Its been a busy last few weeks meaning this blog has been put on the back burner for the time being.
I wont go into detail because I will probably bore you to tears but family shit has had to be put first and then secondly I have been working hard at getting a job. I say working hard, I actually just mean turning up to interviews at the right times and making sure I say all the right things.
Went well though, thanks for asking.
A month or two down the line I will hopefully have a new home set up in sunny manchester just around the corner from Old Trafford which will be just lovely.
So in homage to that, heres some Manchester bands.
Cant quite beat it when a crowd takes over the vocals....
Anyway, cant stop and chat. Got some football to play, gonna break some legs cos im fuckin boss meeeeeeeeeeeeeht.
Inabit
Out of touch and out of mind
According to Alan Mcgee, founder of creation records and the man responsible for discovering the likes of Oasis, Primal Scream & My Bloody Valentine, illegal downloading has murdered the music business.
I was going to spend some of this weekend focusing on more movie/music related topics, but this
blog Alan has composed made me change my mind and focus on the angry Scotsman's out of touch point of view.
For those of you to lazy to read the article yourself, I will quickly sum it up for you because I care that much and being one of the lazy people myself, I understand your plight.
Basically, EMI - the last big British record label who own the rights to The Beatles, Coldplay....erghm, Robbie Williams - has been bought out by US bank Citigroup. They will take the reigns, and the labels £1.2 billion debt, until a new buyer is found. It was originally bought out in 2007 by some bloke called Guy Hands who splashed a couple of billion quid to land the deal. His timing was horrifically beautiful because after splashing the cash, the market crashed. "Moneygeddon" (as in the credit crunch) happened and the world went mental. He lost a shit load of coin and saw his prize artists such as Radiohead and Macca up and leave the label in protest of what had become of it.
It was a mess, and so Citigroup have come in as a stop gap to try and clean some of it up.
Yes, Citigroup. The same Citigroup that went bust during the credit crunch and is now limping along on federal funds. Hilarious.
Does all that make sense? Basically EMI are in serious debt and dieing (as with most of record labels), to solve the problem they have been bought out by venture capitalists who borrowed money from banks.
Thats basically the situation EMI are in.
Alan Mcgee blames illegal downloading for this.
"EMI’s problems should be a wake-up call. How did they get into this mess? It all comes back to the impact of illegal downloading. We have to change the legislation in this country and come down much harder on piracy. Otherwise guys in little bands starting out now are never going to be the next Rolling Stones. When you download an album illegally, it’s not the record company guys that get fucked – those people are still on massive salaries – it’s 19-year-old kids, it’s guys in bands making £100 a gig."
Jesus Alan, what decade is it? First things first, illegal downloading isn't killing the music business. The record company's are killing themselves. They've dug there grave, tied the noose and loaded the gun themselves.
The music industry has changed so much over the years.
In the 60's you had record companies being set up and ran by fans of music. If someone liked a band, they would sign them. For the most part the people involved within the industry were in it for the music. Of course they royally fucked up along the way, but they were the first ones so I guess they re entitled to make a few mistakes.
Into the 70's but especially the 80's the music industry became a business. It became about making money and not about the music. Corporate executives were now in charge of what was being released. Do you think they gave a fuck about the music they were putting out? Of course not, they just wanted to know if it would make money and vast amounts of money were thrown at acts to hit certain demographics to ensure they made a profit.
This carried on into the 90's but as we approached the millennium the Internet had started to rear its gigantic swinging cock to fuck everything up for the men in suits.
People were all of a sudden given a choice of downloading an album for free online, or going into a shop and spending £15 (or if it was a Beatles album, £20 and upwards). What do you think people are going to do?
The record companies simply didnt evolve with the times. They had 20-30 years of dominance within the industry. They were in charge of not only there artists, but also the music buying public.
Labels could sign a band, demand a hit and if one was not forthcoming the band would be dropped in an instant, not giving people a chance to experience what these bands could potentially achieve.
The labels said what went, and that was that.
And they thought it would last forever - at least that's how it appears. Record labels simply didn't move with the times. You cant stop technology having an impact on people. If people start downloading songs online and find that they can not only get what they want but have whole new scenes and artists opened up to them and readily available, thats what they are going to do.
The Internet is so huge and so powerful now, some cunt in a suit on the 50th floor of some tower in some city aint gonna have the same power they had 15-20 years ago.
But yet they still try. These people are so arrogant and blinkered they cant see what is happening to there business.
And its sad that the once anti capitalist rebel leader of creation records is one of these people.
"We have to change the legislation in this country and come down much harder on piracy"
That is such backwards old school thinking. The times have changed Alan, get fuckin used to it. The Internet is readily available to millions and millions of people. Do you honestly think by "cracking down" on piracy is going to work? Is it fuck. Its not going to stop anyone.
Take Americas war on drugs.
"We are in a war with drugs, we need to stop people taking drugs cos its destroying our country and our economy and it makes me sad and I dont like people taking drugs so Im going to start a war with drugs blah blah hudhfviudnhvciucudn...." is what some American politician probably said.
Its a stupid, stupid policy that will never work. Drugs are available, they always will be because people like taking drugs - its human nature. Thats just the way it is, and your not going to stop that.
Its the same as piracy within music, its there and people are going to do it no matter what.
The record labels havent moved on from the 80's. They are stuck in a time warp that will eventually kill them off. There are a few indie labels knocking about who are getting the gist and they should be able to survive, but the likes of EMI are on there last legs and they only have themselves to blame, not illegal downloading.
Alan also argues that new bands arent going to get a chance to become the next Rolling Stones and that bands wont be given chance to evolve the same way they could do back in the 80's.
Utter shite again.
If anything, downloading has opened up doors for new bands to get there music heard. they no longer have to pander to the whim of a prick in a suit who could drop them at any given moment because they didnt make a quarterly profit.
Bands can now easily set up there own sites and stream there music online which in turn will enable them to build up a fan base (providing they are any good). Then the money comes in by gigging and selling merchandise. The public arent going to stop going to concerts. New music festivals are always popping up and are attended by millions of people across the world. this is where people spend there money now, by going to live gigs, not forking out ridiculous amounts of money on a CD whose profits line the pockets of record label execs.
Alans argument centres around making money when he used to be about the music.
And thats why his, and many other labels have gone bust.
To quote the mighty Noel Gallagher (one of Alans bezzy mates) "Its not about you, its not about me, its not about Oasis........Its about music". Maybe Noel should remind him of this?
Watch this video from about 5.25min. Its only a 20 second snippet but it sums it up
I was going to spend some of this weekend focusing on more movie/music related topics, but this
blog Alan has composed made me change my mind and focus on the angry Scotsman's out of touch point of view.
For those of you to lazy to read the article yourself, I will quickly sum it up for you because I care that much and being one of the lazy people myself, I understand your plight.
Basically, EMI - the last big British record label who own the rights to The Beatles, Coldplay....erghm, Robbie Williams - has been bought out by US bank Citigroup. They will take the reigns, and the labels £1.2 billion debt, until a new buyer is found. It was originally bought out in 2007 by some bloke called Guy Hands who splashed a couple of billion quid to land the deal. His timing was horrifically beautiful because after splashing the cash, the market crashed. "Moneygeddon" (as in the credit crunch) happened and the world went mental. He lost a shit load of coin and saw his prize artists such as Radiohead and Macca up and leave the label in protest of what had become of it.
It was a mess, and so Citigroup have come in as a stop gap to try and clean some of it up.
Yes, Citigroup. The same Citigroup that went bust during the credit crunch and is now limping along on federal funds. Hilarious.
Does all that make sense? Basically EMI are in serious debt and dieing (as with most of record labels), to solve the problem they have been bought out by venture capitalists who borrowed money from banks.
Thats basically the situation EMI are in.
Alan Mcgee blames illegal downloading for this.
"EMI’s problems should be a wake-up call. How did they get into this mess? It all comes back to the impact of illegal downloading. We have to change the legislation in this country and come down much harder on piracy. Otherwise guys in little bands starting out now are never going to be the next Rolling Stones. When you download an album illegally, it’s not the record company guys that get fucked – those people are still on massive salaries – it’s 19-year-old kids, it’s guys in bands making £100 a gig."
Jesus Alan, what decade is it? First things first, illegal downloading isn't killing the music business. The record company's are killing themselves. They've dug there grave, tied the noose and loaded the gun themselves.
The music industry has changed so much over the years.
In the 60's you had record companies being set up and ran by fans of music. If someone liked a band, they would sign them. For the most part the people involved within the industry were in it for the music. Of course they royally fucked up along the way, but they were the first ones so I guess they re entitled to make a few mistakes.
Into the 70's but especially the 80's the music industry became a business. It became about making money and not about the music. Corporate executives were now in charge of what was being released. Do you think they gave a fuck about the music they were putting out? Of course not, they just wanted to know if it would make money and vast amounts of money were thrown at acts to hit certain demographics to ensure they made a profit.
This carried on into the 90's but as we approached the millennium the Internet had started to rear its gigantic swinging cock to fuck everything up for the men in suits.
People were all of a sudden given a choice of downloading an album for free online, or going into a shop and spending £15 (or if it was a Beatles album, £20 and upwards). What do you think people are going to do?
The record companies simply didnt evolve with the times. They had 20-30 years of dominance within the industry. They were in charge of not only there artists, but also the music buying public.
Labels could sign a band, demand a hit and if one was not forthcoming the band would be dropped in an instant, not giving people a chance to experience what these bands could potentially achieve.
The labels said what went, and that was that.
And they thought it would last forever - at least that's how it appears. Record labels simply didn't move with the times. You cant stop technology having an impact on people. If people start downloading songs online and find that they can not only get what they want but have whole new scenes and artists opened up to them and readily available, thats what they are going to do.
The Internet is so huge and so powerful now, some cunt in a suit on the 50th floor of some tower in some city aint gonna have the same power they had 15-20 years ago.
But yet they still try. These people are so arrogant and blinkered they cant see what is happening to there business.
And its sad that the once anti capitalist rebel leader of creation records is one of these people.
"We have to change the legislation in this country and come down much harder on piracy"
That is such backwards old school thinking. The times have changed Alan, get fuckin used to it. The Internet is readily available to millions and millions of people. Do you honestly think by "cracking down" on piracy is going to work? Is it fuck. Its not going to stop anyone.
Take Americas war on drugs.
"We are in a war with drugs, we need to stop people taking drugs cos its destroying our country and our economy and it makes me sad and I dont like people taking drugs so Im going to start a war with drugs blah blah hudhfviudnhvciucudn...." is what some American politician probably said.
Its a stupid, stupid policy that will never work. Drugs are available, they always will be because people like taking drugs - its human nature. Thats just the way it is, and your not going to stop that.
Its the same as piracy within music, its there and people are going to do it no matter what.
The record labels havent moved on from the 80's. They are stuck in a time warp that will eventually kill them off. There are a few indie labels knocking about who are getting the gist and they should be able to survive, but the likes of EMI are on there last legs and they only have themselves to blame, not illegal downloading.
Alan also argues that new bands arent going to get a chance to become the next Rolling Stones and that bands wont be given chance to evolve the same way they could do back in the 80's.
Utter shite again.
If anything, downloading has opened up doors for new bands to get there music heard. they no longer have to pander to the whim of a prick in a suit who could drop them at any given moment because they didnt make a quarterly profit.
Bands can now easily set up there own sites and stream there music online which in turn will enable them to build up a fan base (providing they are any good). Then the money comes in by gigging and selling merchandise. The public arent going to stop going to concerts. New music festivals are always popping up and are attended by millions of people across the world. this is where people spend there money now, by going to live gigs, not forking out ridiculous amounts of money on a CD whose profits line the pockets of record label execs.
Alans argument centres around making money when he used to be about the music.
And thats why his, and many other labels have gone bust.
To quote the mighty Noel Gallagher (one of Alans bezzy mates) "Its not about you, its not about me, its not about Oasis........Its about music". Maybe Noel should remind him of this?
Watch this video from about 5.25min. Its only a 20 second snippet but it sums it up
The White Stripes have left the building
Shit.
No more White Stripes.
This is a shame for a few reasons. 1, they were a great band. 2, they crossed over in a big way but continued to make heavy rockin blues music - something the charts hadnt seen in years. 3, does this mean we wont get to see Meg Whites big 'ol titties bouncing around anymore? 4, Jack White is gonna make another Dead Weather album aint he, which although aint bad - its just not as good as the 'stripes. 5, no more tits.
What it hopefully means though, and maybe im being too optimistic here, but by The White Stripes fuckin off it leaves a hole to be filled....I will let you come up with your own "Meg White/filled hole" joke yourself.
maybe, just maybe, bands such as Dead Meadow, Black Mountain and The Black Keys will start getting a bit more attention from the main stream. Everyone needs a blues fix occasionaly and these bands can now step up.
They are already established, and with the Black keys already getting some attention from the general public, things are looking up.
It could be a good thing for guitar based blues and hopefully what The White Stripes have done is opened the door and left it ajar for others to come through.
Either that or we get another dose of bath fart in the form of this shit...
Its up to you...........woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, scary
No more White Stripes.
This is a shame for a few reasons. 1, they were a great band. 2, they crossed over in a big way but continued to make heavy rockin blues music - something the charts hadnt seen in years. 3, does this mean we wont get to see Meg Whites big 'ol titties bouncing around anymore? 4, Jack White is gonna make another Dead Weather album aint he, which although aint bad - its just not as good as the 'stripes. 5, no more tits.
What it hopefully means though, and maybe im being too optimistic here, but by The White Stripes fuckin off it leaves a hole to be filled....I will let you come up with your own "Meg White/filled hole" joke yourself.
maybe, just maybe, bands such as Dead Meadow, Black Mountain and The Black Keys will start getting a bit more attention from the main stream. Everyone needs a blues fix occasionaly and these bands can now step up.
They are already established, and with the Black keys already getting some attention from the general public, things are looking up.
It could be a good thing for guitar based blues and hopefully what The White Stripes have done is opened the door and left it ajar for others to come through.
Either that or we get another dose of bath fart in the form of this shit...
Its up to you...........woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, scary
Music in film
Hello. Good Afternoon.
I started up this blog just over a month ago now....in fact it might be slightly longer than that? Memory isnt a strong point, and at 26 years of age thats worrying. Anyway, I started it up because I was going to start filming my own videos, edit them down and put a soundtrack over them. That was my plan, it is something I have always enjoyed doing. However, as I have pointed out many times during the last few weeks, my computer is on its last legs and these particular programmes I need have failed to work. This has meant rather than blogging about some actual work I have done, I have resorted to blogging just about music I enjoy.
Not the end of the world, but this wasnt "Plan A".
Back when I was 17/18 me and some guys from school, had a band and we tried real hard.........wait, we actually didnt have a band, or try hard, but we did film ourselves either playing pranks, deliberately hurting ourselves, or acting out short story's we had "written". Kind of like Jackass, but with more empathize on the short films which include such titles "The Cornflake King", "Layzee Days" and "Billy The Bully Bin". Anyone who saw these films will tell you just how good they could of been. With titles like that, we couldnt go wrong.
But suffice to say,after school this came to somewhat of a halt and the tapes were left to gather dust.
Thats not to say i lost interest in editing, its always been an interest of mine how films and TV are edited together and put to music.
Its something I enjoyed back when I was 18 and its still something I would consider a "passion". Im just to god damn lazy to get a new PC to pick it back up.
With all of this in mind, I went on the NME website the other day to discover a blog about music used in film. This comes off the back of the new Danny Boyle film "127 Hours" and what NME use as there main example of music being used in film to great effect.
I really enjoyed the blog but it left me feeling annoyed that I hadnt done this earlier. This was something I was really interested in and was one of the main reasons I started this blog - so why the fuck didnt I write about my favourite uses of music in film before NME beat me to it?!
What it has done though, rather than what your about to read which is basically a copy of what NME have done, is motivated me to at least start blogging about particular ideas I have for music incorporated in film, maybe using some of my own music (yeah, i can do a bit). I just need a camera........
But until then, heres the link the NME article. I included my own pick in the comments section (I go by the name "Grand Theft Parsons") and reading through the other comments, a few people agree with me.
I picked the jaguar shark scene from the film "The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou" starring Bill Murray and a host of other stars. The film was directed by Wes Anderson who is one of the best writers/directors out there at incorporating music within his films. His soundtracks are usually pitched perfectly and help with the whole feel of the film. In this particular scene we see the surviving crew members finally finding what it is they were searching for - the jaguar shark. The same shark that ate Steves (Bill Murrays) best friend, and the shark that people had ridiculed him about over the years by insisting Steve had gone crazy nd the shark didnt even exist. Before finding the shark Steve witnesses the death of his son, and the whole film changes from a mad cap adventure comedy, to, well........this.
The song used is by Sigur Ros and its called Staralfur. This is the same band that features at the end of 127 hours. they have a particular sound that is extremely euphoric but at the same time there is a hint of sorrow hidden in there, and it works perfectly here.
Bill Murray is also a genius. "I wonder if it remembers me...." God damn.
There are many many examples of when music is so powerful, it almost engulfs the film its being used in. Jaws wouldnt be Jaws without that theme tune. Star Wars wouldnt be Star Wars if it wasnt for its soundtrack. The scene in Apocalypse Now when the choppers fly over with Ride of the Valkyries by Wagner as its soundtrack and The motorcycle scene in Easy Rider - Born To Be Wild. They are all so powerful that they almost are the film.
Tarantino is another genius when it comes to picking music to go with scenes in his films, im sure you all have a favourite.
James Bond is another example of music becoming the film.
The list is endless....
Reading through the comments left on the NME I thought I would give a few more examples of my own. there are about 100 comments on there and so some on here might be included on there list - but whatever.
Someone commented that the scene in High Fidelity, when John Cusack plays The Beta Band in his record shop, was a great use of music. I agree - but for me the entire soundtrack should be mentioned. Anyone who uses the 13th Floor Elevators to open there film is a genius. Its also the film that made me get into later day Dylan after hearing "most of the time" used in another scene which I cant find on youtube unfortunately.
Speaking of Dylan, Ive never been more happy to hear one of his songs used in a film than I was when i settled into my cinema seat to watch "Watchmen".
I knew nothing about this film, I didnt know how political it was, I didnt know anything about the writer, the characters - anything. but when this song came on and we were shown a twisted version of history, everything started to make sense.
Unfortunately I cant include the video, im guessing something to do with song or movie rights, fuck knows, but follow this link. Its worth it.
Jimi Hendrix is used in a ton of films, usually when a film is trying to show people off there heads on drugs. usually jimis music can come off as cliche because its been used that many times - its almost always Voodoo Child.
It does work brilliantly in "Almost famous" when the band upgrade to a private jet rather than a tour bus, but the best use of this song is in the film "Withnail & I".
You get a real sense of anarchy and chaos. It makes the scene funny, the timing is perfect, the dialog is genius, and you have to imagine that when they wrote this scene they had this song in mind.
"Ive only had a few ales"
Say what you want about Guy Richie, he usually picks cracking tunes for his films, and snatch was no exception. When i watched the boxing scene and realised it was Oasis playing in the background I thought "finally, someone using this song in the way it was always supposed to be used". Noel Gallagher has always said hes wanted to create a soundtrack for a film, the song he did for the first X-Files film we will forget, and lets just remember this.
I actually enjoyed Duran Duran for a bit after watching Layer cake. Says it all really.
I could go on, but you get the idea?
Music makes certain scenes, and in some cases it makes the movie. Music can become so powerful that whenever you hear it it takes you back to that particular time in your life or, that particular movie you saw. i cant listen to Moby "Extreme Ways" now without thinking about the Bourne films. Its another example of music becoming the film.
its something that interests me, and its something I will eventually pursue. Does anyone want to buy me a PC?
I started up this blog just over a month ago now....in fact it might be slightly longer than that? Memory isnt a strong point, and at 26 years of age thats worrying. Anyway, I started it up because I was going to start filming my own videos, edit them down and put a soundtrack over them. That was my plan, it is something I have always enjoyed doing. However, as I have pointed out many times during the last few weeks, my computer is on its last legs and these particular programmes I need have failed to work. This has meant rather than blogging about some actual work I have done, I have resorted to blogging just about music I enjoy.
Not the end of the world, but this wasnt "Plan A".
Back when I was 17/18 me and some guys from school, had a band and we tried real hard.........wait, we actually didnt have a band, or try hard, but we did film ourselves either playing pranks, deliberately hurting ourselves, or acting out short story's we had "written". Kind of like Jackass, but with more empathize on the short films which include such titles "The Cornflake King", "Layzee Days" and "Billy The Bully Bin". Anyone who saw these films will tell you just how good they could of been. With titles like that, we couldnt go wrong.
But suffice to say,after school this came to somewhat of a halt and the tapes were left to gather dust.
Thats not to say i lost interest in editing, its always been an interest of mine how films and TV are edited together and put to music.
Its something I enjoyed back when I was 18 and its still something I would consider a "passion". Im just to god damn lazy to get a new PC to pick it back up.
With all of this in mind, I went on the NME website the other day to discover a blog about music used in film. This comes off the back of the new Danny Boyle film "127 Hours" and what NME use as there main example of music being used in film to great effect.
I really enjoyed the blog but it left me feeling annoyed that I hadnt done this earlier. This was something I was really interested in and was one of the main reasons I started this blog - so why the fuck didnt I write about my favourite uses of music in film before NME beat me to it?!
What it has done though, rather than what your about to read which is basically a copy of what NME have done, is motivated me to at least start blogging about particular ideas I have for music incorporated in film, maybe using some of my own music (yeah, i can do a bit). I just need a camera........
But until then, heres the link the NME article. I included my own pick in the comments section (I go by the name "Grand Theft Parsons") and reading through the other comments, a few people agree with me.
I picked the jaguar shark scene from the film "The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou" starring Bill Murray and a host of other stars. The film was directed by Wes Anderson who is one of the best writers/directors out there at incorporating music within his films. His soundtracks are usually pitched perfectly and help with the whole feel of the film. In this particular scene we see the surviving crew members finally finding what it is they were searching for - the jaguar shark. The same shark that ate Steves (Bill Murrays) best friend, and the shark that people had ridiculed him about over the years by insisting Steve had gone crazy nd the shark didnt even exist. Before finding the shark Steve witnesses the death of his son, and the whole film changes from a mad cap adventure comedy, to, well........this.
The song used is by Sigur Ros and its called Staralfur. This is the same band that features at the end of 127 hours. they have a particular sound that is extremely euphoric but at the same time there is a hint of sorrow hidden in there, and it works perfectly here.
Bill Murray is also a genius. "I wonder if it remembers me...." God damn.
There are many many examples of when music is so powerful, it almost engulfs the film its being used in. Jaws wouldnt be Jaws without that theme tune. Star Wars wouldnt be Star Wars if it wasnt for its soundtrack. The scene in Apocalypse Now when the choppers fly over with Ride of the Valkyries by Wagner as its soundtrack and The motorcycle scene in Easy Rider - Born To Be Wild. They are all so powerful that they almost are the film.
Tarantino is another genius when it comes to picking music to go with scenes in his films, im sure you all have a favourite.
James Bond is another example of music becoming the film.
The list is endless....
Reading through the comments left on the NME I thought I would give a few more examples of my own. there are about 100 comments on there and so some on here might be included on there list - but whatever.
Someone commented that the scene in High Fidelity, when John Cusack plays The Beta Band in his record shop, was a great use of music. I agree - but for me the entire soundtrack should be mentioned. Anyone who uses the 13th Floor Elevators to open there film is a genius. Its also the film that made me get into later day Dylan after hearing "most of the time" used in another scene which I cant find on youtube unfortunately.
Speaking of Dylan, Ive never been more happy to hear one of his songs used in a film than I was when i settled into my cinema seat to watch "Watchmen".
I knew nothing about this film, I didnt know how political it was, I didnt know anything about the writer, the characters - anything. but when this song came on and we were shown a twisted version of history, everything started to make sense.
Unfortunately I cant include the video, im guessing something to do with song or movie rights, fuck knows, but follow this link. Its worth it.
Jimi Hendrix is used in a ton of films, usually when a film is trying to show people off there heads on drugs. usually jimis music can come off as cliche because its been used that many times - its almost always Voodoo Child.
It does work brilliantly in "Almost famous" when the band upgrade to a private jet rather than a tour bus, but the best use of this song is in the film "Withnail & I".
You get a real sense of anarchy and chaos. It makes the scene funny, the timing is perfect, the dialog is genius, and you have to imagine that when they wrote this scene they had this song in mind.
"Ive only had a few ales"
Say what you want about Guy Richie, he usually picks cracking tunes for his films, and snatch was no exception. When i watched the boxing scene and realised it was Oasis playing in the background I thought "finally, someone using this song in the way it was always supposed to be used". Noel Gallagher has always said hes wanted to create a soundtrack for a film, the song he did for the first X-Files film we will forget, and lets just remember this.
I actually enjoyed Duran Duran for a bit after watching Layer cake. Says it all really.
I could go on, but you get the idea?
Music makes certain scenes, and in some cases it makes the movie. Music can become so powerful that whenever you hear it it takes you back to that particular time in your life or, that particular movie you saw. i cant listen to Moby "Extreme Ways" now without thinking about the Bourne films. Its another example of music becoming the film.
its something that interests me, and its something I will eventually pursue. Does anyone want to buy me a PC?
Pioneers
It wasnt just the Beatles who pathed the way for popular music.
Here are a few tastes of what else was going down in the late 60's. Pioneers.
The Silver Apples
The birth of electronic music.... More than likely. This New York duo used 1940's audio oscilators to create there sound. Electronic beeps and drones dominate there music aswell as a driving rythem that must of influenced krautrock and experimental dance and electronic music.
13th Floor Elivators
Before Revolver, Sgt Pepper and The White album, these lot were blowing the minds of Austin Texas with there psychodelic garage rock. One of the first bands to incorporate reverb and "fuzz" into there guitar playing, they have influenced hundreds of bands but it was the sound of the electric jug which really makes them stand out. They recorded and performed most concerts while off there barnet on LSD. Rock - and- fuckin' - roll.
The Kaleidoscope
Not to be mistaken for the British band by the same name (from roughly the same time), this american lot can go from sounding like a honky tonk country band one minute, to an out and out blues rock band the next. There use of different string instruments such as the fiddle, banjo, guitars etc earnt them praise from the likes of Jimmy Page. One of the first bands to use a bow on a guitar, a skill Page made famous. He must of picked it up from these lot........or maybe even these (see 1.30min onwards)
Jefferson Airplane
Much like The elevators, Jefferson Airplane were one of the front runners in psychedelic music. But everyone knows that yeah?
I hope you hear something you like. If not, get fucked.
Here are a few tastes of what else was going down in the late 60's. Pioneers.
The Silver Apples
The birth of electronic music.... More than likely. This New York duo used 1940's audio oscilators to create there sound. Electronic beeps and drones dominate there music aswell as a driving rythem that must of influenced krautrock and experimental dance and electronic music.
13th Floor Elivators
Before Revolver, Sgt Pepper and The White album, these lot were blowing the minds of Austin Texas with there psychodelic garage rock. One of the first bands to incorporate reverb and "fuzz" into there guitar playing, they have influenced hundreds of bands but it was the sound of the electric jug which really makes them stand out. They recorded and performed most concerts while off there barnet on LSD. Rock - and- fuckin' - roll.
The Kaleidoscope
Not to be mistaken for the British band by the same name (from roughly the same time), this american lot can go from sounding like a honky tonk country band one minute, to an out and out blues rock band the next. There use of different string instruments such as the fiddle, banjo, guitars etc earnt them praise from the likes of Jimmy Page. One of the first bands to use a bow on a guitar, a skill Page made famous. He must of picked it up from these lot........or maybe even these (see 1.30min onwards)
Jefferson Airplane
Much like The elevators, Jefferson Airplane were one of the front runners in psychedelic music. But everyone knows that yeah?
I hope you hear something you like. If not, get fucked.
While we re at it, Rap music is dead
Im not going to bang on about this for to long as I have a few things to be getting on with and talking about rap music is not something i would consider a fun thing to do, I will tell you why.
In my last post I focused on 2 articles by 2 different publications putting across arguments for and against whether rock'n'roll was dead.
The guardian, who attempted but ultimately failed in trying to convince us rock was dead, included the statistic that only 3 rock songs featured in the top 100 best selling songs of 2010. 47% of the top 100 (thats how they have put it, I would of just said 47 songs and not included the %. Its a top 100. Anyway...) 47 of the songs featured were "HipHop/R'n'B".
Now this is where im going to start rambling. This article in the guardian was already flawed in my eyes just by its very existence. but when its lumping 2 different types of music together to form 1, I get annoyed.
Its just fuckin lazy. Lazy at best anyway, at worst its a total lack of understanding regarding the subject matter.
Hip Hop and R'n'B are not the same thing for-fucks-sake. Hell, lets read between the lines here, whats basically being said is "black music".
"Lets just lump all that nigger shit together, no one knows the difference"
"...But boss, I dont think you can put hardcore rap like NWA in the same category as.......Lamar"
Hahaha, sorry, but as soon as I remembered Lamar i had to have him as my example of R'n'B. I apologise to the R'n'B community but I think thats hilarious.
Anyway, my point is its a stupid perception of the music and its also extremely misleading to the argument they are trying to make.
Of course rock music is going to come off looking bad when you can put 2 different genres together to form 1 to boost the figures.
Im going to take it as a given that if you are reading this, then you agree with me so Im not going to dwell on this point any further; Nas and Whitney Houston - not the same. NWA and R Kelly - not the same. Big L and The temptations - not-the-foo-king-same.
If I was being kind, I would give the article and its author the benefit of the doubt, but im not kind and they should know better. But it is true that the line between the 2 forms of music has become somewhat blurred and thats down to the massive commercial impact the 2 forms of music have had over the last 10 years.
So maybe what the guardian should of done, rather than lump hiphop and r'n'b together as one genre, they should of put them both into the "pop" category.
Take these 2 songs for example. The first one is a cut from Dr Dre's first album "The Chronic" from way back in 1992. Its a good example of west coast gangsta rap music that was coming out at the time. Full of anger, no apologies for what it is, take it or leave it. Its dangerous, nasty, exciting..........(sorry it cuts off)
The second video is his new song "kush" due out very soon (its been in the pipeline for.....10 years?!).
The difference to the first video is obvious. The computerised vocals, the singing, the guest rappers....This could be a song done by almost anyone right now. this isnt the sound of west coast rap, this is the sound of the stuff filling the charts right now. This is the hiphop/r'n'b the guardian refers to, for you see, it seems that these days to have a hit, you need special effects done in the studio to enrich the sound of the vocals and you need either a female or male vocalist to sing the choruses. A beat, rhymes and flow simply wont cut it anymore.
Also back when I was growing up through the 90's most of the rappers I listened to were from the 80's or were the 90's gangsta rappers. They seemed to have something to say - allot of it was regarding fucking, drugs, shooting and fucking, but there were also some great social commentaries and insights into the culture that fascinated me.
Somewhere that got lost and the only things getting played on MTV base was shit like this...(probably not the best example for what im trying to say, i just think this is embarrassing)
So now what we have is aspiring rappers following the same formula as everyone else and it become boring and dull. For 10 years the one thing I have heard rappers rap about is how rich they are, how they get all the chicks and how amazing there life is. Well just fuck off. Not interested. MTV cribs might of been interested in how big your house is, I aint.
And now the pop stars of today follow that same formula. They all have there Hype Williams styled out flashy videos, they all have there polished "beats" to warble over, and they all have the occasional guest rapper to fill a verse here and there.
So maybe i shouldnt be to harsh on the guardians article, I just think what they were trying to say should of just been considered "pop" music. Which is no bad thing - pop music is just popular. Its not all good, infact alot of its shit, but lets call things what they are and the majority of the rap music thats selling right now is basically pop.
Rap music these days just doesnt do it for me - it sold itself short and sold out.thats why today rap music is lumped along with r'n'b and rubs shoulders with pop, theres money to be made from it now so it has to play by the rules.
So rock isnt dead - rap music is. haha.
What ive learnt over the years though is that music goes in cycles, there will be an underground rap scene (something i am having to assume - like I said i have fallen out of love with finding new rap music because by the mid 00's it had become something I was no longer interested in. All my old tapes and cd's remain and I will often put on an old Wu Tang track to restore my faith, but new rap music just doesnt interest me right now), and this underground scene will gather momentum and restore peoples faith in proper rap music.
this will last a few years, and then no doubt one of the artists will employ a female singer to help sell there records (see black eyes peas) and we will go again from there. like i said, cycles.
anyway, im bored of this now.
bring back proper rap music - stop passing off this shite pop thing as rap. its not all about the money (50 cent, looking at you ya cunt. "If the roof on fire, let the motherfucker burn
If you talking bout money homie, I ain't concerned". Thats what you said, in your first song. Remember? probably not. idiot.)
Peace.
In my last post I focused on 2 articles by 2 different publications putting across arguments for and against whether rock'n'roll was dead.
The guardian, who attempted but ultimately failed in trying to convince us rock was dead, included the statistic that only 3 rock songs featured in the top 100 best selling songs of 2010. 47% of the top 100 (thats how they have put it, I would of just said 47 songs and not included the %. Its a top 100. Anyway...) 47 of the songs featured were "HipHop/R'n'B".
Now this is where im going to start rambling. This article in the guardian was already flawed in my eyes just by its very existence. but when its lumping 2 different types of music together to form 1, I get annoyed.
Its just fuckin lazy. Lazy at best anyway, at worst its a total lack of understanding regarding the subject matter.
Hip Hop and R'n'B are not the same thing for-fucks-sake. Hell, lets read between the lines here, whats basically being said is "black music".
"Lets just lump all that nigger shit together, no one knows the difference"
"...But boss, I dont think you can put hardcore rap like NWA in the same category as.......Lamar"
Hahaha, sorry, but as soon as I remembered Lamar i had to have him as my example of R'n'B. I apologise to the R'n'B community but I think thats hilarious.
Anyway, my point is its a stupid perception of the music and its also extremely misleading to the argument they are trying to make.
Of course rock music is going to come off looking bad when you can put 2 different genres together to form 1 to boost the figures.
Im going to take it as a given that if you are reading this, then you agree with me so Im not going to dwell on this point any further; Nas and Whitney Houston - not the same. NWA and R Kelly - not the same. Big L and The temptations - not-the-foo-king-same.
If I was being kind, I would give the article and its author the benefit of the doubt, but im not kind and they should know better. But it is true that the line between the 2 forms of music has become somewhat blurred and thats down to the massive commercial impact the 2 forms of music have had over the last 10 years.
So maybe what the guardian should of done, rather than lump hiphop and r'n'b together as one genre, they should of put them both into the "pop" category.
Take these 2 songs for example. The first one is a cut from Dr Dre's first album "The Chronic" from way back in 1992. Its a good example of west coast gangsta rap music that was coming out at the time. Full of anger, no apologies for what it is, take it or leave it. Its dangerous, nasty, exciting..........(sorry it cuts off)
The second video is his new song "kush" due out very soon (its been in the pipeline for.....10 years?!).
The difference to the first video is obvious. The computerised vocals, the singing, the guest rappers....This could be a song done by almost anyone right now. this isnt the sound of west coast rap, this is the sound of the stuff filling the charts right now. This is the hiphop/r'n'b the guardian refers to, for you see, it seems that these days to have a hit, you need special effects done in the studio to enrich the sound of the vocals and you need either a female or male vocalist to sing the choruses. A beat, rhymes and flow simply wont cut it anymore.
Also back when I was growing up through the 90's most of the rappers I listened to were from the 80's or were the 90's gangsta rappers. They seemed to have something to say - allot of it was regarding fucking, drugs, shooting and fucking, but there were also some great social commentaries and insights into the culture that fascinated me.
Somewhere that got lost and the only things getting played on MTV base was shit like this...(probably not the best example for what im trying to say, i just think this is embarrassing)
So now what we have is aspiring rappers following the same formula as everyone else and it become boring and dull. For 10 years the one thing I have heard rappers rap about is how rich they are, how they get all the chicks and how amazing there life is. Well just fuck off. Not interested. MTV cribs might of been interested in how big your house is, I aint.
And now the pop stars of today follow that same formula. They all have there Hype Williams styled out flashy videos, they all have there polished "beats" to warble over, and they all have the occasional guest rapper to fill a verse here and there.
So maybe i shouldnt be to harsh on the guardians article, I just think what they were trying to say should of just been considered "pop" music. Which is no bad thing - pop music is just popular. Its not all good, infact alot of its shit, but lets call things what they are and the majority of the rap music thats selling right now is basically pop.
Rap music these days just doesnt do it for me - it sold itself short and sold out.thats why today rap music is lumped along with r'n'b and rubs shoulders with pop, theres money to be made from it now so it has to play by the rules.
So rock isnt dead - rap music is. haha.
What ive learnt over the years though is that music goes in cycles, there will be an underground rap scene (something i am having to assume - like I said i have fallen out of love with finding new rap music because by the mid 00's it had become something I was no longer interested in. All my old tapes and cd's remain and I will often put on an old Wu Tang track to restore my faith, but new rap music just doesnt interest me right now), and this underground scene will gather momentum and restore peoples faith in proper rap music.
this will last a few years, and then no doubt one of the artists will employ a female singer to help sell there records (see black eyes peas) and we will go again from there. like i said, cycles.
anyway, im bored of this now.
bring back proper rap music - stop passing off this shite pop thing as rap. its not all about the money (50 cent, looking at you ya cunt. "If the roof on fire, let the motherfucker burn
If you talking bout money homie, I ain't concerned". Thats what you said, in your first song. Remember? probably not. idiot.)
Peace.
Rock'n'Roll is dead, again
Heard this one before - rock music is dead. finished. over. forever and ever.
Why such a thing ever needs to be said, for such a long time, is strange to me. Why anyone actively seeks proof of such a claim seems like a massive waist of time. To write off an entire genre of music as "dead" is extremely foolish when the musical landscape is an ever changing market.
When I was in school I remember a librarian openly moaning to students about how no one read books anymore and that all we were interested in was video games and TV.
"No one reads books anymore! Reading books is dead. Reading and writing books is dead, no one is interested anymore!"
Now I dont know if she was being a bit over dramatic, but she probably did have a point. Then Harry potter was released. The Da Vinci Code. Twilight.
All shite in my opinion, but all of them sold millions, were made into successful movie franchises, and basically had everyone from 5 year olds to 85 year olds reading them.
So the librarian was wrong. Reading books wasnt dead, people had just embraced other areas of the media for a while. And what was she basing her claim on? That the library was empty most of the time?
The librarian was wrong; and so is anyone who claims that Rock'n'Roll is dead.
There was a piece in The Guardian from a few days ago by somebody called Alexandra Topping. In it they lay claim that Rock was dead, beaten by the likes of Hip Hop and Pop due to those other genres outselling rock music in the singles chart. "Rock songs in the charts fall to lowest level in 50 years, with only three tracks appearing in the top 100 best-sellers".
That was the argument., because there wernt any big singles from a rock act last year - it was dead as a music genre.
NME, in response to this piece, bought in a guest blogger Ben Patashnik from "Rock Sound" to set the record straight (read full article here)."Calling the singles chart a barometer of the music in 2011 is like saying Metallica aren’t a big band because they haven’t sold many cassette tapes this year – singles stopped being relevant almost a decade ago and pretending otherwise is woefully out of touch"
1 - 0 to Ben I recon...
Another thing mentioned in The Guardians article is that rock music fared far better in the album charts with 27 albums featuring in the top 100 best selling list and also mentioned that the biggest selling live act of the year was in fact a rock act - Bon Jovi.
Now im not a Jon Bon fan by a long stretch, but I think its fair to say that the guardian is arguing against its own point, and doing a pretty good job at it.
Later in Bens blog he lays down a list of evidence to hammer home his point that rock isn't dead, and he nails it for the most part.
However, before hand he lists off a bunch of Rock acts he sites as further proof that Rock isn't dead. He states that these bands sell out size able venues and sell well in the charts.
The list iiiiiiiiis Bring Me The Horizon, Deftones, Bullet For My Valentine, Linkin Park, 30 Seconds To Mars, The Gaslight Anthem, Paramore, You Me At Six, Lostprophets, Parkway Drive, A Day To Remember, All Time Low, Enter Shikari.
Youtube any of these acts and what you will discover is a group of bands all playing a similar brand of rock that became popular during the end of the 90's and early 00's. I like to call it "shouty shouty american cheese" or "mock scary yank noise" or how about "sweaty moshery skateboardy music, sort of punk and grunge, but not really either". Anyway, im not a fan of this sort of Rock music, but i know allot of people are and they are entitled to there own opinion. As is Ben, hes entitled to his opinion, but is this his only argument for Rock'n'Roll? No other form of rock music was mentioned in his blog, only these bands that form a very distinctive sound. Yes its rock music, but just one type of rock music.
Add to that the fact Bon Jovi was the biggest live act last year and that 1 of the 3 songs considered "rock" in the top 100 best selling singles of the year was a song by Florence And The Machine, you start to wonder that maybe its not Rock'n'Roll thats dead, but peoples perception of what it is.
Linkin Park, Bon Jovi.....Florence And The Machine. These are the bands used for and against the argument, by journalists, music journalists.
I have sat here for the last 15 minutes or so now, thinking about what to write next but I honestly cany get past the last few sentences.
Basically, there is no argument here - for or against. There is no argument because they are both flawed.
Although I tend to agree with bens blog far more than what was printed in The Guardian, he falls into the trap of letting his personal taste have to big an impact on what hes writing. Hell, if he nearly alienated me with what he was writing (and im on his side!) he will of surly put off people who tend to sit on the fence when it comes to music.
If I didnt know any better, and had read the two articles, I would probably come away with a very strange perception of what Rock'n'Roll is.
Rock'n'Roll is either out dated music played by the over 40's for the over 40's or a new brand of heavy metal that encourages headbanging/crowd surfing/rape and pillageing.
How very narrow minded, and as Ben would say, out of touch.
Rock'n'Roll is more than just the bands Ben mentions. Its more than singles and album sales. Its more than ticket sales. All Rock'n'Roll is, is an umbrella term in which lots of things can come under.
Rock'n'Roll is NOT what people who write for specific Rock magazine tell you it is (Ben let himself down again when he slammed indie rock bands. His job WASNT to argue for his favourite type of rock music, it was to argue for Rock'n'Roll as a whole. By slagging indie bands hes harming his own argument).
Rock'n'Roll is not what the Guardian tells you it is.
Its not something that can ever be judged by sales, figures, money and greed. leave that for Simon Cowell.
Rock'n'Roll is whatever you want it to be, and thats why it will never die.
Its the music, the lifestyle, the attitude. Its a way of life, a feeling, a sense of belonging. It inspires, it moves and touches people. It transends through all genres and infultrates other forms of media that can be seen and heard all over the world.
Its just Rock'n'Roll.
Now let me end with a cliche.
Why such a thing ever needs to be said, for such a long time, is strange to me. Why anyone actively seeks proof of such a claim seems like a massive waist of time. To write off an entire genre of music as "dead" is extremely foolish when the musical landscape is an ever changing market.
When I was in school I remember a librarian openly moaning to students about how no one read books anymore and that all we were interested in was video games and TV.
"No one reads books anymore! Reading books is dead. Reading and writing books is dead, no one is interested anymore!"
Now I dont know if she was being a bit over dramatic, but she probably did have a point. Then Harry potter was released. The Da Vinci Code. Twilight.
All shite in my opinion, but all of them sold millions, were made into successful movie franchises, and basically had everyone from 5 year olds to 85 year olds reading them.
So the librarian was wrong. Reading books wasnt dead, people had just embraced other areas of the media for a while. And what was she basing her claim on? That the library was empty most of the time?
The librarian was wrong; and so is anyone who claims that Rock'n'Roll is dead.
There was a piece in The Guardian from a few days ago by somebody called Alexandra Topping. In it they lay claim that Rock was dead, beaten by the likes of Hip Hop and Pop due to those other genres outselling rock music in the singles chart. "Rock songs in the charts fall to lowest level in 50 years, with only three tracks appearing in the top 100 best-sellers".
That was the argument., because there wernt any big singles from a rock act last year - it was dead as a music genre.
NME, in response to this piece, bought in a guest blogger Ben Patashnik from "Rock Sound" to set the record straight (read full article here)."Calling the singles chart a barometer of the music in 2011 is like saying Metallica aren’t a big band because they haven’t sold many cassette tapes this year – singles stopped being relevant almost a decade ago and pretending otherwise is woefully out of touch"
1 - 0 to Ben I recon...
Another thing mentioned in The Guardians article is that rock music fared far better in the album charts with 27 albums featuring in the top 100 best selling list and also mentioned that the biggest selling live act of the year was in fact a rock act - Bon Jovi.
Now im not a Jon Bon fan by a long stretch, but I think its fair to say that the guardian is arguing against its own point, and doing a pretty good job at it.
Later in Bens blog he lays down a list of evidence to hammer home his point that rock isn't dead, and he nails it for the most part.
However, before hand he lists off a bunch of Rock acts he sites as further proof that Rock isn't dead. He states that these bands sell out size able venues and sell well in the charts.
The list iiiiiiiiis Bring Me The Horizon, Deftones, Bullet For My Valentine, Linkin Park, 30 Seconds To Mars, The Gaslight Anthem, Paramore, You Me At Six, Lostprophets, Parkway Drive, A Day To Remember, All Time Low, Enter Shikari.
Youtube any of these acts and what you will discover is a group of bands all playing a similar brand of rock that became popular during the end of the 90's and early 00's. I like to call it "shouty shouty american cheese" or "mock scary yank noise" or how about "sweaty moshery skateboardy music, sort of punk and grunge, but not really either". Anyway, im not a fan of this sort of Rock music, but i know allot of people are and they are entitled to there own opinion. As is Ben, hes entitled to his opinion, but is this his only argument for Rock'n'Roll? No other form of rock music was mentioned in his blog, only these bands that form a very distinctive sound. Yes its rock music, but just one type of rock music.
Add to that the fact Bon Jovi was the biggest live act last year and that 1 of the 3 songs considered "rock" in the top 100 best selling singles of the year was a song by Florence And The Machine, you start to wonder that maybe its not Rock'n'Roll thats dead, but peoples perception of what it is.
Linkin Park, Bon Jovi.....Florence And The Machine. These are the bands used for and against the argument, by journalists, music journalists.
I have sat here for the last 15 minutes or so now, thinking about what to write next but I honestly cany get past the last few sentences.
Basically, there is no argument here - for or against. There is no argument because they are both flawed.
Although I tend to agree with bens blog far more than what was printed in The Guardian, he falls into the trap of letting his personal taste have to big an impact on what hes writing. Hell, if he nearly alienated me with what he was writing (and im on his side!) he will of surly put off people who tend to sit on the fence when it comes to music.
If I didnt know any better, and had read the two articles, I would probably come away with a very strange perception of what Rock'n'Roll is.
Rock'n'Roll is either out dated music played by the over 40's for the over 40's or a new brand of heavy metal that encourages headbanging/crowd surfing/rape and pillageing.
How very narrow minded, and as Ben would say, out of touch.
Rock'n'Roll is more than just the bands Ben mentions. Its more than singles and album sales. Its more than ticket sales. All Rock'n'Roll is, is an umbrella term in which lots of things can come under.
Rock'n'Roll is NOT what people who write for specific Rock magazine tell you it is (Ben let himself down again when he slammed indie rock bands. His job WASNT to argue for his favourite type of rock music, it was to argue for Rock'n'Roll as a whole. By slagging indie bands hes harming his own argument).
Rock'n'Roll is not what the Guardian tells you it is.
Its not something that can ever be judged by sales, figures, money and greed. leave that for Simon Cowell.
Rock'n'Roll is whatever you want it to be, and thats why it will never die.
Its the music, the lifestyle, the attitude. Its a way of life, a feeling, a sense of belonging. It inspires, it moves and touches people. It transends through all genres and infultrates other forms of media that can be seen and heard all over the world.
Its just Rock'n'Roll.
Now let me end with a cliche.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)