The Anti-Cowell

The Pre-Christmas marketing tool is back!

noreply@blogger.com (Andy2510) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:56:00 +0000

You can tell it's the run-up to Christmas can't you?

It's getting colder
It's getting darker earlier
X-Factor is back on television

And apparently this year was to be a shake-up. A new host and a couple of new judges were to spice things up. While Dannii Minogue seems to be trying to out-bitch Sharon Osbourne, Ben whathisname wasn't pulling punches so Simon was 'forced' to call back Louis. Forced? No! All a publicity stunt to try and retain the viewers as much as possible.

Still there are the god-awful wannabe stars (who are ONLY picked to perform in front of the judges so that 'great' television is made (though occasionally it backfires - Cheeky Girls anyone?)) being made to look like idiots - which in my mind is equal to bullying. I wonder how many average singers don't get through the pre-auditions because they're not good/bad enough. If I didn't get passed pre-audition then I'd be happy with mid-table obscurity rather than embarrassing relegation!

Then there's the bootcamps - the homes shown are not the judges but rented for the purpose of making the Judges look good (and possible the wannabes comfortable).

Now we're down to the final 12 - a slagging match between judges (as usual) and pound signs for the winner's head judge (Dannii, as far as I'm aware not being a music manager, is impartial!). Well, pounds signs over Christmas anyway!

Cowells other TV project is much less a marketing tool - Britians Got Talent is rather a TV variety talent show where the winner wins a place at the Royal Variety Performance. So it's shown in the summer instead (as that's when the RVP show is). But it's shown daily over 2 weeks to rake as much phone cash in as possible for the production company. At least on BBC's talent shows (like Strictly Dance Fever) the call money goes to charity.

I wonder what Cowell would do if the winner's single bombed in the charts, because people were going to wait a couple of weeks for the album? No wonder the Christmas number one countdown is no fun anymore! The album countdown is probably much more fun these days!

2007: So far, it ain't looking good!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:40:00 +0000

You've got to admit, it's great when you find out an artist you really like is releasing a new album. There's always that element of the unexpected. Unfortunately, a fair few of my favourite artists have released albums this year that are, sad to say, well below their usual standard.

Jean Michel Jarre followed up the brilliant "Geometry of Love" with "Téo and Téa" - a haphazard attempt at dancefloor-filling tunes that showcased none of the strengths his fans had associated with him. As a result, it was the first Jarre album on a general UK release to not even dent the Top 75 albums!

Marillion returned 3 years after the near-perfect "Marbles" with "Somewhere Else" which I actually found boring! To date, Marillion had never failed to produce an album that didn't grab you by the collar and slap you in the face within the first 15 minutes - when I listened to it on the train, I found myself more enthralled in the newspaper.

Air did really well with 2004's "Talkie Walkie" but, when I heard "Pocket Symphony", I felt no spark at all. Their usual retro charm was replaced with bland and sombre moodiness.

Neal Morse, however, has been on a high ever since he left Spock's Beard and turned into a trailblazing C-Prog Rocker. Although his previous album (2005's "?") was a total masterpiece, his new album "Solo Scriptura" was certainly no disappointment as it displayed the musical chemistry and diversity that made Spock's Beard so good.

That's not to say that there isn't the time or potential to salvage this year:

Rush are to release their new album, "Snakes and Arrows", next week. "Vapour Trails" wasn't exactly a masterpiece, but even Rush on a bad day is pretty damn good.
Dream Theater have a new album due out in the Summer which I hope, like "Octovarium", will see its way into the charts - especially given their form over the last 8 years.
Porcupine Tree's "Fear of a Blank Planet" saw the band make their debut at #31 in the album charts last week. For a band like this to make the charts, I felt they'd either have to have done some sort of Marillion-esque publicity stunt, done a Genesis and sold out, or simply released an album that has made people sit up and take notice of them. I've only played the first half of the album so far, and it seems it's the latter of the 3!
Coheed and Cambria release Volume 2 of "Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV" later this year, which is already being very highly anticipated, especially given the high standards set by Volume 1.

Solo Magnificus!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:18:00 +0000

A review of "Sola Scriptura" by Neal Morse

Always the prolific songwriter, you're never left waiting long for a new Neal Morse album. 2005's unconventionally-titled "?" left me astounded and has been a permanent fixture on my MP3 player since. The album would be a tough act to follow.

My first impressions of "Sola Scriptura" were very positive - it's a good 25% longer than its predecessor (clicking in a few seconds short of 76 minutes) and a lot more complex, but revisiting the structure used on his albums with Transatlantic (long multi-part epics with a short, slow song sandwiched in) makes it digestible and easily to listen to.

Performance-wise, this has to be the tightest of Neal's Christian albums, and it was good to hear the core of Morse/Portnoy/George return for another helping. The chemistry the three musicians have shown since 2004's "One" really is unmissable. In a move harking back to the early Spock's Beard epic "The Light", we are treated to a diverse array of styles, ranging from progressive metal, passing through contemporary jazz with an unprecedented Latin section thrown in to spice things up. Remarkably, and this is a testimony to Neal's talents, the diversity of the styles never comes across as a hodgepodge - there's still a very distinct flow between each section that never loses its coherence.

It is a Christian album, themed on Martin Luther, but don't let that put you off - Prog is prog, Christian or otherwise, and Neal's still Neal... it's just that his lyrics are a lot more inspired these days. If you're not a Christian, you'll still get as much out of it as a practicing Christian would because the music is of a high standard, there's plenty for the average prog-head to sink their teeth into, and does help disprove the myth that all Christian music is nothing but contemporary happy-clappy songs about the glory of God.

The only criticism I have is that it didn't instantly wow me as much as "?" did, but I never expected it to: an average Neal Morse album can still outshine other artists' masterpieces. I was still left convinced that what I'd just heard was a very good album indeed.

Final Rating - 8 out of 10

Too much Air... and not enough Oxygene

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:21:00 +0000

A review of "Téo & Téa" by Jean-Michel Jarre

When I started reviewing for this blog, I mentioned that I aimed to review albums that fell outside of the criteria normally associated with Simon Cowell. In the same breath, I never said I would be biased towards artist whom I personally liked and/or admired – I’d always review constructively and without objectiveness, regardless of the artist.

A perfect example of this philosophy is the new album by Jean-Michel Jarre: “Téo and Téa”. I’ve been a Jarre fan for at least 20 years now, and from my point of view, poor Jarre albums are the exception rather than the rule.

Given recent form, following the “game-of-two-halves” that was “Metamorphoses” (2000), Jarre’s been onto a winner. The discreet Jazziness of “Sessions 2000” melded well with the mellow atmospheres of “Geometry of Love”. So, it was with bated breath that I awaited “Téo and Téa”, his first proper release since “Metamorphoses”. I’m sorry to say that what I heard was nothing short of disappointing.

Jarre’s strength has always been his melodies and his sense of atmosphere – his music to date always had the power to transport the listener somewhere only their imaginations could take them, with catchy melodies that had you going back for more. Even after his 2000 re-invention, you could still count on Jarre for a decent melody, which is where this album fails most.As opposed to the highly melodic work evident on his previous albums, “Téo and Téa” comes across as an experiment in rhythmic music laced with sound effects. When Jarre does attempt a melody, such as on the rare highlight “Touch to Remember”, it’s so downplayed that it scarcely becomes part of the music. On this track, the melody is played on a milk-bottle patch that is far less prominent than the rhythm.

The remainder of the album sees Jarre fall into a standard Euro-dance style, focusing more on the beat and bass than the actual content of the song, and while it may be more preferable to most contemporary dance releases, it falls well short of Jarre’s usual standard – to the point where I question whether this is Jarre at all.

I do understand Jarre’s need for re-invention, but with a career spanning 30 years, he’s bound to have picked up a fair few fans like myself: willing to give anything a try, but won’t be pushed too far. I came, I heard, I gave it fair trial, but I just didn’t like it. I can’t say that I didn’t try.

As much as I adore many of Jarre’s works, this album represents Jarre at his absolute worst – it’s almost as if he’s a child playing with the sound effects on a brand-new synthesizer, with the preset rhythms playing in the background – hardly fitting for an artist of such influence.

To put it another way, Tangerine Dream re-found their audience by acknowledging their past and finding a way they can appease both old and new fans alike. Jarre managed this perfectly with “Aero” but, thanks to this album, Jarre will end up losing more fans than he gains. I’ve not lost total faith in his music, but it’ll take something exceptional to make up for this effort.

Final Rating – 4 out of 10

Dove il cielo si nasconde...

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:30:00 +0000

A review of "Felona e Sorona" by Le Orme

One of my aims with this blog is to bring attention to albums that are of a superior quality to that peddled by Mr. Cowell - the criteria being:

a) No like-for-like cover versions. Adaptations are welcomed, but cover versions that sound almost exactly like the original are a big no-no

b) Focus on what they put on CD, rather than who they are or what competition they've won

c) A modicum of musical significance. Okay, there are significantly more high-standard albums than bonafide classics, but even an album of a high standard is worthy of a mention.

That brings me to my first review - the album I played the most last year, even though I only re-loaded it onto my MP3 player last October.

Le Orme are a Progressive Rock band from Italy, who were at their most successful during the early-mid 1970's. Italian Prog has made a name for itself as being pretty-much universal, regardless of whether or not you understand Italian, because the music is often of a very high standard and the general phonetics of the language are an instrument unto themselves.

After ditching their beat-pop beginnings and turning prog with 1971's "Collage", Le Orme upped their game and released the highly-recommended "Uomo di Pezza" ("Man of the Cloth") during a very fertile time in the Italian Prog scene. As good as "Uomo..." was, they could still do more. Enter their first concept album, and absolute masterpiece, "Felona e Sorona".

The album is about two planets - one a virtual paradise (Felona) and the other a complete hell-hole (Sorona). Over the course of the album, Sorona becomes more like Felona but, as it does so, their destinies intertwine until both planets are ultimately destroyed.

While that's a very basic analogy of the story, the music speaks for itself. Imagine Emerson, Lake & Palmer, fronted by Sting, without any over-bloated showmanship. That's Le Orme! A wonderfully stripped-down power-trio sound that, at times, sounds empty and basic - but it's very effective. Take for example, the 2 minute-long "Felona" - while the instrumentation is rather minimal (Pagliuca on synths, Tagliapietra on vocals, bass & 12-string, Dei Rossi on drums & bells), the melody itself will have you gagging for more. And that's just an average track!

Over the course of the album, you hear many disparete movements with their limited instrumentation stretched to the absolute limit - concluding with the storming instrumental "Ritorno al Nulla" ("Return to Nothing") that signifies the destruction of the two planets. That's where the album succeeds the most - even the simplest of arrangements can be so effective. There's no pretention about it, even though it's one of those dreaded concept albums, because they take what they've got and give it 120%. When the music calls for calm, a simple riff on Aldo's 12-string works wonders but, when chaos and destruction ensue, the whole band kick into gear and give a trio performance that would even leave Rush in a state of jaw-dropping amazement!

The only downside of this album is its availability - ever since the limited Japanese release went out of print, Italy is the only place you can get it - and very few UK-based retailers supply CDs from Italian suppliers. I recommend http://www.btf.it if you're after the original Philips release as some Amazon Marketplace retailers may be charging you collector's prices for one of the Japanese remasters. A good guide price is about £10 or €15 (incl. postage) for the original Philips release.

Final rating - 10 out of 10

X-Factor in hot water

noreply@blogger.com (Andy2510) — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:12:00 +0000

ITV have admitting overcharging for votes on the X-Factor. Apparently according to Yahoo! News, voters using the red button on their satellite digital systems have been charged an extra 15p a time (votes should of been 35p but ITV charged 50p) making ITV an extra £200,000.00.

ITV have pledged to refund the extra money, and it will also make a goodwill gesture of £200,000.00 to Childline.

See www.itv.com/help for more details if you think you are affected.

However, this is the latest in a long line of TV shows which have been blasted for either overcharging callers or for advertising for more callers even when the competition has closed and there is no chance of winning. Channel 4's Richard and Judy and BBC's Saturday Kitchen have both come under fire in this respect.

Simple answer to not being overcharged/conned in future? Don't use these premium-rate lines! Many programmes also carry details (in small print mind) of how you can enter for free over the Internet. As cable and ADSL broadband system don't carry a dialing tone, users cannot get charges call rates. Deal Or No Deal currently allows free entry via a web-site.

Why NOT to dig deep this Red Nose Day.

noreply@blogger.com (Andy2510) — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:51:00 +0000

Before I go on I have to say I'm not against the concept of helping those people who are less fotunate than ourselves. A lot of good has come out of giving aid to other countries. But what I am against is the way telethons like Comic Relief and Children In Need are less helping other but more helping celebs boost their egos.

It seems to me the purpose of these telethons is to raise shed loads of money by means of entertainment. Up and down the country there are 'dress down' days in Schools and Workplaces (where appropriate and safe) in order to raise funds. Ordinary people struggle hard to raise sponsership money in whatever scheme they are doing. And then later in the day, they get told by some over-paid celeb to pledge more money to the cause so that they can break last-years barrier.

And how much is this celeb pledging themselves? Proberbly just their time.

Even worse, later on there are some X-factor cast offs who are only there to plug their latest single. So they are using a show meant for raising money for other people to get money for THEMSELVES! This is just not on.

Many of these celebs who appear can comfortably pledge a few thousand pounds without breaking a sweat. If all Premiership footballers donate just one weeks wages each third world debt would be significantly reduced. Heck if all the Worlds major sport stars donated a weeks wages I bet world debt would be completely wiped out. Many celebs who appear on 'Dancing on Ice' and the like pocket huge sums themselves while forcing callers to pay for the charities they're 'supporting' (an exception is newsreader Kay Burley who donated her fee to charity aswell - Jade Goody take note).

If you would want to support the third world, there are many more charities around, many who do not make a song and dance (literally) for your support. Try Oxfam, Christian Aid or World Vision, or search the Internet for many more. They'll love you more for it.

Rock Star Destroyed by Gossip Sensation!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:43:00 +0000

Returning to my previous post regarding unwanted media coverage, what we have seen recently can only be described as a rehab-fest. Robbie’s in rehab, Pete Docherty spends the majority of his time in rehab, Jade Goody’s been spouting off about her time in rehab and now we have the Britney breakdown.

What people don’t realise is that it’s a vicious spiral that leads to more and more of this kind of self-abuse. When a star becomes super-famous, the press and the paparazzi hound them to the point of ridicule – all in the pursuit of a story that virtually nobody wants to read. Celebrity Gossip mags are the worst culprits because they’re full of grainy, long distance photos of celebrities doing everyday things like going on holiday or doing their shopping! I don’t really want to know that George Michael was "spotted" sunbathing by a pool somewhere in Greece... he’s on holiday – leave the guy alone!!! All this attention takes its toll on the celebrity who inevitably feel that they have no life and no privacy.
That’s when the drugs and alcohol come in as a form of escapism, and when the media get hold of this "scandal", the pressure on the celebrity steps up and they start spiralling deeper and deeper into self-abuse.

When it gets too much, they make the decision to go into rehab, clean themselves up and get their lives and careers back on track. No such luck – either some Heat-reading moron at the clinic tips off the media, or a paparazzo snaps them on the way in... and it starts all over again! Suddenly, the front page of every tabloid is branded with "A-List Celebrity in Rehab Shock!" and then the newly cleaned-up celebrity finds themselves back at square one, having to escape the pressure and unwanted attention once more. The more times they visit the rehab clinic, the more the media get involved because it’s no longer an "addiction", it’s a "problem" – and the bigger the problem, the bigger a story it is.

This kind of "journalism" seems hell-bent on destroying people for profit – and it’s the gossip-hungry celebrity-obsessed of this world that contributes most. The more demand there is to know everything about a celebrity, the more intrusive the media get - and the more intrusive they get, the deeper the celebrity dives into depression - and the deeper the celebrity goes, the more the media want to report on their addictions and vices.

So, please - if you want to see your favourite stars continue to enlighten and entertain you... do them a favour and ditch the desire for gossip. Visit their website instead, and get the officially released news as and when it happens, rather than the pointless and meaningless gossip. Take an interest in their career rather than their personal life - their business is their business, no-one elses.

I know this is a blog where the music world is specifically discussed, but this really does apply to any celebrity - regardless of the industry they are in. Actors spend months making movies, but if people are more interested in what they eat for breakfast, how would that make them feel? An album can take years to make - but if their fans are only interested in who the lead singer is dating, why should they bother putting in the effort? Next time you go to the newsagents and pick up a tabloid newspaper, or a copy of Heat/Closer etc... think about what the publication is doing to the people you admire.

Brits Predictions vs. Actual Winners

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:33:00 +0000

Now the Brits are over, let's look at my predictions and see how far off I was:

Best Male Solo Artist
Predicted - James Morrison
Winner - James Morrison

Best Female Solo Artist
Predicted - Lily Allen
Winner - Amy Winehouse

British Group
Predicted - Arctic Monkeys
Winner - Arctic Monkeys

British Album

Predicted - Snow Patrol
Winner - Arctic Monkeys

British Single

Predicted - Take That
Winner - Take That

Breakthrough Artist

Predicted - James Morrison
Winner - The Fratellis

British Live Act

Predicted - Robbie Williams
Winner - Muse

Int. Male Solo

Predicted - Justin Timberlake
Winner - Justin Timberlake

Int. Female Solo

Predicted - Beyonce
Winner - Nelly Furtado

Int. Group

Predicted - Scissor Sisters
Winner - The Killers

Int. Album

Predicted - Scissor Sisters
Winner - The Killers

Int. Breakthrough

Predicted - None
Winner - Orson

Not bad - 4 correct predictions! Glad to see Muse walk away with an award but very disappointed that nothing went to Snow Patrol.

Oh well - not that these awards mean anything anyway

Undeserved Media Attention

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:01:00 +0000

Why is so much publicity afforded to stars who haven’t really done anything important?

Recently, we’ve all heard that Kylie’s relationship is over and that Robbie Williams is back in rehab because of an addition to anti-depressants. Is this really news? No.

Going back to Kylie, she is revered as some sort of goddess because she’s a cancer survivor. I know I’m going to have someone squeaking “Awww... you can’t have a go at Kylie – she’s battled against cancer. That’s just not right”... but I can because it’s nothing personal – my gripe is more aimed at the way it’s been used as a promotional aid. She’s made enough money in the last 20 years (I smell yet another Greatest Hits album on the horizon) to afford the best health care money can buy, so it was picked up early and disposed of quickly – there was always a high possibility of her survival. Lest we forget that a significant amount of women have gone through much worse, battled and fought it at every step with only the rudimentary NHS treatment and *still* survived... do they not deserve that level of hero worship too? George Harrison didn’t cause a big media storm when he suffered with cancer, nor did Frank Zappa – and they were tragically terminal cases! A note to the fans on the website is all you really need – but when it’s being announced to the nation by Trevor McDonald... too far!

Then there’s the drug cases – whenever we hear about Pete Docherty, he’s up in court over yet another drugs charge. Yawn! How he chooses to poison himself is completely up to him, and who really wants to hear about it on the news anyway? That sort of news is only of use to Babyshambles fans, and they only make up a tiny percentage of the population. It’s not the 60s anymore where drugs were a “cool” way of escaping yourself and reaching higher levels of consciousness – today, the focus is on harder and more addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine, as opposed to the hallucinogens that were popular back then. Nobody really thinks much of him for doing so, so why is it so widely reported?

The only time we see the media get into a frenzy over an album release is when it’s severely over-hyped. Back in 1993, “Take That and Party” was constantly in the media, yet very little exposure was granted to albums like Eric Clapton’s “Unplugged”, k.d. Lang’s “Ingénue” or R.E.M.’s “Automatic for the People”. All of them award winning albums, overshadowed by an album so annoying, even its title has “bargain bin novelty item” written all of it. Had it not been for the Take That reunion, “Take That and Party” would otherwise be out of print - so when you consider the 3 other albums have never been deleted, should so much attention have been lavished upon it? No! Part of me thinks the record label is responsible – it’s funny how the 3 classics I mentioned were all artists distributed by Warner Brothers and still in print today, while the high points of BMG’s early-90’s repertoire have been either deleted or bought by minor labels. 2 Unlimited anyone?

What is The Anti-Cowell

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:14:00 +0000

For the benefit of those who are just joining us, I'm going to explain who and what "The Anti-Cowell" is.

Who we are:

People of an opposite viewpoint to Simon Cowell (hence the name "Anti-Cowell") in regards to music. We believe that anyone committed to quality music deserves an audience, but feel that there's a fair amount of cheaply-manufactured music in the charts that diverts attention away from them.

What it IS:

A place where views on the today's musical climate can be expressed.
A place where music worthy of commendation gets recommended.

What it ISN'T:

A place to slander and flame Simon Cowell. We only bring into question his practices, business motives and contribution to the music industry.
A place where we try and push our tastes onto everybody. Just because we think a particular act is utter rubbish, we don't deny anyone the right to listen to them. As above, we may recommend artists and bands worthy of your attention, but that's as far as it goes.

The blog is also open to contributions from everyone - if you want to comment on any of our posts, you are welcome to do so, but please bear in mind that they are moderated. Not that we don't trust you - we just don't want comment spam! Any opinions expressed on this blog are solely the opinions of the person who posted it and, while you are free to question and debate using the comments page, please remember that everyone here has the right to free speech.

If you feel you have some posts to contribute, e-mail us with a brief outline of what you want to contribute and we'll set you up as a contributor.

And now the introduction is over, feel free to enjoy the rest of the blog!

The Police are back... goody?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:36:00 +0000

In the news recently is an announcement that after 24 years, The Police are to re-unite for a world tour starting this May. While I'm glad that the hatchet is well and truly buried, and it brings some much-deserved exposure to Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland, I'm on the fence with this one.

Reason being, I'm not a big fan of their albums post-"Zenyatta Mondatta" and find them rather patchy. Back in their early days, they had a lot of spark and verve – qualities lost when Sting took almost complete control over the band's songwriting. As a result, I can't stand "Every Breath You Take" because you've got Summers and Copeland, both very influential musicians, playing a song often found in the beginners' range of "Teach Yourself..." books. Of the Sting songs on "Synchronicity", only the two-part title track caught my attention – yet I loved Summers' angular and paranoid "Mother" along with Copeland's light and racy "Miss Gradenko".

If the tour eventually leads to a new album, I sincerely hope Summers and Copeland get more input and that it doesn't turn into a total Sting–fest. I find his solo material good in small doses, but can't seem to get through a whole album in one sitting these days. Copeland's drumming is too intricate to play slow ballads, and Summers can unleash a guitar solo that will leave you drooling. Since the split, they've both been writing music away from the mainstream, which would inject some originality into the proceedings.

I'll just have to see how this one pans out!

While all the 80's legends seem to be getting back together, could someone PLEASE give David Byrne a nudge for me?!!

Sharon Osbourne

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:31:00 +0000

Is it me or is anyone else starting to lose some respect for Sharon Osbourne?

Four years ago, she was a highly successful rock manager, portrayed as a committed parent and loving wife on "The Osbournes" and even battling valiantly against cancer. Unfortunately, all this extra exposure seems to have come at a cost. I'm not saying she's not the same wife/mother she was back then, but her professional achievements since has damaged her reputation in my eyes.

Firstly, considering she's one of the most successful rock managers in the industry, why is she on the X-Factor where rock musicians are practically given the boot the moment they audition in favour of some rather unoriginal pop-star wannabes? Okay – you'd expect that from Cowell and Walsh because they're strictly pop – but not from Osbourne. My only theory as to why she's on the show is to provide emotional content and a sentimental side that is shown too often: desperate contestants literally begging her for a place in the boot camp by tugging at her heart strings. To the TV execs, it's good telly, but it really is just pathetic.

Secondly, why don't we see the Arden in her when she's on the X-Factor? As a manager, Don Arden was as tough as they come! He was one of the old school managers, along with Peter Grant, that took no crap off anybody! When you get the desperate auditions on their knees begging for their big break, you'd have no sobbing, no hiding of heads – he'd be direct, firm and final. Okay, you'd say he was being cold and cruel, but you have to be in that situation! You can't say yes to everybody and, if they're not good enough, you have to make it clear that they're not. Only the strong survive in the industry and lowering your dignity in desperation only proves that you really aren't strong enough.

Thirdly, does she really need the money that badly that she has to shill Bingo?

Finally, we have a million and one celebrity chat shows on TV – what makes hers so special? Nothing really – she just talks to celebrities, pretty much the same way Michael Parkinson, Frank Skinner, Charlotte Church (now don't get me started on HER) and Paul O'Grady do. At least Al Murray's Happy Hour has comedy and character!

It was her husband that helped make her famous, and now she's overshadowed him with glamour and diva-esque appearance. So, please...

WE NEED MORE OZZY!!!

Leona is SERIOUSLY doomed

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:52:00 +0000

Following my previous post entitled "Leona is Doomed", it's been revealed that Leona has now signed a contract with Clive Davis of Arista Records fame.

It's pretty safe to say that we won't be seeing her in the UK charts for much longer.

The reason being is that she's being touted as the next big R&B diva, following in the footsteps of Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey. Now, the Americans love Divas and see them as aspiration figures: they're glamorous, they're glitzy and they're the personification of that thing they call the "American Dream".

Here in Britain, we're a lot less tolerant of them – especially these days. The abundance of quality alt-rock in our charts has provided us with more quality-conscious, hard working and honest acts that the record-buying public can identify with.

The same goes for concert tickets too – for some big-name divas, you could be paying anything up to £50 to experience 2 hours of designer costume changes, vocals almost meticulously replicated from the CD, a troupe of dancers that you can't see way back in row ZZ, and an anonymous session band on basic rate doing all the hard work. When Keane are charging about half that amount and giving you good, honest live music – it really makes you wonder where your money's better spent.

We've all heard about the ridiculous demands they make too – refusing to go on stage unless they're met and giving it the whole "do you know who I am" spiel if someone dares question. In America, where celebrity is everything, the stagehands would rush around here, there and everywhere at their beck and call. Yet in Britain, where celebrities are admired but not hero-worshipped, there's only so far these divas can go before getting a firm "sod off".

If you really want the vocal talent but none of the pretension, pick up some Sarah McLachlan – great vocalist, great songwriter and, as she hails from Canada, totally non-pretentious.

Brit Awards in rare good taste shock!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:55:00 +0000

With all the hype over Take That's reunion, it's good to know that the MOST they're going to walk away with is one award for "Best Single". While there's some high quality songs in the shortlist, I'm willing to put good money on them winning it. Reason? Because, if they do, Robbie Williams is going to present them with it. "Well I really must set my video to record that", he said sarcastically!

So, without further ado, I provide my predictions for the 2007 Brit Award winners (including those who really should win):

Best Male Solo Artist: Of the 5 nominees, Paolo Nutini is the only one that's a convincingly strong songwriter, but then he's up against artists with strong bespoke fan-bases like James Morrison, Thom Yorke and Lemar. While I believe Paolo deserves to win, I reckon it's going to James Morrison.

Best Female Solo Artist: I must admint, Nerina Pallot's album did impress me but as she's up against Amy Winehouse and Lily Allen, she's more of a mid-table outsider. Brit Awards seem to go to the more performance-based artists while Pallot is a lot more cerebral. I predict that Lily Allen will walk away with this one.

British Group: A tough one here because I quite like 4 of the 5 bands nominated (Arctic Monkeys are a bit too thrashy for my tastes) and they all put out very strong albums. The Artic Monkeys were the big breakthrough act at the start of 2006, and will most likely win, but it really should go to Snow Patrol. No other bands really stood out for me

British Album: A tough one to call. Personally, I hope Snow Patrol's "Eyes Open" wins this one for its consistent high quality. Muse deserve to win too but as they're more of a progressive artist, I don't think it'll wow those who pick the winners. I'll throw myself out on a limb and say that Snow Patrol will win this one.

British Single: I'm torn between The Feeling's "Fill My Little World" and Snow Patrol's "Chasing Cars" for my preferred choice, but I reckon Take That will walk away with this one just to make good telly.

Best Breakthrough Artist: I've not really heard any of them so I can't give you my preferred winner, but I reckon it'll be a second award for James Morrison.

British Live Act: I've not seen any of them live so can't really comment. I'd like to see Kasabian or Muse win, but when they're up against performance artists like George Michael and Robbie Williams, they've not got much of a chance. As he's there on the day, Robbie Williams will take this one home but doesn't really deserve to.

International Male Solo Artist: You're expecting me to pick Bob Dylan, aren't you? Well, no. "Modern Times" wasn't the album it was hyped up to be and I wasn't really impressed with it. Jack Johnson deserves to win for his deliciously mellow sounds and outstanding wordplay, but I can see him losing out to Justin Timberlake.

International Female Solo Artist: No real preference on any of them because they're mostly divas. Can't really call it either so I'll randomly pick Beyonce.

International Group: They won last year, and I think the Scissor Sisters will do it again, but it'd be good to see the Chili Peppers win for their sheer bravery - a double album in this day and age!

International Album: Again, I think the Scissor Sisters will get this one but, even though I didn't really enjoy it, Bob Dylan's "Modern Times" did make better listening.

International Breakthrough: No real opinion here either as I can't tell you what any of them sound like.

Although I quite like Oasis, it's too soon to be giving them the Lifetime Achievement Award. For a start, Noel Gallagher isn't even 40 yet, they've only been in the limelight for 13 years, they're still on good form and could yet prove to their detractors that they are capable of an album to rival "Morning Glory". But still, it saves it going to Take That, doesn't it?!

Downloading Music Can't Be Entirely Immoral

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:19:00 +0000

There’s been a lot of controversy over the last six years or so regarding free music downloads. Lars Ulrich was the first to expose the “evils” of Napster (the godfather of file sharing) but not without a degree of ridicule. The RIAA would have you believe that if you don’t pay for a single copyrighted MP3, you are in the same league as Ronnie Biggs and Buster Edwards... but are you?

To me, it really depends on your motives for doing so.

If you're downloading music, putting it onto CD, palming it off as a legitimate original and getting top-price for it, then you do deserve to go to prison as far as I'm concerned. No-one should have to pay full-price for a cheap but deceptively forged CD but, unfortunately, a lot of these low-grade bootlegs originate in places like Russia and China where the copyright laws are incredibly lax.

However, think about these scenarios and decide for yourself whether you really should burn in hell for downloading copyrighted music off the internet for free:

Scenario 1 - Try Before You Buy

In this day and age, you're not quite guaranteed quality music. Okay - as mentioned before, things have gotten better thanks to the likes of Keane, Snow Patrol and Razorlight, but we're still left with a load of garbage. A lot of the generic pop albums consist mainly of a handful of catchy singles and some very obvious filler. If you've already fallen prey to these shoddily-assembled "pop masterpieces" (as Smash Hits would call them), you won't want to do it again. So you decide to download the album for free and then decide whether or not it's worth buying. If it is, you buy it and, if it isn't, you wipe it off your hard drive. Technically, neither side loses - you don't waste your money on inferior product, and the record company/artist don't really lose out because you weren't originally going to buy the album anyway. If, through this illegal activity, they get an honest sale out of it – where’s the problem? Is it really a crime to protect your interests as a consumer?

Now, if you’ve downloaded the album, liked what you’ve heard but not enough to warrant paying in excess of ten quid for, there are ways you can get around it cheaply, legally and without waiting for it to show up in the Christmas Sale:

You could buy it second hand – someone may have bought it, disliked it and decided to list it on eBay in order to get rid of it. Amazon Marketplaces is also good for second hand goods if you want it quickly and don’t want to wait days for the auction to end.

Get it imported – Amazon Marketplaces is even better for this. There are sellers there who ship brand new CDs from North America. As it’s a low value export, there’s no sales tax at their end and no VAT/Duty at this end. Sellers shipping to the UK from Jersey are subject to similar VAT/Export loopholes so, even then, you could get the same album for half the price it is in the shops!

Scenario 2 - Out of Print

You download an album that has been out of print for several years and is not available anywhere else in the world or on any other format. There's a significant amount of demand for it to be re-released, but the record company don't see it as a worthwhile investment. As no-one profits from this album anymore, is it really unethical to download it?

Scenario 3 – You already own a copy

You legally own a vinyl copy of an album but, these days, you find it more convenient to listen to music on your MP3 player. If you have the technical know-how, you could hook up your turntable to your PC and digitise it – but you’d get the sound imperfections of a rather old and well-used album and takes it a considerable amount of time to set up. So you decide to download it instead. If digitising your LP collection for private use is considered acceptable, why would downloading an album you already own off the internet (in a sense, you’re still making a copy for private use) be considered illegal?

Okay, the above really only applies to people downloading whole albums from the internet but, if you’re the sort that picks odd songs off Kazaa or Limewire, you really should either download it legally (80p for a song you enjoy isn’t much when you think about it), or if your MP3 player is like mine and doesn’t support Digital Rights Management, buy the single if you can or get a cheap copy of the album if you can’t.

The jury really is still out on this – the bottom line is you’re still downloading copyrighted music without authorisation. But is there room for a grey area where fair use comes into play? At the end of the day, you won’t stop the hardcore pirates but, for genuine music lovers, record labels and legitimate online retailers can do more to reduce the amount of grey-area piracy that goes on.

For example, they can provide a ‘try before you buy’ service that allows you to stream the whole album over the internet in a considerably lower fidelity. 30 second sound samples aren’t really enough to give you an overall impression of a song – especially in the world of prog. If a listener likes what they hear, they’re only a few clicks away from buying the album from you.

Addressing the downloading of out-of-print albums, where’s the harm in making them available for legal download through services like iTunes and Napster? Surely it’s more profitable to host an album online than manufacture a run of CDs that won’t shift in huge amounts.

At the very bottom line – if you want to stop piracy, give them something worth buying in the first place. DualDiscs are the best idea yet – give them something extra that can’t easily be transmitted over the Internet for little additional cost.

Last Saviours of Good Songwriting / Loudness Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:17:00 +0000

Over the last month or so, I've been delving into some of the efforts displayed by today's rock artists such as Keane, Snow Patrol, Muse, The Feeling and Razorlight. At the moment, things aren't quite so bad as I'd imagined, but it still needs improvement.

The fact of the matter is that they are the current torchbearers in the Good Songwriting stakes. What I've heard may not be bona-fide classics, but at least they're not pandering to trends or stereotypes. In particular, The Feeling display a bright and optimistic sound that was surprisingly succesful in the days of teenage angst. But while the overall quality of songwriting has improved, another musical aspect has taken a turn for the worst: mastering!

For those who aren't in the know, mastering is the process whereby a master copy of a recording is produced in order to be duplicated and distributed. It's often handled by hired studio engineers who weren't involved with the actual recording itself, mastering the album to the brink of the CD's technical limits, ignoring the sound quality itself.

The general consensus today seems to focus on loudness, because the perceived fidelity of a sound recording depends on both how loud it is and how much treble they add to it. Treble merely adds sharpness to the overall sound, which isn't bad in moderation, but too much can result in a piercing and gruelling sound.

This is in cahoots with techniques known as Compression and Limiting. Compression reduces the dynamic range (the difference between loud and quiet sections) and limiting ensures that the peak volume never exceeds a certain level, and attenuates the sound if it does. This prevents the sound from being louder than a CD can handle, thus reducing any distortion and what's know as clipping (a sort of clicky noise where the recording is too loud for the chosen medium).

If you've ever heard "Call on Me" by Eric Prydz over the radio, you get to hear the side effects of limiting - the bulk of the song is drowned out by the over-prominent bass to the point where the limiters themselves can only just handle it.

All compression and limiting achieve is to make the sound recording more marketable - the louder it is, the more prominent it is... especially on the radio. It creates more of a 'wall of sound' and does not represent the recording as it conceived in the studio. Quieter mastering ensures that more of the original sound recording makes its way onto the CD, because none of the original recordings are altered by the compressor or limiter - a technique audiophile labels like Mobile Fidelity and DCC use to good effect.

So why is good songwriting and good production damaged by lousy mastering? It's all down to perception. In a crowd of talking people, you're more likely to hear the one talking louder, and that's what record companies expect of their mastering engineers... the louder it is, the more prominent it is and the more copies it sells. But all it does is make the recording a chore to listen to - as if they're shouting in your ear and not actually talking to you.

Isn't anyone progressive anymore?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 10:29:00 +0000

Looking at the UK charts recently, I'm reminded of how stagnant the whole thing is, and how it's been near-stagnant for a decade at least. It's almost like an "Out with the old" culture where one band is replaced by a near carbon copy of itself. The music never changes, only the people fronting the whole charade and, even during their short life span, the music they release keeps to the same formula and has no sense of evolution. Let's take a look at some examples:

Kid Pop

Ever since the days of Stepps, there's always been at least one kid-orientated vocal group hanging around somewhere. Now, there's nothing wrong with making music for children, but it gets annoying when all you hear are inane and overly-chirpy pop songs everywhere you go. None of them really last because their music fails to grow up along with their fanbase. Once their fans have moved onto other things, someone else has stepped in to catch the eye of their target age group. Stepps and S Club only lasted a few years each, Hear'Say crashed and burned quickly and, today, we're left only with Liberty X.

Alternative Rock

If it's done right, Alt Rock is a magnificent genre and only here do you find acts being progressive and constantly evolving their sound. Back in 1994, Oasis were a rather leery, swaggery band whose music sounded more at home in a Manchester pub - nowadays, their sound is noticably more mature and even Liam's songs have come on nicely. Play "Supersonic" next to "Songbird" and you'll see what I mean.

Unfortunately, we are treated to bands that all sound pretty-much alike. They all perform what I call "shoegazer rock" because I don't tend to hear much positivism in their music or lyrics - giving me the impression that they are just hunched over their guitars, using minor and diminished chords, and pouring out all their angst. Oasis said it best with "Stop Crying Your Heart Out" - a rare song about reassurance and self-esteem in this climate of angst and despair. They too are rather unoriginal - the indie boom of the mid 90's produced many bands that came and went with a similar philosophy. Blur are no more, neither are Pulp. Dodgy didn't even last a year as a chart band.

I'm reserving judgement on the Kaiser Chiefs - a decent first album, but the second one could make-or-break them.

Boy/Girl Bands

These have been around for what seems like millennia - bands containing 4-5 vocalists who merely karaoke to pre-written backing tracks. In the 80's, we had Big Fun and Brother Beyond (Bros don't count - at least 2 of them played instruments) giving way to a boom in the 90's and 2000's: Take That, Westlife, Boyzone, A1, 911, Spice Girls, Atomic Kitten, Sugababes, Girls Aloud and many more! The formula has repeated itself too many times and with no spark of originality - I for one cannot tell the difference between Girls Aloud and the Pussycat Dolls. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Pseudo-Progressive

This category deals with those that update their sound regularly, but only to blend in with current musical trends. Artists like Kylie, Madonna and its latest addition, Robbie Williams. There's no natural evolution, just a rapid shift from one style to another using whichever producer is most in demand at the time. To me, this is more pandering than progressive.

So who are the progressive ones? Who will still be here when all the rest have been phased out? Oasis still have a good few years left in them, as do U2. Kate Bush is back with us now while Neil Young still garners critical acclaim and respectable chart positions. If you look to the fringes, you'll find even more: Marillion, King Crimson and Rush are still hard-working survivors of 70's and 80's Prog-Rock.

Leona is doomed.

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:49:00 +0000

First, have a read of this brief article:

http://theinternetforum.co.uk/node/1834

Clive Davis... of Arista Records! BIG no no! If you want to be taken seriously without getting ripped off, you NEVER sign with Arista! The label is mostly full of MOR crooners, cheesy disco acts and R&B divas! So I now present to you: The Good, The Bad and the Seriously Ugly acts that have been associated with Arista.

The Good

The Alan Parsons Project - marvellous conceptual producer-rock band that became a mainstay on the US Billboard charts and a cause for drooling to audiophiles everywhere. In the end, Arista stiffed Parsons in regards to CD royalties and he left the label in the early 1990s.

Sarah McLachlan - Beautiful voice and a beautiful songwriter, but technically doesn't count here since she's signed to Nettwerk and only distributed by Arista outside of Canada.

The Bad

Barry Manilow - Billy Joel owes this man a serious debt of gratitude. Barry's first album contained a fair amount of Brooklyn-styled rock that could have left Joel in total obscurity. Fortunately for Billy, Barry's second album was full of MOR dross, giving Billy carte blance to unleash classic songs like "Piano Man", "The Stranger" and "Movin' Out". What's Bazza doing now? Well - for a songwriter who was very prolific in the 70's, he's doing an awful lot of old cover versions and Arista are still releasing them. Mind you, you could wire a mic up to Barry's bowels, feed him nothing but sprouts and beer, then press the resulting noise onto CD... and every middle-aged mum in the world will still buy it! I think I would too - anything's better than Copacabana!

Brian Wilson - Before anybody starts moaning, I know Brian Wilson is a legend. I've heard "Pet Sounds" and "SMiLE" and cannot deny his brilliance. The reason he's in this section is because he too fell in with Clive Davis' crowd, just after the phenomenal success of "SMiLE". How did Davis get Brian to follow up such a masterpiece? With an abysmal Christmas record! Naughty boy, Brian! You could've said no!

The Seriously Ugly

Milli Vanilli - an oscenity in the music world. A two piece euro-disco band mentored by Frank Farian... as if Boney M wasn't enough! Problem was, Fab & Rob were only there to look pretty and dance when necessary! Their so-called "vocals" were provided by session musicians while the two of them mimed everything. Once the truth got out, they crashed and burned so quickly, only Gary Glitter would crash faster!

Kenny G - this man makes Enya sound like Marilyn Manson! So dull, boring and contemporary, I would rather go to my dentist and say "forget the anaesthetic" than be forced to listen to his music! So nauseating, even the elevator companies wouldn't touch him! His "Duotones" album is now a standard issue in the police force for crowd dispersal, and pub landlords keep a copy just incase the drunks won't leave at closing time.

And that's why you should never get sign to Arista! If she really wants to become an R&B diva like Whitney Houston and Toni Braxton, Arista's the best place for her. Very soon she'll be surrounded by an entourage of agents and PAs, before refusing to walk on stage until a bottle of water is flown over from Alps.

What is the "X Factor" anyway?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:40:00 +0000

Note: Just to clarify, when the words "X Factor" appear in inverted commas, I am referring to the TV show itself (e.g. I watched "The X Factor") . Without inverted commas, I refer to the X Factor as a posessive noun (eg. I have the X Factor)

It's always puzzled me. Looking at the last 3 winners, it now puzzles me even more. What is it about the 3 of them that is the coveted X Factor?

It can't be that these people have something unique that the music world is just screaming out for. Look at the past finalists:

2004: Steve Brookstein (Cowell) vs. G4 (Walsh)
G4, a classically-trained, 4-part harmony vocal group up went up against a blue-eyed soul singer who sounded remarkably like Michael Bolton. Brookstein never ventured away from soul or soul-inspired songs when performing on the show, yet G4 were tackling songs way out of their remit and still doing a sterling job of it! Natch, it was Cowell's show and he had to win it - which left us watching a totally unprofessional half-laughed rendition of Phil Collins' "Against All Odds". What happened next? Get this! Brookstein's single failed to top the charts immediately, stalling at #2. Cowell had to change his tack and announce that all profits were going to aid the victims of the Tsunami - either he had a heart or he couldn't bear to see his show fail to produce a #1 hit. Brookstein's debut album was heavily delayed and virtually tanked. 2 years later, very little has been heard from him since. G4's third album, however, was a complete success. Now ask yourself - who had the X Factor out of the two of them?

2005: Andy Abraham (Osbourne) vs. Shayne Ward (Walsh)
How original these two were... I think not. Neither of them veered outside of safe ground and proved to be nothing but an average soul singer (a dead cat scenario in today's charts) and a Timberlake wannabe. Time will tell if Ward's career will suddenly tank the way Brookstein's did but, last time I saw Andy Abraham, he was performing free concerts in Birmingham. Even third-place Journey South are still getting a fair amount of paid work!

2006: Ray (Cowell) vs. Leona (Cowell)
Impossible for Cowell to lose, but here we have the same result as the previous year: two singers that sound uncannily like someone else. Ray wanted to be a Rat Packer while Leona was straight out of the Meriah/Christina/Whitney school of belting out vocals.

Okay - so they're all at least half-decent vocalists. But does having the X Factor rely solely upon having semi-decent vocal talent? If so, give me a sheet of paper a mile long and I'll fill it with the names of other people that have the X Factor! The only quality I can see between all 3 winners is that they are all temporary stop-gaps and cash cows, mainly because none of them seem strong enough to convincingly tell Simon Cowell to bugger off and go do their own thing instead. Leona, for example, is far too young and far too fame-hungry to challenge him - he has the power to make or break them, and they want to make it at any cost.

One judge says it's a singing competition, the other says it's a talent competition. So, for now, let us consider this:

A musician turns up to the audition and plays a self-composed tune on the guitar. Their song was well-written but catchy, and the guitar work displayed such a high level of emotion and technical skill, it would make even the late Jimi Hendrix gawp in amazement. Only down side was that the vocals were adequate, but nothing remarkable. Would they be voted through to the boot camp, or just simply given the boot?

Just a thought....

noreply@blogger.com (Andy2510) — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:38:00 +0000

Wouldn't it be funny if Leona's single was hit by a 'barcode error' resulting in all purchases from HMV being mistakingly recorded as Cliff's! That's would really be one in the eye for Cowells promotional tool that is the X-Factor!

According to Cowell, Leona is the best singer to come out of ANY reality-based TV talent show. Maybe she does have the best voice (but that still isn't saying much compared to past winners), and perhaps she needed the general public for her to win (as I think us viewers are butter judges of talent than the judges - we tend to go for vocal talent while judges look mainly for image).

But there should be a time-limit between winning a competition, and releasing the first single. Putting the single on sale 4 days before the Christmas number 1 is announced, and only 4 days after winning, says to me that Cowell isn't interested in the artist, but to get that coverted Xmas no 1 slot and more £££'s. All X-Factor (and Pop Idol) are to him is promotional tools. What's the betting in 6-12 months time, Leona has her contract scrapped due to poor sales?

Incidentally, Ladbrokes have said they are not taking bets for Christmas number 1 next year. That's ruined a little bit of fun for many people.

All your favourite songs... in haiku!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:25:00 +0000

All of these summarise the lyrics/trivia of popular songs using the 5-7-5 syllable Haiku format. Feel free to submit your own!

"Angels" by Robbie Williams

Ex-Take That Member
Sings of necrophilia
By loving angels

"Smoke on the Water" by Deep Purple

Stupid prat burns down
Swiss casino so band must
Record in hotel

"Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen

Just killed somebody
Do not know why but now I
Really need my mum

"Relight My Fire" by Take That

Boy band burned out and
need refuelling because they
ran out of petrol

"Music" by Madonna

Old Madge wants to dance
So badly that she'll take a
Cab with Ali G

"Burning Down the House" by Talking Heads

I am just a man
Plain ordinary but I'm
Quite the arsonist

Boy Band Bootlegs

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:27:00 +0000

To rock fans like me, bootlegs are a great source of getting hold of a band's material that hasn't been previously released. In the world of rock, improvisation plays a rather large part and can give way to some pretty impressive performances that would never get released officially. These days, it's rare you see a live album in the charts because the focus in concerts is on the visual aspects: lights, dances and the general visual appeal of the band themselves. The musical aspect of said concerts mainly consists of carbon copies of their studio work. Therefore, the only way you'd get an interesting Boy Band Bootleg is if they were to perform improvised solos. Boy Bands are not known for their instrumental prowess, so if one was made, this is what it would be like:

Westlife Live: The Solos!

Recorded live on the 2006 tour

Track 1: Shane Filan Tambourine Solo (Running time: 24:16)

In this track, Shane Filan displays his mastery of the tambourine - being able to shake and tap it with all manner of subtlety, aggressiveness and dexterity. The visual aspect of this solo consisted of Shane's face being displayed on the large screen at the back of the stage... which seemed to keep the audience appreciative during the whole 24 minute tambourine solo.

Track 2: Nicky Byrne Tribute to David Byrne (Running time: 4:15)

This is rather a strange addition to the Westlife repertoire where sleek-voiced Nicky Byrne pays tribute to David Byrne - eccentric genius and Talking Head. The first 15 seconds consists of Nicky painfully trying to sing "Once in a Lifetime" without adding any quirkyness at all. During the remaining 4 minutes, we hear David Byrne himself run on stage screaming "You've butchered my song you b***ard!!!", knocking Nicky Byrne out cold, followed by a general skirmish while waiting for the St. John's ambulance to stretcher him off.

Track 3: Kian Egan Guitar Solo (Running time: 37:28)

In this track, Kian Egan displays his potential as a guitarist by reciting a passage from Hodder & Staunton's "The Beginner's Guide to Guitar Op. 1". For the whole 37min solo, we hear Egan attempt to play a 3-chord masterpiece, "Mull of Kintyre" by Wings, only fumbling after every chord change. The lyrics consist of just two lines repeated indefinitely:

Mull of Kyntyre, oh mist...
... hang on, I can get this. Bear with me.

Again, to keep the audience entertained during this 37 minute guitar solo, Nicky's face was displayed on the rear-of-stage screen in order to maintain the normal levels of screaming and swooning.

Track 4: Mark Feehily Comedy Solo (Running time: 0:21)

The shortest of the 4 solos. In this track, we hear Mark Feehily begin by saying "There was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman...", followed by the sound of a bottle whooshing past the microphone and smashing against Feehily's head.

And that's what you'd get! I have to remind you that this bootleg doesn't actually exist - it's only to point out the extremities that would make a boy band worth bootlegging. As it turns out, it's not even worth frisking the audience for recording equipment!

Take That are back... oh goody.

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:40:00 +0000

February 1996: I remember it well. The one boy-band that had charmed millions of people, and annoyed everyone else, decided to give up and bugger off. Take That's final announcement brought tears to the eyes of their predominantly screaming-girly fanbase, and tears of happiness for anyone who was ever forced to listen to their trite dancey-pop and hammy ballads.

Things were so much sweeter. Outside of the main group, their solo careers dried up within the space of a year or two, once the fad had worn off and some newer bands filled the space they left in the market. Their demise gave Oasis a mostly free-reign at the top of the UK charts - although I wasn't into them at the time, they were still more deserving than Take That.

Sadly, the dream didn't last. 10 years later, their solo careers had faded into nothing while their former bandmate, Robbie Williams, was still riding a wave of popularity. So they decided to make a comeback. Whether it was out of jealousy, a lack of money or a lack of fame, I don't quite know - but I cannot deny that the whole thing stinks of £££!

Let's look at the evidence.

Never Forget: The Singles Collection - released 14th November 2005
Beautiful World - released 27th November 2006
My Take (Gary Barlow's Autobiography) - released 5th October 2006

Now, is it just me, or are all of the above released just in time for Christmas? If they were really making a comeback for the nostalgia and the want to make music together again, would it not matter when their comeback album was released? Excluding singles, that's 3 related products in the space of just 1 year!

I've also taken an impartial listen to their "brilliant" comeback album. Okay, it is considerably more mature than the stuff they churned out back in the early-mid 90s, but mature doesn't mean good. It's still so mainstream and inoffensive, it sticks rigidly to the middle of the road and never even veers an inch away from it. It's the same old story - more money is to be made by staying on safe ground, even though it makes the most bland and predictable music.

Now let's look at another pop group's comeback to see how it should be done!

Norwegian synth-poppers a-ha made their comeback in 2000 after a 7 year break. Their last album, Memorial Beach, suffered from weak material and sold very poorly. Aware of this downturn in quality, the band split. Their 2000 comeback wasn't hyped up the way Take That's was and the album, Minor Earth, Major Sky, came out during the Summer instead of cashing in on Christmas. It sold modestly in the UK (it was a major hit on the continent), but the quality of the album was of a very acceptable standard. It didn't hark back to their mid-80's hey-day, nor was it a bleaker album like its predecessor - the break did them good and they came back refreshed and with a much stronger set of songs. Unlike Take That, they managed to veer off slightly by adding a little quirkyness into the music that made it likeable, but never predictable.

A-ha had no guarantee that the music world would welcome them back, and so had a lot more to prove. Boy-band culture hadn't really evolved in Take That's absence, and with a nostalgic fanbase on their side, they could easily slip back in as if they'd never left with no real need to work hard on their comeback.

So what does the future hold? My prediction is that their comeback will be short lived. They'll either split again once the bank balance has been replenished, or they'll be muscled out as the nostalgia wears off and the musical climate changes. So, if any Take That fans are reading this, before you go thinking they're "back for good", think about what you had to do during the split-up. Very few of you loyally followed their solo careers, leaving their once booming fanbase to whittle and fade as newer and fresher bands started to compete for your attention. The music industry is geared towards poaching fans from already-established acts because of the fear of not being 'with it'. Anyone still listening to NKOTB during the reign of Take That would not be 'with it', nor would anyone still listening to Take That during the reigns of Boyzone and Westlife.

Thanks to this kind of competition - very few bands survive. Have we seen the end of long-established acts like U2? Only time will tell...