I've found that with my new job I went very quickly from having a lot of free time constantly, to practically none at all. For the most part I welcome this, but it has had some snags.
The main snag is for a while I had a build up of reviews that needed doing as a result they were rushed and it felt like a chore. I also found my passion for Folk music dying slightly. I assume this was because I had such restraints on the reviews that it wasn't fun doing them. Thankfully I had some time to plough through and I am now fully caught up.
I was concerned though that perhaps my love of folk would still be affected. Thankfully I was giving an album called Bare Foot Folk by Ange Hardy to review.
This album is one of the best I have reviewed so far and really helped rekindle that love in me for the genre, it inspired me to give the review a good write, much like my proper standard, and I hope this comes across.
In case you don't know I write for two online magazines, Bright Young Folk and Fatea. They both have completely different ways of reviewing so I need to put a different head on when working on them. Fatea has quite a large catchment working with Folk, acoustic and some stuff I would argue is Indie. They take a more liberal attitude of celebrating most music.
The trouble is I've had to review a lot more music that is outside my interest, which is good and bad as it develops my winder understanding of music, but also I find it harder to put as much 'Umph!' into the writing.
Bright Young Folk has a much closer remit which is much more my area, so I enjoy the music more. The catch then is all reviews for Bright Young Folk are supposed to be neutral in writing, so, like with Ange Hardy, I find music I want to just sing countless praises for, and I can't because the review needs to be neutral. This isn't a bad thing, Bright Young Folk concentrates more on spreading Folk and accepts that a reviewers personal feelings towards a certain album may be different to other Folkies, so Bright Young Folk aims to show what people would be getting. Fatea is more emotional in the writing (but aims for positive, avoids negatives reviews instead choosing not to review something not liked) acting more like a celebration of music rather than simply a platform to find new stuff.
Another plus for Fatea is we get sent the actual review CD, Bright Young Folk sends mp3 files. See my last post to understand why I regard that a plus.
DFTBA
Thursday, 6 June 2013
Monday, 3 June 2013
Is the CD dying?
A lot of my peers seem to get increasingly puzzled by the way I always try to buy DVDs and CDs rather than opting for digital downloads. The fact I opt for discs seems to wind some people up to ridiculous proportions as they spew every reason under the sun why I should be keeping with the times.
The arguments they generally use go like this:
- They are cheaper
- It is quicker, you get your album within a few minutes
- They only take up computer space rather than physical space
- It is easier to get them illegally
- It is the modern way to do it
All of these points are valid but don't convince me to swap completely. Inevitably I do have a lot of downloaded music, in particular if I only like an individual song I will download it from itunes, so it is not as though I am completely against doing this.
But my main responses would be these:
- Yes they are cheaper usually, but you get what you pay for, I want a physical object so I am prepared to pay more for it.
This actually leads me to my main reason for wanting the physical disc. I want the possession, it feels more like I own it if I have it stored up on a shelf. It is mine. With a digital download I just don't get this feeling at all, it feels just like another computer file, the same as everyone else's, in way if this file 'mine' my on individual copy, or at least not in the same way a disc is.
Secondly I like to have them on display, with DVDs if me or the better half can't think of something to watch it is easier to just look over the shelf and pick something out that we haven't seen for a while or strikes us. This is harder with computer files, you usually have to dig up what it is you want, and already know what you want.
Similar with CDs. My background with music is I am trying to promote a less popular genre, and my hope is by having them on display people will be curious to look through them. Interesting cases may catch someone's eye and I can tell them about it and just maybe, convert someone.
This is a lot more difficult with digital files because you can't just let someone browse at their own leisure as easily. People do not like to be preached at ESPECIALLY when it comes to music, people get very defensive so it is better to let someone decide they want to try it off their own back.
- It's quicker. Yes it is, but I'm very patient and believe good things are worth waiting for. Plus I quite enjoy the anticipation of knowing it will arrive soon by post. To me that is part of the fun of a disc. I also don't like this whole culture of 'must have everything right now' attitude that modern society seems to go for. There is nothing wrong with it as such, I just personally don't like it.
- They only take up computer space, not physical. See previous sections, but also on an additional note, to me discs and are ornaments, I want them to take up space because without shelves full of CDs and DVDs my room would look very bare and empty. Then again I suppose that is what everyone else uses books for... oh wait...
- Easier to get them illegally. I hate piracy. I believe it kills our movie and music industries so I will always pay. Folk music is struggling because of piracy, I support these bands who don't make as much as big pop stars. I help them the way I can, buying their music legally. Plus yaknow... key word is illegal...
- It is the modern way to do it. Yes it is and no doubt in years to come I'll be forced to swap completely or some new platform will arrive. Hopefully CDs wont be totally dead and will be able to exist along side new platforms as CD and Mp3 (for example) currently do. Besides I'm very old fashioned for my young age.
DFTBA
The arguments they generally use go like this:
- They are cheaper
- It is quicker, you get your album within a few minutes
- They only take up computer space rather than physical space
- It is easier to get them illegally
- It is the modern way to do it
All of these points are valid but don't convince me to swap completely. Inevitably I do have a lot of downloaded music, in particular if I only like an individual song I will download it from itunes, so it is not as though I am completely against doing this.
But my main responses would be these:
- Yes they are cheaper usually, but you get what you pay for, I want a physical object so I am prepared to pay more for it.
This actually leads me to my main reason for wanting the physical disc. I want the possession, it feels more like I own it if I have it stored up on a shelf. It is mine. With a digital download I just don't get this feeling at all, it feels just like another computer file, the same as everyone else's, in way if this file 'mine' my on individual copy, or at least not in the same way a disc is.
Secondly I like to have them on display, with DVDs if me or the better half can't think of something to watch it is easier to just look over the shelf and pick something out that we haven't seen for a while or strikes us. This is harder with computer files, you usually have to dig up what it is you want, and already know what you want.
Similar with CDs. My background with music is I am trying to promote a less popular genre, and my hope is by having them on display people will be curious to look through them. Interesting cases may catch someone's eye and I can tell them about it and just maybe, convert someone.
This is a lot more difficult with digital files because you can't just let someone browse at their own leisure as easily. People do not like to be preached at ESPECIALLY when it comes to music, people get very defensive so it is better to let someone decide they want to try it off their own back.
- It's quicker. Yes it is, but I'm very patient and believe good things are worth waiting for. Plus I quite enjoy the anticipation of knowing it will arrive soon by post. To me that is part of the fun of a disc. I also don't like this whole culture of 'must have everything right now' attitude that modern society seems to go for. There is nothing wrong with it as such, I just personally don't like it.
- They only take up computer space, not physical. See previous sections, but also on an additional note, to me discs and are ornaments, I want them to take up space because without shelves full of CDs and DVDs my room would look very bare and empty. Then again I suppose that is what everyone else uses books for... oh wait...
- Easier to get them illegally. I hate piracy. I believe it kills our movie and music industries so I will always pay. Folk music is struggling because of piracy, I support these bands who don't make as much as big pop stars. I help them the way I can, buying their music legally. Plus yaknow... key word is illegal...
- It is the modern way to do it. Yes it is and no doubt in years to come I'll be forced to swap completely or some new platform will arrive. Hopefully CDs wont be totally dead and will be able to exist along side new platforms as CD and Mp3 (for example) currently do. Besides I'm very old fashioned for my young age.
DFTBA
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
Careful what you say
Well the A-Z of April this year is over (Although I think I may have miscounted somewhere, nevermind)
Now for a couple of rants.
I have noticed recently that my desire to cause arguments has increased. Now I have always enjoyed trolling and setting up arguments, getting others to carry it on and then sitting back and watching my creation, but the past month or so I have just noticed myself having a short fuse and I'm not really sure why.
I have also noticed on many occasions this month that people have stopped listening, they get a point they want to get across and that is it then, no other opinion is acceptable. Now here I'm not talking about great political issues like the Thatcher episode or even the celebrity sex scandals (although on these points it has been murder trying to get your opinion across because people seem to go into a blind rage if you even slightly disagree). I'm talking about stupid stuff that does not matter.
I'm finding myself now going the other way and getting so exhausted by being attacked by saying the simplest of things that I don't even want to get involved with any kind of debate anymore.
As I said in a previous post is my problem is I give up too easily. Having studied Philosophy I used to love debating and arguing but I just hate it now, especially as debating outside the classroom simply leaves me feeling that the other person is upset/angry/not speaking to me.
I hate that feeling a lot. I am not one of these people who can just take the attitude of 'it's their loss' or 'it's their problem' I get anxiety attacks over these things, so I always give up and I'm on the verge of just keeping any and all opinions to myself.
What I then find is people pressure me over and over for my opinion, then when I finally cave I get savagely attacked for this opinion that I did not even want to give in the first place.
I don't like falling out with people and I like keeping everyone happy as much as possible, but blimey people I do need to be met half way! I feel like a lot of people back me into a corner as one extreme or another. so if I look at an argument between two friends, in the past, I have been made the baddie because I would not choose a side, it's either one side or the other.
People's inability to compromise really bugs me and this is something else that has changed the past few months, I find I don't tolerate it as much as I used to. I am very quick to give up with stubborn people now. I have no time or energy left for dealing with people who refuse to compromise.
On a side note. I noticed this BBC article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22354326
It clearly says in the tag paragraph: Children who use self-deprecating humour among their peers are more likely to be bullied, researchers say.
Fair enough. But it then says under the picture:
Children bullied at school are more likely to make jokes at their own expense
Does anyone else think that those are two completely different statements? Being bullied because you use self deprecating humor is not the same as using self deprecating humor because you are bullied. They are completely different.
If they mean both apply then fine. I don't see it explained that way though. So which is it?
DFTBA
P.S The number of times I wrote Onions instead of Opinions on my first draft is insane.
Now for a couple of rants.
I have noticed recently that my desire to cause arguments has increased. Now I have always enjoyed trolling and setting up arguments, getting others to carry it on and then sitting back and watching my creation, but the past month or so I have just noticed myself having a short fuse and I'm not really sure why.
I have also noticed on many occasions this month that people have stopped listening, they get a point they want to get across and that is it then, no other opinion is acceptable. Now here I'm not talking about great political issues like the Thatcher episode or even the celebrity sex scandals (although on these points it has been murder trying to get your opinion across because people seem to go into a blind rage if you even slightly disagree). I'm talking about stupid stuff that does not matter.
I'm finding myself now going the other way and getting so exhausted by being attacked by saying the simplest of things that I don't even want to get involved with any kind of debate anymore.
As I said in a previous post is my problem is I give up too easily. Having studied Philosophy I used to love debating and arguing but I just hate it now, especially as debating outside the classroom simply leaves me feeling that the other person is upset/angry/not speaking to me.
I hate that feeling a lot. I am not one of these people who can just take the attitude of 'it's their loss' or 'it's their problem' I get anxiety attacks over these things, so I always give up and I'm on the verge of just keeping any and all opinions to myself.
What I then find is people pressure me over and over for my opinion, then when I finally cave I get savagely attacked for this opinion that I did not even want to give in the first place.
I don't like falling out with people and I like keeping everyone happy as much as possible, but blimey people I do need to be met half way! I feel like a lot of people back me into a corner as one extreme or another. so if I look at an argument between two friends, in the past, I have been made the baddie because I would not choose a side, it's either one side or the other.
People's inability to compromise really bugs me and this is something else that has changed the past few months, I find I don't tolerate it as much as I used to. I am very quick to give up with stubborn people now. I have no time or energy left for dealing with people who refuse to compromise.
On a side note. I noticed this BBC article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22354326
It clearly says in the tag paragraph: Children who use self-deprecating humour among their peers are more likely to be bullied, researchers say.
Fair enough. But it then says under the picture:
Children bullied at school are more likely to make jokes at their own expense
Does anyone else think that those are two completely different statements? Being bullied because you use self deprecating humor is not the same as using self deprecating humor because you are bullied. They are completely different.
If they mean both apply then fine. I don't see it explained that way though. So which is it?
DFTBA
P.S The number of times I wrote Onions instead of Opinions on my first draft is insane.
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
Y is for Yoda
Y is for Yoda
So Disney is planning to release stand alone movies as well as the next Star Wars trilogy.
I do generally think this would be a great idea, my only concern is there is such an expanded universe now with books of the final trilogy etc that I am concerned the films will mess up what is already regarded as wider canon, even if technically speaking it should not be.
Thoughts?
I am personally looking forward to a Yoda back story and maybe a Boba Fett one too. I think maybe more obscure characters like Plo Koon and IG-88 would be brilliant too.
DFTBA
So Disney is planning to release stand alone movies as well as the next Star Wars trilogy.
I do generally think this would be a great idea, my only concern is there is such an expanded universe now with books of the final trilogy etc that I am concerned the films will mess up what is already regarded as wider canon, even if technically speaking it should not be.
Thoughts?
I am personally looking forward to a Yoda back story and maybe a Boba Fett one too. I think maybe more obscure characters like Plo Koon and IG-88 would be brilliant too.
DFTBA
X is for Xenon
X is for Xenon
Is it just me or does nearly any word beginning with an 'X' make a fantastic alien name?
In reality a Xenon is actually a colourless gaseous element!
On a completly unrelated note too there is a Kangeroo loose in Lancashire... how does that even happen?
DFTBA
Is it just me or does nearly any word beginning with an 'X' make a fantastic alien name?
In reality a Xenon is actually a colourless gaseous element!
On a completly unrelated note too there is a Kangeroo loose in Lancashire... how does that even happen?
DFTBA
Saturday, 27 April 2013
W is for What Next?
W is for What Next?
SPOILER ALERT
This post is about Ironman 3 if you have not seen the film and intend to do not carry on reading.
I just today went to see Ironman 3 and I think over all I was disappointed. The film was brilliant, don't get me wrong, but some the irritating aspects outweighed the good parts.
In regards to good parts I think the comedy aspect of the film was fantastic, it was set up well as we have seen in other Ironman films.
I also really enjoyed the fact that Tony Stark suffered from anxiety attacks. This is a very real problem that many people face in varying degrees, I myself suffer from anxiety attacks although not in the same was as Stark. It shows that Stark has not just been brushing off the events in his life, they have deeply affected him and this is great.
One of the finals parts of the film with all the different armors coming to his rescue was also good, although too short, we did not really get a proper look at the armors and some of their significances were not revealed.
First thing that annoyed me was that all of these armors got destroyed. What I cannot tell is if this is a way of them trying to close the series, I think if they were going to do that then more exposure on the suits was needed. For example one of the suits is hinted by many fans to be the Hulkbuster armor, revealing a possibility of a World War Hulk type senario, but now that suit has been destroyed, so it is disappointing that this is unlikely to now be an option. (although the revelation that he has been narrating to Bruce Banner the whole time does maybe again assist with this.)
My second issue is with Killian. His motiviation is not clearly explained in the film, why he is behind all of these attacks and seems to despise the President so much. According to other sources it is simply to hide the fact that the Extremis virus is unstable but frankly the film suggests something far more personal and this just does not show. I think this entire aspect of the film could have been done better, there needed to be a bigger reason for it.
Another point here is the use of the Extremis virus, I'm not sure it fits with the Marvel Cinematic universe, I saw an interview saying how they wanted to keep the cinematic universe on the more realistic side of sci-fi (as realistic as you can anyway) and the fire breathing/ glowing of the extemis virus frankly just bugged me. Even with the Hulk and aliens from previous films it was not as... daft as these lambent stuff. This is particularly annoying as they decided the Ten Rings of the Mandarian would be too unrealistic for the film?
I especially did not like the whole ending with Pepper Potts being infected and defeating Killian as one of these glowy people. Especially to then just be conviently cured at the end by Tony.
Another issue (I know this is a long list) is the fact that Tony's issue with the shrapnel gets resolved at the end. Now this is true to the comics but there is no explaination or even attempt to explain why they couldn't have just done this in Ironman 1.
And finally my biggest issue was with the Mandarin. The Mandarin is one of Ironman's most dreaded villians with untold power, and in this film he is reduced to simply being a laughing stock.
Now that all the Ironman armors are destroyed and Ironman does not NEED the suit to survive, plus the rumors of Hulk, and Ironman possibly being in Guardians of the Galaxy have been debunked... what next?
Ironman is 'likely' to be in Avengers and there is still a chance for more films apparently but I just feel they have a lot of explaining to do if they use him again and it has to be done well!
DFTBA
SPOILER ALERT
This post is about Ironman 3 if you have not seen the film and intend to do not carry on reading.
I just today went to see Ironman 3 and I think over all I was disappointed. The film was brilliant, don't get me wrong, but some the irritating aspects outweighed the good parts.
In regards to good parts I think the comedy aspect of the film was fantastic, it was set up well as we have seen in other Ironman films.
I also really enjoyed the fact that Tony Stark suffered from anxiety attacks. This is a very real problem that many people face in varying degrees, I myself suffer from anxiety attacks although not in the same was as Stark. It shows that Stark has not just been brushing off the events in his life, they have deeply affected him and this is great.
One of the finals parts of the film with all the different armors coming to his rescue was also good, although too short, we did not really get a proper look at the armors and some of their significances were not revealed.
First thing that annoyed me was that all of these armors got destroyed. What I cannot tell is if this is a way of them trying to close the series, I think if they were going to do that then more exposure on the suits was needed. For example one of the suits is hinted by many fans to be the Hulkbuster armor, revealing a possibility of a World War Hulk type senario, but now that suit has been destroyed, so it is disappointing that this is unlikely to now be an option. (although the revelation that he has been narrating to Bruce Banner the whole time does maybe again assist with this.)
My second issue is with Killian. His motiviation is not clearly explained in the film, why he is behind all of these attacks and seems to despise the President so much. According to other sources it is simply to hide the fact that the Extremis virus is unstable but frankly the film suggests something far more personal and this just does not show. I think this entire aspect of the film could have been done better, there needed to be a bigger reason for it.
Another point here is the use of the Extremis virus, I'm not sure it fits with the Marvel Cinematic universe, I saw an interview saying how they wanted to keep the cinematic universe on the more realistic side of sci-fi (as realistic as you can anyway) and the fire breathing/ glowing of the extemis virus frankly just bugged me. Even with the Hulk and aliens from previous films it was not as... daft as these lambent stuff. This is particularly annoying as they decided the Ten Rings of the Mandarian would be too unrealistic for the film?
I especially did not like the whole ending with Pepper Potts being infected and defeating Killian as one of these glowy people. Especially to then just be conviently cured at the end by Tony.
Another issue (I know this is a long list) is the fact that Tony's issue with the shrapnel gets resolved at the end. Now this is true to the comics but there is no explaination or even attempt to explain why they couldn't have just done this in Ironman 1.
And finally my biggest issue was with the Mandarin. The Mandarin is one of Ironman's most dreaded villians with untold power, and in this film he is reduced to simply being a laughing stock.
Now that all the Ironman armors are destroyed and Ironman does not NEED the suit to survive, plus the rumors of Hulk, and Ironman possibly being in Guardians of the Galaxy have been debunked... what next?
Ironman is 'likely' to be in Avengers and there is still a chance for more films apparently but I just feel they have a lot of explaining to do if they use him again and it has to be done well!
DFTBA
Friday, 26 April 2013
V is for Violent Femmes
V is for Violent Femmes
I did not realise this was an actual band. I remember them making a cameo on Sabrina the Teenage Witch and thinking they were a made u band for the show, I have been thinking this for years and then the other day I see a news article about them!
What is really weird is I find it hard to find any reference to them ever being on the show.
I also did not know when watching the show that the character Drell was played by Penn from Penn and Teller, not also then clocking Teller's guest appearance as a mute wizard.
It was again only years later when seeing Penn and Teller on TV that I recognised them and eventually made the connection!
DFTBA
I did not realise this was an actual band. I remember them making a cameo on Sabrina the Teenage Witch and thinking they were a made u band for the show, I have been thinking this for years and then the other day I see a news article about them!
What is really weird is I find it hard to find any reference to them ever being on the show.
I also did not know when watching the show that the character Drell was played by Penn from Penn and Teller, not also then clocking Teller's guest appearance as a mute wizard.
It was again only years later when seeing Penn and Teller on TV that I recognised them and eventually made the connection!
DFTBA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)