff that's entirely legal. I have major back problems as most people who know me are aware, and I am jacked up on painkillers 24/7. When I originally hurt my back, I got fairly high on my painkillers and was pretty close to addiction before I got them changed. Both them and the pills I'm now on I got just by asking the doctor for them. I don't think he even examined me. The doctor I'm currently seeing certainly didn't, he just took my word. God, he even asked me what my dosage was!
Of course, that's completely legal, and I really do have back problems. But who's he to say I did?
I'm running out of key points here, so I'll just sum up. As long as alcohol and nicotine are legal, marijuana should be too. By sheer logic.
But then we're not talking about logic, we're talking about politics.
Marijuannnnaaaaa.
Kids, say hello to our new anti-drugs spokesman.
Ish.
Drug use isn't as black and white as people say it is.
Firstly, if we're to theorise that whatever drug you're taking is actually what it claims it is (that being one of the problems), then there are still smart and dumb ways of doing it, just as there are smart and dumb ways of driving a car, and that can kill or injure you just as badly. But that is a whole other rant.
My second point, which is what today's main rant will be about, is that just because something is strictly speaking illegal doesn't mean it's worse for you than something that's legal.
At least one person I know will doubtless point out the pros and cons of all of them, and probably correct any of my factual inaccuracies regarding drugs too.
Heroin and crack are probably the stupidest drugs to try. I think it's the highest addiction risk (I heard somewhere that either or both can get you after one use) for least value for money. Anyway, point is, those are pretty dumb. Other ones aren't as idiotic as people would have you believe in the media, but it varies.
Interesting side note, I read a hilarious interview with Kings Of Leon in Q talking about their cocaine use, in which they talked about how with one use of cocaine they knew it was stupid and not worth it. The VERY next quote was 'after two years on that stuff...'. That's hilarious.
Anyway, the point is, one of the most hotly debated drugs as far as legalisation, declassification, masturbation and exacerbation is marijuana.
Let's not bullshit about this.
- Marijuana is not as bad for you as smoking or drinking.
- If nicotine or alcohol were discovered tomorrow, they would be class A in an instant.
- If the government could tax cocaine, we'd all be on the nose candy.
Marijuana has no proven physical addiction. It's all mental, but the mind is a powerful thing and so it creates symptoms of withdrawal. Even these aren't as bad as those from kicking the booze or the fags - if you're addicted in the first place, and some lucky bastards don't have addictive personalities anyway.
It hasn't actually got, as far as I know, that many proven negative effects - there's only correlational studies, but you can find correlations to a lot of weird shit if you try hard enough. The most prominent one is that it increases likelihood of schizophrenia. Ironically, I believe certain newly pioneered treatmrents for schizophrenia include amphetamines. Go figure.
Something a good man I know called Aaron King pointed out to me was that it's somewhat of a typical student outlook to be in favour of marijuana being legal. He's right, and as such I know my voice will probably never be heard. The main problem there is that I'm not a marijuana user myself, and wouldn't be even if it was legal.
But I've got pretty bombed on stuff that's entirely legal. I have major back problems as most people who know me are aware, and I am jacked up on painkillers 24/7. When I originally hurt my back, I got fairly high on my painkillers and was pretty close to addiction before I got them changed. Both them and the pills I'm now on I got just by asking the doctor for them. I don't think he even examined me. The doctor I'm currently seeing certainly didn't, he just took my word. God, he even asked me what my dosage was!
Of course, that's completely legal, and I really do have back problems. But who's he to say I did?
I'm running out of key points here, so I'll just sum up. As long as alcohol and nicotine are legal, marijuana should be too. By sheer logic.
But then we're not talking about logic, we're talking about politics.
2 March 2009
My big 'Big Issue' issue
Okay, I'm going to rant a little bit about charities before I pin down what this blog is really about.
In Preston town centre, there's quite a few beggars around, just like there were in Nottingham. A lot of them just kind of sit there, some have dogs, some have instruments.
But far too maligned are the Big Issue sellers. It's a publication with somewhat of a negative association - given that it's sold by those who are perceived as tramps - and it doesn't really deserve it.
Firstly, having read several of the last few issues, I quite like it and buy it when I can afford to.
Secondly, a Big Issue seller isn't your average beggar. Someone my girlfriend knows once bought some food and tried to give it to a tramp - they promptly threw it back in his face and shouted "I don't want your food, give me some money." This is what you can never guarantee isn't going to happen if you give food to a tramp - or more specifically, if you give them money, you never know where it's going to go. It's cynical, yes, but unfortunately it's just the way things are.
A Big Issue seller, on the other hand, has to buy his or her copies of the mag off the company that makes them before he can sell them. This shows he's put aside some money so that he can spend it on something that ISN'T drugs, and that they are actually trying to help themselves. This is commendable, and should be encouraged. So even if you don't read the damn thing, buy a Big Issue.
In Preston town centre, there's quite a few beggars around, just like there were in Nottingham. A lot of them just kind of sit there, some have dogs, some have instruments.
But far too maligned are the Big Issue sellers. It's a publication with somewhat of a negative association - given that it's sold by those who are perceived as tramps - and it doesn't really deserve it.
Firstly, having read several of the last few issues, I quite like it and buy it when I can afford to.
Secondly, a Big Issue seller isn't your average beggar. Someone my girlfriend knows once bought some food and tried to give it to a tramp - they promptly threw it back in his face and shouted "I don't want your food, give me some money." This is what you can never guarantee isn't going to happen if you give food to a tramp - or more specifically, if you give them money, you never know where it's going to go. It's cynical, yes, but unfortunately it's just the way things are.
A Big Issue seller, on the other hand, has to buy his or her copies of the mag off the company that makes them before he can sell them. This shows he's put aside some money so that he can spend it on something that ISN'T drugs, and that they are actually trying to help themselves. This is commendable, and should be encouraged. So even if you don't read the damn thing, buy a Big Issue.
Going... down?
Greetings, traveller.
As part of my journalism course, I've been encouraged to start a blog on a topic of my choosing.
So I am. I have yet to decide on a solid topic. I will probably just rant about the media, both as in the press and as in music, film, television, etc.
I'm going to write my first blog in a couple of minutes, I just figured it should be a separate post to my introduction.
As part of my journalism course, I've been encouraged to start a blog on a topic of my choosing.
So I am. I have yet to decide on a solid topic. I will probably just rant about the media, both as in the press and as in music, film, television, etc.
I'm going to write my first blog in a couple of minutes, I just figured it should be a separate post to my introduction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
