Livewire

Two blog posts in one day has got to be a record for me, however, even though most people won't have heard of them, I thought I'd do something a bit different and put some photos up I took last night of LIVE/WIRE. They're the best AC/DC tribute ever, and I may have failed to quite capture their passion, but they definitely had it :)

Fish out of mainstream.

I'm a little bit disappointed, readers. As I unwrapped my Christmas presents this year, I was quite excited when I uncovered comedian Jason Manford's new stand up DVD. I saw him about a year and a half ago, and I loved him. He came across humble, accessible and his comedy had a light, happy feel to it that left me smiling all night. However, as I watched his new DVD, I felt a sinking feeling of de ja vue. By the end of the DVD, I realised that, to my horror (I'm not exaggerating) about 80% of his material was from a year and a half ago. And yes, it was funny, but it wasn't funny enough to be excusable for retelling it a whole year and a half later. What comedian can't think of new jokes in that amount of time? And not just any comedian, a well established comedian who regularly appears on our televisions on quiz shows and 'live at the Apollo'.
It made me wonder, there must be funnier people out there that don't take so long to think of new jokes, people that aren't as famous. One of my favourite bands of all time, Mesh 29, http://www.myspace.com/mesh29, aren't famous. So what is it exactly that decides what reaches the mainstream?
A recent article, entitled 'The Best Albums You've Never Heard In 2009', lists albums that missed out on the 'commercial love' that they deserved (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8426925.stm). The 'c' word makes me feel a little bit sick, really. But it proves a good point - I checked out the music that's mentioned, and they're not all that bad. Why is it that the majority of people just let the radio decide their favourite songs? Why is it that we can't think for ourselves? We get spoon-fed the same music and films all of the time, and because it's there to make money and appeal to everyone, there's nothing special about it.
My favourite music is from the 70's/80's, when there was almost a rebellion against mainstream music. And the music has passion behind it, and gives the impression that it was made through enjoyment, not greed.
Going back to Jason Manford, why is it that he gets the career that many people can only dream of? When there's probably funnier people talking to sleeping alcoholics in dingy little pubs? I guess it's our own fault really. We're too mindless to go out and find talent, so there'll always be crap churned out for us to buy. Rage Against The Machine's recent two fingers up at mainstream music is exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm really trying not to make this blog too subjective, but really, do you not think that we have a bit of a weird music industry these days? It seems the less famous a band are, the more talented they are. I'm aware that that's a sweeping statement, but just click on the link to Mesh 29 to understand what I'm saying.
When was the last time you looked for music yourself instead of following music channels? There's something to think about, maybe. And as the theory goes, my blog is definitely not well known. Just saying….

MUSIC; as easy as 12345.

Music...you may be a fan, you may not. But my view is that it's one of life's greatest pleasures, and I'm definitely not the first to write that.
Listening to a song you overplayed in your childhood can fiercely catapult you straight back to that time, and can make you relive times you thought were well forgotten. For every era of my short life so far; there’s a number of bands that I associate them with. Every friendship I've ever had, has its own soundtrack.
Music has a certain way of enhancing moods, a bit like alcohol. In nightclubs, people aren’t dancing because they’re drunk, they’re dancing because of the music, if the music stopped, so would the dancing.
Now, next time you're eating your breakfast (which at a guess, will be tomorrow), remember the words of the wise blogger; who said that music is just as important in making your day go well.
When people are upset, a sad song can almost always fast-forward the tears. Music really does have power. Think of your favourite film, and then think of your favourite scene in the film – I can almost be certain that it has music in it; everything you see on television relies on music. So why shouldn’t we have our own soundtrack?
I think you can tell a lot from a person’s favourite songs, and a lot about the person in the way that they recall these favourite songs. The more personal the songs; the better. For instance, if you’re favourite songs have all been in the charts recently, it shows that you may listen to music, but you’re not its greatest fan. My favourite song is from 1989, and I think it’s a little bit of a shame when people don’t venture back that far, at least.
Next time you're eating breakfast (which at a guess, will be tomorrow), remember the words of the wise blogger; who told you that music is just as important.
Now, of course, there’s nothing wrong with not being obsessed with music, my only concern is that these people are missing out a little. When I hear certain songs, they (rather embarrassingly) lead me to closing my eyes and tilting back my head, and the feelings I get is almost as if I’ve been crawling the dessert for days, and I’m dying of thirst, and suddenly there’s a bucket of water being poured over my head. It’s that same thirst quenching feeling. And I’m aware that that little confession makes me sound really weird…let's keep that between us, yeah?
I know I'm the last person on earth to know anything about parenting, but my opinion is that carefully thinking about what music your child will be brought up on is as important as nappy shopping.
Of course, I do believe that a lot of music is churned out nowadays, and takes away some of the respect we had for music in the first place. Much of the music we hear now is written for music’s sake, and whilst a lot of mainstream, commercial songs are the one’s making the money today – I’ll never give up hope. Even though the King of Pop has gone, and all the classic acts are fading, maybe one day the talented will return. Sadly, my campaign for a little bit more music in everyone’s lives is coming to an end, but music never has to ;)

It doesn't matter if it's in black and white.

Yesterday was a sad, sad day. As you will most definitely know, Michael Jackson passed away. Now I'm not going to write about his death because there are a million other places to read about that. However, whilst reading several reports on the matter, I noticed a pattern. The media.
Now, last time I checked, journalists are the mediators between news events and the general public. They deliver impartial, updated news to the public. However, is it just me, or did the Press ruin and ultimately end Jackson's life?
I think the fact that he was so famous and a little bit different was what the Press fed off, he was an easy target due to his paedophilia trials and love of plastic surgery.
Many sources have agreed that after the charges made against him, after all of the bad publicity surrounding the accusations, he never was himself again.
Obviously there's been a tired debate for years over the invasive behaviour of the Press, but, as a lot of things were with Jackson, in this case, it was extreme.
There have been allegations already that the death was caused by overuse of a painkiller injection, and whilst I don't have much belief in this claim, there seems to be a lot of truth in it, too. The story claimed that Michael was a hypochondriac, and it was hard for those around him to tell if he was ill or not. And that this was all because of the medical attention and plastic surgery offers thrust upon him.
His death immediately sparked a lot of hatred and 'good riddance's which to me, was quite disgusting to read. There’s thousands of people that claim to hate him, and still speak ill of him now he has deceased, and why? Because of the media. Hmmm...
I know there is no direct link, and I’m not pointing fingers – but was it all of the stress caused from years and years of bad press and awful, false claims that led to his death? He didn’t have it easy for the best part of his life, and isn’t fair to blame the Press? I think so. I feel guilty talking bad about the industry that I wish to enter, the industry that I’m studying for a degree – but before being a journalism student, I am a human being. As was Michael Jackson, but that fact was bypassed by many.
This has made me think about journalists, do they have to be as invasive as they possibly can and intervene with human rights as much as possible in order to succeed? I know that's quite pessimistic of me, however, I think sometimes this is what seems to be true.
If we didn't have journalists - what would happen? Would we still find out about current affairs eventually? Would we know anything about the world around us?
If the Press can be responsible for the complete break down of someone, someone so talented and kind-hearted, do I really want that kind of job?
Why does anyone choose to be a journalist? Surely it’s to raise awareness, to change people’s lives and to reach out to as many people as possible. But are all these reasons clouded over by monetary priorities?
All I know is that I really felt for Jackson, and I’m not narrow-minded enough to believe everything I read. So my advice to you is to think twice before consider a journalist’s word to be nothing but the truth. Excluding my blog, of course...


Rest In Peace Michael

Blogging addiction.

I watched an interview last week with(in my opinion)the amazing legend that is Alice Cooper. He talked about how he had been addicted to alcohol, which is, of course, the norm in his line of work. But he then went on to say that, after battling with this addiction, he turned his focus on to golf, and now plays it as much as he can. He described it as focusing his addictive personality on something that won't kill him (unless he used his head as the golf ball of course). So, basically, he has an addictive personality... right?
This made me wonder - what constitutes an addictive personality? Do you only qualify if you have had a serious addiction in the past? Obviously, addictions to drugs, alcohol, and even sex, are the ones that make the tabloids. But are these the only vices that you can get seriously addicted to?
People often joke about being shopoholics and chocoholics, but can even these turn into serious problems? Food addiction has been brought to our attention over the last few years – because, surely, isn’t that what overweight people must suffer from?
Is it that black and white, though? You're either susceptible to addictions or you're not?
I'm not certain if I really know what it feels like to have an addiction, I'm not really sure that I can comprehend the enormity of it - but on the other hand, I've found myself questioning whether I have addictions in the making myself.
There's a lot of things I think I'm slightly addicted to, and I think they're all link to adrenaline. I often crave excitement; getting caught, going fast, conflict, even fiery arguments, sometimes. And I'm definitely addicted to spending money. Adrenaline can't be dangerous though...can it?
Addition is described as something that 'induces pleasant states or relieves distress', that doesn't sound too life threatening does it? Therefore it obviously depends on what you're addicted to, for example if you were addicted to cigarettes, it is them that cause problems, not the addiction itself.
Also, my (admittedly, not so intensive) research has told me that 'continued use of the addictive substance induces adaptive changes in the brain that lead to tolerance, physical dependence, uncontrollable craving and, all too often, relapse'. So the more one gives in to an addiction – the worse it becomes.
All of the definitions that I read seemed to steer towards drugs and alcohol, but surely if you like something a lot, it sends endorphins to the brain so therefore can be chemically addictive? I'm no expert, but people seem to joke about being addicted to TV programs, and different foods and things, but it's possible isn't it?
Apparently more and more people are becoming addicted to the internet and video games, obviously because of advances in technology. So if these advances hadn’t been achieved, would these people have found something else to fuel their addictive tendencies?
I think addiction is a funny concept. It can be destructive and ruin people’s lives – but all it is, is a dependency in the brain to whatever the addiction is based on. For example, an alcoholic is dependant on alcohol to the extent that everything else in life can be jeopardised. Yet other people manage to enjoy a few drinks now and again, but don’t feel the urge to binge. What separates these two kinds of people? Is it an emotional or a mental difference?
This is all too confusing really, I’m off to spend some money.

Talkin' 'bout our generation.

Now I never thought I would write a blog based on Britain's Got Talent, however, watching it has surprisingly inspired me. It's made me think about the current generation of children. Yes, I'm only 19, however, so much seems to have changed since I was a child, and I'm undecided as to whether these are all positive changes.
There has been quite a lot of children competing on BGT this year (that sounds like I'm an avid fan that can compare the show to every past year, I assure you, I can't).
Growing up in the 90's, we had no such opportunities. There was no kind of talent shows that I can remember. This made me think of a recent trip I took to Toys R Us. I braced myself for a whole lot of nostalgia...that never came. Instead I felt a bit sad, the toys were completely different, I couldn’t have gone back to my childhood if I’d wanted to. Whenever I have conversations with friends about what toys we used to have, we sound as if we grew up centuries ago. Now I know that the rate of technological change has never been faster - but, I repeat - I'm only 19! It seems absurd that when I was growing up, I'd never heard of the words 'mobile' and 'phone' being used together, and books and puzzles really were, more often than not, the most exciting option when we came home from school.
The fact that children growing up now all have their own TVs and phones and even their own games consoles; makes me feel ancient, but also, quite lucky.
I grew up reading, and I'm aware that what I'm about to say will make me sound like a prude, but I'm glad of this. I'm glad I grew up in front of Pocahontas instead of a Playstation. They say old habits die hard, but I have to annoyingly agree with this cliche' - over Summer it seems I have a lot less on my plate than anticipated - however, sinking my (ancient) teeth into a book hasn't lost its excitement - I feel sorry for generations behind me that will probably need to rely on TV for the rest of their lives. I don't know where I would be without pen and paper [insert modern equivalent if necessary]. Maybe if I had grown up with more than a full bookshelf and Teletubbies (when I'd behaved), then I wouldn't be so passionate about writing now. When it comes to entertainment - I'm glad I can live without electricity if I need to.