Music Videos, Sexuality and Individuality

I'm going to be talking abut some music videos I really have a problem with, why these particular videos stand out and what I think they represent about the music video industry as a whole. These videos are "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke and "We Can't Stop" by Miley Cyrus.

The reason I'm talking about these two videos specifically is due to three reviews I've recently watched by two fantastic reviewers. Although I admire these reviewers immensely, and I respect their opinions, I want to expand upon some problems they mention, or confront some defences they provide for them. For context and entertainment, I recommend that before reading this review you watch Todd in the Shadows Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke review and "We Can't Stop" vs. "Come and Get it" video. On top of these, I also plan on discussing issues picked up in Mues' Billboard Top 20 Summer 2013 Review (which, I'm afraid, does autoplay).

As you may notice, the Todd and Mues videos present, for the two topical videos, somewhat opposing views. I'm going to be perfectly upfront here and say that I side with Todd on both of these, but I think I may differ slightly.

The first issue I want to talk about is sex in music videos. Now, sex in music is inevitable. Sex is part of life (or, well, so other people tell me) and as music, for the most part, is designed to tell stories of life (or, for the more cynical, appeal to the widest possible audience) and will inevitably feature sex. What I'm about to say goes against a lot of what I believe. I don't believe in sheltering children from the world or denying free speech or anything like that, but here goes.

Charting music videos should be censored for nudity. I don't mean black bars, I mean if the music video isn't kid friendly from the get go, it doesn't get TV airplay between 9 and 9.

This seems harsh, and kind of stupid doesn't it? On one hand, what do music videos care about TV, when the Internet is the main source of viewership/revenue? TV is an important media for letting the wider public learn about the music videos, and this creates more Internet views. Also, unless your video is already very successful, there's next to no chance someone will happen to view it. The Internet excels at getting people to what they want. If people don't know they want, there aren't many ways they'll come across this mythical video.

Whether this reasoning seems sound to you or not, I'm still probably either coming off as a Helen Lovejoy-esque "Won't someone think of the children?!" type or otherwise just very conservative. I swear that in the majority of issues of any nature, I'm damn left-leaning. Music videos are... different. Especially on TV. In Canberra (and probably most of Australia. I don't know how varied we are) there is only one pop music show, an that runs from 10 until 1 on Saturday mornings. Although it is rated PG, it clearly is targeting the pre-teen and young teen demographic. I don't just think this. This show, "Bump TV", has a twitter feed onscreen, showing pictures of the twits tweeting. The vast majority of those appearing are (barely-literate) and are very young, mainly girls. I also have two young nieces (13ish and 10ish? Thank God I don't write this with my real name) who drink this genre up like sponges.

My problem isn't just with nudity. Let's finally get to the videos I said I'd focus on and how they portray sexuality. I'm not claiming I know what the right way to look at sexuality is, but the joy of criticism is I'm not expected to. In Blurred Lines, the women are objectified in every possible manner. Let's start with the Haislip Dead-eyes. These women are not happy to be here. This isn't a cheeky group of people flirting. The men, fully dressed, are clearly in a position of power which allows them to ogle and judge the women. The women, depending on the rating of the video you see, are either skimpily dressed for the most part or just plain topless. They aren't even cute about it. Here are some tits, viewing audience. Enjoy. This is not the sort of thing I want to think of young teenagers viewing as how people interacting in a sexual sense. Let me state my bias here - I'm a 19 year old bloke, single and the opposite of sexually active. This is coming from a young man, who really has no investment in these videos. I barely watch them. But this said, I don't want to think of people only a few years younger than me seeing this as anything other that revolting. I'm a straight guy, and I don't even find the topless version of the video erotic. It's just sad, for everyone involved. Thicke and his poker buddies don't look "cool", they look like they the biggest arseholes in the video. Not in a lovable rascal way, more in a "3 charges of human trafficking" way.

I will return on another issue in a moment, but lets look at Miley Cyrus. This is sort of the opposite. This is the kind of video I don't want to think of young girls watching. The worst part is how Cyrus does it herself. She is clearly running around in whatever that outfit is called attempting to look sexy. She is trying to look like a big girl. It isn't working. I understand she wants to change how she is seen by the media, but it's not working. I'm going to tell a sightly off topic story.

In 2009, a woman named Kellie Crawford, who up until that point had been a host of the children's TV show "Hi-5" posed on an adult magazine in lingerie. She said that this was her way of shaking off her children's show host reputation and helping "find the woman within". Naturally, there was outcry that this was completely inappropriate for an actress with a fan-base amongst children to do. "A Current Affair"did the usual media circus, and either ended up blaming immigrants or the "dole-bludgers" (their high-class journalism does so astound me). In the end, I don't think Mrs. Crawford's career really went anywhere, but I'm glad she did something that made her reclaim her sense of self.

The claims that this was sending a "negative message to young girls" is bullshit (especially compared to Miley Cyrus) for three reasons. 1. This was a completely different medium. I grew up with Hi-5, and I would not have thought that the woman in the lingerie had any association with Kellie on the show (although the magazine cover did advertise this, which was a prick move). Cyrus just went from kid friendly music to not-kid friendly music. It's still on a Saturday morning, and her godawful haircut does not disguise the fact that it is indeed Disney Miley slapping her arse at the audience (if you haven't seen the video, that's not me being condescending - she actually does that). 2. Crawford was taking pride in her body. I saw the pics. They are just some lingerie. Nothing racy, really. I would not be surprised if some people I knew had worn that kind of thing at one point or another. It's something you could buy in an underwear shop or online. It's classy, but sexy. Cyrus is just trying to rub herself against any object she can find. It's really sad, and her costume is clearly not something she would have brought herself or would wear any other time in her life. 3. Crawford isn't exactly sending terrible messages to girls. Thee children in Crawford's fanbase were much younger than Miley's, comparing 6 to 15. One has a much larger ability to purchase their own belongings and spend more time among only their peers. Also, why would a six year old care what someone called Kellie Crawford is doing? It's not like that's Kellie from Hi-5, necessarily. The only recognition would be visual, and if you can't keep your kids away from adult magazines, what a former children's entertainer is doing is not a core concern for you. Cyrus, without missing a beat has gone from Disney to over-sexual in just two songs, as "Can't be Tamed" was in a similar sense.

I'm going to try to tie this up, as I have way too many essays to be writing. I don't think that sex has no place in music. Not by any means. I also don't think sex or nudity should have no place in music videos. I just want to see a realistic depiction of sexuality provided for a very impressionable age bracket. Perhaps the problem is that pop music relies on individual personalities too much. Charting musicians are always just portrayed as every-people expressing their experiences through song (bar Daft Punk, who are never portrayed as people) . Kids can understandably assume that the celebrities outside of music videos (although they are hardly role-models either, considering Beiber and Anne Frank) are exactly the same people in music videos and Miley Cyrus does take a few hours out of her busy schedule to have groups of people smack her on the arse, or that Robin Thicke and his friends like hanging out while topless women vie for their attention. I'm not saying it's a conscious link in kids minds, but you can surely see where I'm coming from.

Sex can be used in music videos to good affect. It creates imagery, and imagery can be important for conveying emotion. Look at Open by Rhye. Sex and nudity used for an absolutely perfect song. I say this to prove I'm not some prude, or someone who wants the 1950's all over again. I just want to see a medium I enjoy given the treatment it deserves. I mean that those creating music need to have some restraint both for their own sakes and so that other can take it more seriously. I've recently been watching a lot of Extra Credits. I find video games fascinating even if I don't really play that many, and these guys always talk about bringing their medium forward as an artistic media. I'd like to see this happen with a new media, but look at music. It's as old as time itself. Why is it that when I think of "popular music"nowadays, this is the trash I'm given.  One reviewer (and I can't remember who, but their name will be edited in here when I do) said that reviewing to him was like going around and slapping products from people's hands and saying "No, don't settle for that, they can do better."

I suppose that's what I want to leave you with, reader. Have strong opinions. If you love Cyrus or Thicke, do that. You don't have to tell me that, but there's space in the comments for you to do so. If you think that The Beatles, The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan or Ben Folds are over-rated or you just don't like them, don't let irrational arguments convince you. "Well everyone else likes it" or "But it's the #th best selling # of all time!" are not convincing arguments.  I know I've travelled off track a bit, but I spend a solid portion of my life watching reviews and reviewing or commenting on things myself. It is easy to convince yourself that you are right and that everyone else is completely wrong, and just because someone seems impassioned in their ideas doesn't mean that they're right.

Bennet the Sage hates Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire." I love it. Todd in the Shadows loves Daft Punk. I don't get them, and think they're really repetitive. Marc Mues likes "Blurred Lines"by Robin Thicke. I really, really don't. Paw Dugan doesn't really like Wolfmother's second album. I really like it. Tori Amos is on Nash Bozard's Desert Island Soundtrack. I cannot see the appeal. The Rap Critic likes American rap music, for the most part. I have...difficulty appreciating it. Finally, Ben Folds, who I call my favourite musician of all time likes Kesha (dollar sign omitted). I despise all of her work. I just would like to point out that even if you admire the opinion of a great artist, no matter if their medium is music or comedic Internet review, you need to hold your own opinion of what they discuss. You cannot afford to just absorb and assume their ideas. Sure, use them as launching pads. Sure, if it's not a medium you're interested in experiencing first hand, don't bother. But with music, especially, we need a range of opinions.

I'm sorry I got sidetracked there. I've just spent too long reading Youtube comments for this review and I wanted to say something a little cheerier that how I'm feeling. My God, I did not know there were that many ways of misspelling "faggot".

You're feedback is more than welcome, especially if you endured my review with a completely contrary opinion.

H. Rourke

P.S. - 4 Things

1. If you have the time or inspiration, mute the video to "We Can't Stop" and put The Raconteurs' "Top Yourself" on over it. It was only a coincidence the first time, but my God it works.

2. If anyone at Youtube reads this,here's some advice: Get rid of the "Time Watched" function. I slept better not knowing that humanity hes invested 769 years in viewing terrible Miley Cyrus music.

3. I realised upon re-watching that a comment Todd made about Blurred Lines in his twitter didn't make it to the video. The the line:
"Tried to domesticate you, but you're an animal."
Todd observed: "Well, what else can you domesticate?"
I just felt like passing that along.

4. After pointing out how I didn't like American rap, I must now actually refer people to one. A great song about how sexuality in music can influence young people is Lupe Fiasco's "Bad Bitch". If the name is, understandably, too much, please at least skim the lyrics here.

There. Hasta luego.

The Art of Reviewing

I want to spend a little bit of time discussing a topic that is very close to my heart - reviewing. Honestly, I'm perfectly aware I'm not an authority on this topic. My reviews are rarely longer than a mere 3000 words, I don't really have a readership who isn't myself and I'll never review professionally. I'm OK with all of these factors, but I want to state these outright. This is the opinion of a consumer in the industry of reviewing and not a producer, or at the very most an extreme amateur. For the views, if only in passing, by those more involved with the production of reviews, there is a video by Chris Franklin (AKA Campster) here which touches on some themes I want to discuss (and also inspired this post) and here is a post by the music reviewer Todd Nathanson (much better known as Todd In The Shadows) discussing several important parts of what it means to be a critic.

Now, I'll continue with my uninformed, opinionated ranting. The question I want to examine is "Do positive/negative reviews have inherently less value than the other?"

My short answer is no. I consume a great deal of variety in reviews, but I rarely, if ever, will disregard a review or a series of reviews or a reviewer just because they either love or hate their discussed medium.

Let me flesh that out a little more. Loving or hating a topic is really not a problem with me. Admittedly, it is much easier to squeeze comedy material out of hating a particular topic, as the success of Nostalgia Critic and Zero Punctuation have proven, but it also risks going just a little too far. I find the overly mean-spirited and dismissive reviews of Mark Mues occasionally distasteful, and I've never really found the immature overly disgusting bile-fueled reviews of the Angry Video Game Nerd to my tastes (although I can sort of see the appeal). This is a one way street. I am yet to see a positive review err too far on the "It's good. Just 'cause." side of the scale, which some negative reviews seem to do. What can be gained by the comedic value of hate can easily be undone with a lack of analysis or explanation.

I can live without comedy in my reviews. Sure, when I first started watching Nostalgia Critic several years ago, I was hesitant to branch out into watching other contributors on TGWTG because I couldn't see myself enjoying more analytical reviews with less comedy. But now I can't imagine limiting myself like that again.

The most important part of a review is education. I don't mean undeniably true fact, I call learning people's individual opinions or experiences educational too. I also don't claim comedy has no place in reviews, but it's more a side dish for me.

Let's look at some examples. Todd in the Shadows is a perfect example. Todd (yes, I did try to abbreviate the title before realising hat it spelt) has, on TGWTG and Chez Apocalypse at least, a back catalog filled with negative analysis of what he sees as a poor quality offerings by a good medium, like most TGWTG reviews. The difference can be seen in the series "One Hit Wonderland", looking at the full careers of One-Hit Wonders. These musicians can be good, bad or anywhere in between and they all get the same semi-comedic analysis. Whether Todd likes or dislikes the group, the reviews do not radically vary in quality, showing that a "good" review does not hinge upon whether the review is positive or negative.

This seems to be the case with most of my favourite reviewers. I don't care if they love or hate it, I just want to know why, a little about the topic and come away knowing a little more than I did before. Look at the reviewers I've watched just today.

Campster, of Errant Signal, analysing both videogames and academic interpretations emerging from videogames. Although he looks at things he both likes and dislikes, the pull of the episode.

Cecil Trachenburg, of Good Bad Flicks, who is possibly the biggest, most forgiving fan of movies I've ever seen. He absolutely love every film he talks about, albeit often in an, as the name suggests, so bad it's good way. More a comedy than analysis show for the most part, but still a fan of his topics.

Oancitizen, of Brows Held High, who looks at artsy films, analysing the good and bad in each film he reviews. Of all reviewers, Oancitizen would be the hardest to put on either side of the positive/negative fence. More analysis than comedy, but plenty of comedy arises merely from the observation of inherent ridiculousness in his chosen medium.

I think that the very best reviewers, at least from my perspective, fall on neither side. People like Nostalgia Critic, Marzgirl, Oancitizen and Rap Critic, who all respect and love their reviewed mediums, will look at each particular topic and discus he flaws and features it presents in a way that viewers can appreciate, take sides upon and learn from.

Final answer to the question? The only reviews with inherently less value are those with less explanation of their conclusions and less information.

Feedback welcome.

H. Rourke

A Music Game

I thought just to pass some time, I'd share a little game I play with my playlists.

What you'll need:
Wikipedia
At least a 2GB music player with shuffle mode enabled.

Rules:
The premise is simple: see how many songs you can play in a row without repeating the home city of the group. For groups, go by where they are based, where solo artists are born and for duets, go with the name or act that comes first.

For added difficulty, pick three cities before you start. If the city picked is repeated, you get ten more points, but for every time the city comes up without being repeated, lose 5 points. Get 1 point for each different city in the entire list.

Here's a sample game (which, in retrospect, will be incredibly dull to read):
I'll guess New York City, London and Melbourne

They Might Be Giants - Lincoln, Mass.
Jamiroquai - London
Danzig - Lodi, NJ.
Ted Leo & the Pharmacists - Washington D.C.
Daft Punk - Paris (I still don't really get them, but I'm trying to understand what all the hype's about)
Beck - Los Angeles, Cal.
The Rolling Stones - London - Fin.

Total: 7 tracks - 5 London turning up + 10 for London repeating = 12 points.

Well, it's a dull game with no possible of playing competitively without someone cheating, but this Uni break is beginning to drag on. Can you tell? Also, it seems that every fucking British group I have on these playlists comes from bloody London. I think it's the only city I've ever repeated without the group repeating too.

Feel free to post games, suggestions for improved play or any feedback in the comments.

H. Rourke

Australian Culture & Music Part 1 - It Doesn't Matter To Me

So, before the first entry into this series, let me give a quick overview of what I'm trying to achieve and what I'm going to try to do to get there.

I've heard it often said, and have said it myself, that Australia is a nation without a culture. Sure, we have stereotypes, some of which we support. Australians throw shrimps on the barbie (we call them "prawns", for the record), all live by the beach (I live in the national capital, which is inland), enjoy the constant warm weather (it reached a peak of 11 Celsius today, or 51F for you Americans (happy 4th of July to you guys, by the way)) and are all English speaking white people of English descent (43% of Australians have a parent born overseas, and not all of them are English. For fuck's sake, the most famous graduate of my college was Jackie-fucking-Chan).

Despite most stereotypes of Australians being little more than pure bullshit, some ideas of what all Australians are have persisted, and I greatly want to look at these ideas, specifically those presented through music. Although music will be my launching point, most of these articles will probably be my opinion mixed with what proof I can find to back myself up.

What authority does my opinion have? Very little. I've lived every day of my life in Australia, and I have just concluded a survey course on the post-WWII history of the nation. Yeah, this should be taken only as really a uninformed opinion.

All the same, I want to make an Australian think a little more about what stereotypes are beginning to emerge that might be slightly more accurate than our tourism campaigns provide and to show international readers what Australian society looks like to Australians (for the most part).

Enough with the BS, on with the show.

My first quote comes from the track "It Doesn't Matter To Me" by Redgum, from their 1988 live album, Caught in the Act.

"It doesn't matter to me,
It doesn't matter to me.
I'll sit home and watch you all on my colour TV."

The target stereotype in a word: Apathy.

To make the blanket statement that Australian's "don't care" is a popular one, especially by political analysts in regards to the political system. This, obviously, varies from person to person. The three Socialist organisations in this city, one of which operates out of my University, instantly prove that at least some Aussies care. The issue here seems to emerge more out of political activists who wish to see their beliefs spread.

The issue, I feel, is one of comparison. Australians want to see a political society akin to America. Why? Well, firstly America is the society from which Australian culture has drawn the most influence since the Vietnam War. Secondly, there is a massive difference between American and Australian political systems. In Australia, voting is compulsory, so the American political requirement to make people vote at all is skipped over. The focus on individuals is also much less in Australia. For example, about a week ago the government replaced the Prime Minister in less than an hour due to internal dispute and declining popularity. Ever see that happening in America in anything short than an impeachment? Andrew Jackson says otherwise. This is obviously due to completely different systems of government, but Australian politicians still often seem to desire a more American government. I like this article for putting allegations of political apathy in some perspective.

Another allegation is that Australians think their politicians are dodgy, unreliable and lacking in many respectable qualities. The fact that this is not something limited to Australia is the obvious response, and there is little more I can say.

This is a short intro to the series, as this claim is so easily disputable. The only people I hear making this claim, that Australians are politically apathetic, are those who are politically passionate, and all I hear is "people should be more like me." Redgum are a charismatic, clever, down to earth group, but they are not an exception.

Feedback welcome.

H. Rourke.

Unrewarding Simulations - The Sims Franchise

 My Australia project is still in the works, but I want to get my thoughts down on a particular topic while I'm still focused on it.

Let's talk about The Sims.

Call this an homage to Shamus Young's "Experienced Points", bar the programming background, talent and general knowledge of games, but I want to talk to the makers of this series.

I've been playing The Sims since my step brother gave me a copy of the original "The Sims" sometime in the early 2000's. I've played every incarnation of the franchise, every expansion of the original, most of the Sims 2 expansions and only the University expansion of the third.

I want to establish that I know what I'm talking about here. I'm not some professional reviewer who played this game for what they consider a decent amount of time then complained about how only "casual" gamers can possibly derive entertainment from this.

They're right. I'm a casual gamer, and I wear such a title with pride. I have put my heart and soul into deriving pleasure from this game, and for the most parts I've succeeded. However, I'm not here to make great claims about the game. If you aren't interested in the series, I can't blame you and understand completely. This is for the undecided and the fans. I wish to ask and answer (from my opinions and experiences) a double-barrel question:

Why do we want to play the Sims? and Are the successive incarnations of the game appealing to this?

I want two things from the Sims, both of which I feel I have never been treated with the proper respect.

Firstly, an autosave option. I'll say that again. An autosave option. One more time. AN AUTOSAVE OPTION. 20 minutes ago, I lost 6 hours of progress on my game. I will never get that time back. I hate this game right now. I admit that freely. I am emotional here. Now, I know that some people want the ability to undo from one save to the other in case of terrible accidents, but that is why I say OPTION. Sure, I could save every few minutes. I timed the manual save today. It took FIVE MINUTES. That is not a save loading time. THAT IS AN AD BREAK. Just... make me think that the significant portion of my life I waste on this fucking game is optional. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE IT TO ME. I'll... calm down.

Now, my bigger gripe is in a sense of accomplishment. I'm not asking for actual Steam-style accomplishments (with Maxis and Origin on board, that would guarantee the fucking game would crash). I just want a little proof to myself that I have something to show for my work on this game. I thought the franchise was progressing this way with Sims 2 implementing a family tree function, to show how far back the ancestry reached. Considering this has not been changed in anyway sine the original Sims 2 was released in 2004, I think any success that achieved was purely accidental. Since then there has only been an increased focus on not allowing any freedom. In The Sims 3, you have to give up certain aspects of progress to play as a different family. This being a change from being able to play any family in the neighborhood.  I just want something, anything, to reward me. Somthing that carries on. Something even useless. The family tree is a good start, but as soon as a family dies out, I lose everything. It's like playing a flash game on Steam, and selling it on a sense of accomplishment because the number beside "Hours Played" increases.

What other "points" are there to save up? Let's make a list:
- Aspiration points (saved for each Sim, completely, irretrievably lost when that Sim dies.)
- Money (for a lot, lost when you follow a Sim away from the familial home. Considering only 8 Sims can be on a lot, you pretty much have to do this for your Sim to have kids)
- Career Progression (same as with Aspiration points)
- And don't get me started on emotional connection, what little there is.

I feel the Sims get more rewards than I do.

Why is this lack of perceivable progress so frustrating?
Because this is not the facebook game it so clearly wants to be (especially with its new facebook connectivity features). It is, by approximation, the largest game on my computer. I can run no other program on my machine (less than a full year old) simultaneously (is that a pun?) without a slowdown. I can't minimize the program without a graphical decline upon maximization (another pun?). This program requires me to put my entire digital life (i.e. my life) on hold for some unrewarding, increasingly forgettable, pointless gameplay. Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break. And then it crashes because it can't connect to Origin (I'd have complaints about Origin, but it's like picking on the stupid, smelly kid in primary school. I wouldn't be the first to do it, I wouldn't be the wittiest and the passage of time will do more damage than I ever could).

I'm going to spell-check this article (to the usual poor standard) but I won't edit it any more. This post is rambling and angry, and I don't want it to lose that, even at the price of coherency.

Sims 4 is coming out. My predictions? It will have unnecessary and no longer optional connectivity with Facebook and Twitter. It will have poorly implemented and maintained mandatory online play, with unnecessary multiplayer... somehow. The game will be streamlined and simplified to avoid causing offense to younger players, and in doing so will create more controversy by removing specific content. My money is on them removing gay relationships. It will rely upon expansion packs to have even a little creativity. The expansion packs will be: Vacations, Higher Education, Pets, Nightlife and Ikea. It will be larger and more expensive than can possibly be justified.

I'm afraid I'll need someone else to correct me on some of these guesses when the game is released, as there is only one prediction I can both verify and guarantee:

I won't buy it.

Feedback welcome.

H. Rourke.

Considerations

Well, I have way more time on my hands than is useful and far more than is healthy. My idea? Make another multi-part post. I've already done the beast that was my favourite albums list, and my favourite songs are far too dynamic to pin down in a top 5 or 10, especially over an extended period of time. I'm thinking of doing something a little more on the fringes of the music industry or literature, or even something unrelated.

I'll just put my cards on the table, because I doubt anyone will see this post before I begin this hypothetical uberpost.

Idea 1. - Australia & Music - A Stereotypical Retrospective
I'm considering going through my music collection and analysing stereotypes and opinions expressed about Australia & it's inhabitants. I've got at least 3 separate ideas to get me started, but I'm slightly worried that I'll never stop. I have a LOT of Aussie music, or at least a fair amount about Australia.

Idea 2. - Music Videos
Yeah, this idea is pretty half-formed. I don't know exactly what I'd do, but I think looking at the hallmarks of good and bad videos, looking at the famous and underrated, and attempting to come to a conclusion about what definitely should and should not be in a music video. A problem with this is that it's very based upon my opinion, which may be less entertaining to read.

Idea 3. - Something about lyrics?
OK, I'm out of ideas. I'm probably going for numero uno, but anyone who feels there is a great idea I'm ignoring has 1-3 days (depending on lazyness) to let me know in the comments.

Feedback Welcome

H. Rourke

Unique Merchandise

This post is going to be one of those things that started out as one idea and ended up something completely different.

The original post idea was going to be a gripe about the official Ben Folds website, www.benfolds.com, and how although it seems very expensive and it checks all the boxes, it doesn't feel very intimate. This site just doesn't match Ben Folds style. For a man who has made a career of self-deprecating humor and intimate stories in his songs, this feels so...sterile and cold. It feels like a website never even seen by Folds and created by a publicist.

Although I stand by this issue, there isn't much else to say. My attention turned to a different post idea with a look at the merch store. I noticed an... interesting item, which made me think of some other items I've seen in official merchandise stores. This blog is, indeed, an examination of some of the stranger music merchandise offered in official stores.

The interest for me in many of these items is not so much the item itself, but in how it would need to be purchased. A heat of the moment buy at a concert is one thing, but imputing personal details and waiting weeks (or probably less in the US) for the item to arrive seems like an odd system for some of these items. This is best shown by the first item, which inspired this post. Ladies, gentlemen and most of all, spam-bots, I present...

1. Ben Folds Five Frisbee
For just five dollars, presumably American, you can wait weeks for your very own rather cheap piece of plastic to turn up, probably broken, on your doorstep... with Ben Folds Five written on it!

I just don't get it. I, first off, don't really get wearing clothing with band names written on them, but I sort of understand wanting to show your love of a group. Stickers I definitely get. My "Thermals" sticker, which came with my purchase of the newest album (along with a lovely thank you note from Saddle Creek) is the big decision of my day. On my laptop? My desk? My Discman? Decisions, decisions. But a fucking frisbee? I don't get it.

2. Ben Kweller 2012 Silkscreen
For $25, presumably American. you can own one of a limited run of 500 Ben Kweller 2012 silkscreens. What gets me about this product isn't the format or the limited edition shit. Actually have a look at this product. I'm not a long-time fan of Kweller, and only really got into his stuff through The Bens, but through all my research, that design is not a cover of an album. It's just a rather plain pattern in black and white with Kweller's name and last year printed on it. It's like buying the goddamn BFF frisbee and finding out instead of a piano motif thing, it was just Ben Folds Five written in permanent marker on a white frisbee. It might be neat handwriting, but you feel like any band name could be put there.

3. Scissor Sisters Scissor Dog T-Shirt
...so I expected some weird stuff on the Scissor Sisters website. The red underwear? Par for the course.  Scissor Sisters Christmas cards? Why not. I actually really like this store and site. My god, if it had any personality it would implode. Individual and functional. It's everything I want the Ben Folds site to be... with less underwear.

Moving on to the dog shirts. What gets me is the age range. Forgive me for stereotyping, but I presume the majority for this group is young people. The age range I assume puts clothes on animals is significantly older. I can't really make any big remark. The Scissor Sisters have made a career from being individual. How can I be surprised when the do something unexpected?

4. The Living End Scarf
Sure, it's no dog t-shirt, but there is something just a little odd about this item. I think I can put it down to the fact that this scarf is red, white and black with The Living End written in red and white all over it. And yet is is $30 (presumably Australian). I just can't see why something so simply patterned is so expensive. Also, I don't see this group (who, for those who aren't familiar, have a very Green Day sound to them) having that many fans who decide they need to keep warm and make a statement about their taste in music. Besides that, most Aussie scarves are just football team colours. I was debating putting a The Living End stubby holder here, but it was well made, individual and much cheaper. Plus, drinking with this kind of music makes sense.

5. Maroon 5 Wristband
Well, time to move from groups I really like selling odd things to a group I really despise. I liked Maroon 5's first two albums, but modern Maroon 5 (or as I believe Todd in the Shadows put it, Adam Levine and the Maroon 4) is an irritating, repetitive and pointless shill of a musical entity. And as such, they actually get three entries, each winning an award. The first award is the award for pure, unadulterated laziness. This is a wristband with Maroon 5 written on it. Done. Simple, huh? Sure, it has the Ben Folds Frisbee problem of being more of an on-site impulse buy rather than an online purchase. Why do I call it lazy then? Really, it's just a simple idea. My problem: it's $10 (presumably American). I extremely doubt that includes shipping. That wristband is worth 50c max. Putting a piece of shit band name on it does not increase it's value, especially not by that much. Fuck. Me.

6. Maroon 5 Payphone Headset.
You need to click that link. To understand any of what I'm going to say, you need to click tat link and look at that...thing. Go. Now. Do. It. Done? Sweet. So, the second Maroon 5 award is given on the grounds of utter pointlessness. I don't have a mobile phone, so I don't know if it's too light or small, or anything of the sort. What I do know is that nobody carries a goddamn headset with them around town. Why? Because it somewhat defeats the mobile part of mobile phones. So, for home use? Well, I may be old fashioned, but we call them FUCKING PHONES. This device is pointless, Maroon 5 or not. Let's just rattle off the rest. $30? No. Terrible font that is nearly impossible to read from even a short distance? That's there. Finally, a product that is the dictionary definition of gimmick? Well done, Maroon 5 store.

7. Maroon 5 Payphone Single Tee
Yeah, it's a t-shirt. It's a t-shirt. How did they fuck up a t-shirt? The award for this one? The award for unintelligible product. Click that link, por favor. See the shirt? Sure, now I've mentioned Maroon 5 and Payphone, you get it. Now, if you saw someone at school, work, the shops, dinner, whatever, wearing that shirt, how the hell would you work that out? Why is "aroon" too long to shove in there? How does a headset imply "payphone"? It could be any kind of phone! My final question... why is the phone melting? $15. Go nuts.

8. Powderfinger Thongs
Back to good music. What do I need to say? There are thongs that say "Powderfinger: Bless my sole." I don't know how to attack this one. Let's start with the lesser of two stupids. "Bless my sole?" Yes, a pun on the 2004 single, "Bless my Soul." I just... don't know anymore. Now, the big stupid. You can't read thongs people are wearing. There. Let me say it again. You can't read thongs people are wearing. Top: covered by foot. Bottom: Covered by ground. Sides: too small. Best case scenario, you have feet small enough to make out the "Bless my Sole" part at the bottom. Without the Powderfinger part, it just seems like a strange, pointless pun. What more can I say? ....I miss Powderfinger.

Done. I have just one more link today, from the REM store. Mouse over the Americas, and it will say North/South America & Australia store. I'm going to italicise the idiocy to emphasise my statement. If you click on Australia, you are not actually taken to the Australia store. Fuck you, REM store, and fuck your geography. Also, clicking on the non-Americas world will take you to a 404 Page not found error. Why. do. you. have. that. option. if. you .don't. have. another. store. Fuck. you. HARD.

Feedback welcome.

H. Rourke.

Hudson Rourke

I want this to be the clarification part of this blog. If this blog continues for a long time, and anyone ever wants to know the details of what this blog is about, I'll refer them to the articles at the end of June/ beginning of July, 2013.

I did the "Why?" the other day, so on to the "Who?" Who is Hudson Rourke?

Well, I am Hudson Rourke. No shit, huh? Well, no, my name is not Hudson Rourke. Despite this, Hudson Rourke is not a character, or a persona. Reviewers like Doug Walker and Brad Jones make a point of separating themselves from their characters. Compare a Doug Walker review to a Nostalgia Critic review, or a Brad Jones review to a Cinema Snob review and the difference is immediately clear. Hudson Rourke, however, will always represent my views. Sure, I might overstate emotions and thoughts to extremes, but this is more for comedic value than to make Hudson a caricature such as Nostalgia Critic  or Cinema Snob.

There really isn't anything else to say in that regard. I'm a Uni student from Canberra, Australia. I spend way too much thinking about music and books, and I don't have a lot of friends who share those same interests, so this blog emerged as somewhere for me to let off steam about things other people don't give a shit about. As previously mentioned, this blog is only around as long as I have things to rant about. For anyone who enjoys reading this blog, pray I never meet someone who likes to complain about music with me. That's pretty much the "Who?" element.

"When?", "Where?" and "How?" aren't really relevant questions, so let's talk about the "What?" here, because I don't think I can justify a seperate post.

I will review, above all, music. The music will rarely be really bad, as I don't tend to possess bad music. Instead, I'm more liable to talk about decent, but seriously flawed or really good music, as the two kinds make up my entire collection, at least in my opinion.

I also talk about books, as this is the initial reason this blog was created (look at my first post ever to see what I'm talking about). The reason this isn't the main topic is that I can normally find quite a few people willing to talk about books of my tastes, but few people want to talk about obscure Aussie music. However, if I any have any outrage left over, I'll put it here.

Movies and TV are pretty common review topics, but honestly I don't really like either. Movies rarely justify the time required for investment and TV is just getting dumber and dumber. I don't care if there is good stuff, I just can't get past reality TV being a thing (a genre I normally refer to as --- people crying, such as Biggest Loser - Fat people crying, Big Brother - Spoiled 20-somethings crying and Australian Idol - Over-Emotional Spoiled 20-somethings crying). More importantly, I don't have mush experience in discussing either field, and there are a million and one people who can do exactly that.

Well, that should answer that, so back to reviews when I feel like it.

Any questions or feedback welcome.

H. Rourke.

Notes - Recommendations

Well, it's holidays for me here, so if anyone wants me to review anything, talk about any topic or just has anything to say about anything, I recommend now being the time.

As usual, I don't expect feedback. This blog is like that ever present ad line "For (blank), by (blank)," like "For kids, by kids," except put "Hudson Rourke" in that place. I'm aware that might seem a little childish, in the sense that no-one's reading my blog so I'm going to pretend I wasn't trying to appeal to other people, or might just seem plain desperate to others, but I'm not just pulling this out of my arse, I've said this from the beginning.

This blog has been first and foremost for my own entertainment. I have fun writing my posts, and a while afterwards I have fun re-reading them. I swear, write anything and read it back a few months later, and it could have been written by a completely different individual who just happens to have the exact same opinions you do, and keeps making the same spelling mistakes you do.

That being said, I would like to know other people are being amused (or, more frighteningly, "informed") by this blog. It's like writing a story. Even if you have absolutely no intention of letting anyone else read it, there's always that nagging voice of "what would people think of this?" I mean, other than people who click the "next" button on the top bar of Blogger or my friendly, ever present spambots, I don't think there's anyone out there who even has a remote chance of reading this blog. There's something comforting about that, but there is still the capability of people reading this blog. I mean, Google places this blog 17th for the phrase "Hudson Rourke" and 40th for "Red Television".

....Actually, how on earth would anybody find this blog? If anyone would be so kind as to tell me, it would be greatly appreciated. In the meantime, I'll enjoy the anonymity of the internet and my unchallenged ability to say stupid and offensive things with no fallout. Give me a few weeks to pick a minority to pick on, and I'll get right on that. Looking at you, New Zealanders.

That being said, whatever "that" was, this post is called recommendations for more reasons that to ask for them. Here's some reviewers who I enjoy watching:

Music:
Todd in the Shadows
Mues (he also reviews wrestling, but I haven't seen these and can't really judge them)
Rap Critic
Paw Dugan (also musicals)
Nash (also news items of odd events)

Movies:
Kyle Kallgren
Nostalgia Critic
Brad Jones (also soft drink. Also awesome)
Obscurus Lupa
That Sci-Fi Guy
MikeJ
Nostalgia Chick

Video Games:
Blistered Thumbs Podcast
Lotus Prince
Video Games Awesome
Shamus Young
PushingUpRoses
Spoony

Other:
Ashens (Tat)
Suede (Anime. Also, he's from New Zealand. I'll need to pick a different minority then.)
CR (Kids cartoons, games and a variety of things)
Linkara (Comic books)
Comic Strip Critic (No points for guessing)
The Fanfiction Critic (Exactly what it sounds like. Sadly, seemingly the critic has moved on to bigger things. Still, plunder the archives.)

A quick note afterwards is that all of these are, for the most part, reviewers via video. It may seem odd that these are the people I admire the most in writing reviews (i.e. ripping jokes off) yet I don't make videos. There are a few reasons for this. Mainly, I like my anonymity and any obvious attempt to maintain that would be either distracting or too similar to Todd in the Shadows. I've also considered doing just a podcast, considering my subject matter tends to be music, but I doubt I have the audio quality or content to make that viable. If there's ever demand, I'll rethink, but it's text for now.

Feedback welcome,

H. Rourke

Advertising - A Review - Turkey Glucose Vegimite Insurance

Well, I'm back for a short moment to talk about something I have absolutely no authority or experience to talk about. No, not music or books - this time it's advertising.

I have been watching a lot of Blip lately, and I think mainly due to my geographical region (Australia), I have had about four ads recycled non-stop, meaning I've had a lot of time to think about them. So, as an uninformed viewer, let's discuss them.

Ad #1 - Man of the Moment - Wild Turkey Bourbon.

I'll try and post links to each ad, but I don't know how many I'll find. Now, for this ad, I'll put my cards on the table. I'm a male university student, which is about the prime demographic for every kind of alcohol ever sold, so this ad should certainly be made to appeal to me. The problem is that I don't drink alcohol. At all. So, to be fair, I wouldn't buy this product no matter how you sold it.

What is the ad? It is a man named Matty Johns (apparently a football player) talking to the camera, asking for stories to be submitted about men who have been heroes or acted responsibly at key times (or as Johns puts it "birded up"). Because nothing says good decisions and heroism like alcohol.

What does this ad do right?

Matty Johns is charismatic and has a friendly, brotherly manner. His setting is intimate, and the ad is well paced, being only 30 seconds long. A footballer is a character who appeals to the key demographic, and it is a very relateable sport, as most Aussie kids grew up watching and playing it. The idea is also very clever. Finding remarkable individuals and pinning your brand on them has always been a classic idea (think of the gifts Marty receives after accepting the duel in Back to the Future Part 3). Finding a person already interested in your brand, who will achieve fame with your brand and will be then constantly associated with this brand cut out a lot of middlemen. Bravo.

What is wrong?

"Bird up"  is fucking stupid. I don't care how clever you think you're being, it doesn't work for several reasons. Firstly, just how the sounds. I believe it's meant to mean the same thing as "man up", but it just sounds wrong. Honestly, if I was going to just cram the word "bird" into a common two-word phrase, I'd go with a campaign saying "drink up or bird off", stealing the place of sod, fuck or bugger, depending on the context.

Secondly, the association. To use the phrase "bird" as your marketing slogan, you need to have a much bigger market share on bird imagery. Just think of how many different companies, ad campaigns or even sporting teams have associations with birds. In the NRL alone, there are Roosters and Sea Eagles. Birds, no matter what variety, are very common mascots. Admittedly, it would be difficult to create a tag line using the word "turkey" (which, in Aus at least, Wild Turkey is completely associated with) without just calling people who don't drink cowards. This would be a completely different rant if they did. All the same, there is a reason I spend about 10 minutes looking for a Jack Daniels Man of the Moment ad before realising to tiny bird-turkey connection. At least it was the same product, but that says a little about me, but a lot about the campaign.

Finally, and I continue to write a mini goddamn essay on the phrase, "bird up" is not a phrase that is going to appeal to your late teen - late 20's demographic. Making up a new phrase, even if it can't be easily associated with you product, is a viable idea. Many advertising inventions have slowly become part of everyday language. The problem is, your product is meant to be for "hard" men, and people like that aren't going to use an invented phrase to replace an already inoffensive one. If a bloke uses "bird up" instead of "man up" in a regular conversation, he risks being ridiculed for censoring himself, blindly parroting pop culture or being easily taken in by advertising BS. If I were this company, I'd pick a phrase that cannot be said without swearing and replace it with the word you want to plug. Take a phrase that cannot be used around children and the elderly and put in your product. In this way, people who wish to censor themselves without sounding stilted have a slim chance of adopting your phrase. Replacing inoffensive with inoffensive is unlikely, and being aggressive just pisses people off. Take the offensive, and make it family friendly. Wild Turkey is making an advertising campaign with Australian sportsmen, so they should get used to that.

Ad #2 - Powered by Glucose - Lucozade

The premise of this ad? A bloke showing a series of activities, listing them off and performing them whilst constantly facing the camera in different situations. It's difficult to explain, and I can't find the exact version I saw, but watch it to understand.

What did this ad do right?

Clearly this ad is attempting to match the almost cult following of things such as the old spice ad campaign. The ad may have several faults, but I have to say that, above all, it's entertaining. There was one night where this was literally the only ad Blip showed. Instead of getting bored with it, it took on this hypnotic quality, in which I attempted to learn each of the spoken activities, noting little details about each scene. It has a quality which makes it memorable and distinct.

A difficulty which falls to makers of energy-drink manufacturers it making an ad showing how the product can be fun without being aggressive. How to say "This is the perfect accompaniment to enjoyable activity of your choice" rather than going as far as some ads do, with more the line "YOU WILL HAVE FUN WITH THIS DRINK. You'll dance, then drink, then party, then pick up a cute girl, then drive fast, then screw, then dance some more...". This ad walks the line well. My drinks extend to a single Pepsi or Coke (whichever is cheaper in bulk) a day, but this is the right approach to reel someone like me in.

What is wrong?

Although at points the ad seems to try just a little too hard to be quotable or referenced, I can't really call an ad out for trying to be entertaining. Let's talk about a bigger problem... what are you selling?

I honestly thought the drink was merely called "Glucose", as this is the most spoken phrase in the ad. I only found the product to be something called "Lucozade" after typing several activities listed in the ad into Google. The problem is simple - in an ad designed to become a "thing", something quoted, referenced and parodied, why did no-one stop and think "Do we actually say the name of their product in this?"

To be fair, the bottle is shown in the last 5 seconds, but the name is seriously never said allowed. This is a serious flaw. I watched this ad, but the best way to burn a name into someones mind is by saying it. There are many words spoken in this ad and Lucozade could easily be one of them. Of the four ads I look at, however, I have to say this will be my favourite, so take what you will from that.

Ad #3 - Start With Vegemite - Vegemite

What is it? This ad is of a breakfast being made backwards, by which I mean the film is just played backwards. The breakfast is either Vegemite and avocado or egg on toast.

What did this ad do right?

It's interesting. The food, even something as simple as avocado, is interesting to watch played in reverse, and it's something with a lot to watch. The product, Vegemite, is plugged, but not to the point of it being the main ingredient. I think it's well balanced.

The music is perfect. It catches the mood you want to associate with Vegemite, and is disturbingly catch. Despite the song not actually referring the Vegemite, I think it's easy enough for it to be associated. I have very few problems with this ad.

What is wrong?

The meal ideas seem dreadful. To make it three for three, I don't like Vegemite. I think there's a container of cheap Promite somewhere in my pantry, but I won't be the one to eat it. Both egg and avocado do not spring to mind as good accompaniments for Vegemite. Honestly, I think the biggest problem is that Vegemite is the least appetising object on that meal, and I don't like egg either. Sure, these arguments are sort of petty, but there aren't any gaping logic holes.

Overall, a decent little ad, with very few problems, but not outstanding in any way.

Ad #4  - La La La - Credit Union Australia (CUA)

It could be that I just finished reading the archives last night, but the first panel of this comic comes to mind when I think of this ad. Just replace the middle thought bubbles with the concept of this ad, and there you go. What is the ad? It's a bunch of people covering their ears and screaming "La la la" because they are locked into insurance plans and don't want to hear about CUA's great deals. Try saying that with a straight face (or without a CUA paycheck).

What did this ad do right?

The ad seems very well made. Every shot seems to be thought out, planned and methodically filmed. No, it's not much, but this ad isn't much either. I swear to god, the larger a company is, the less interesting and impressive the ads are. I don't care if you sold your soul for cash, just hire some good PR people. Bloody hell.

What is wrong?

Well... not much, actually. This ad is so creatively void, what can possibly be wrong with it?

OK, it's boring. It selling insurance. People don't want Lucozade style ad campaigns for selling insurance. Something plain, inoffensive and a little interesting (2 of 3 isn't bad) is all insurance companies really need. I suppose comparing this ad to ads for three consumables isn't fair, but I think a point should be made. Insurance companies want to be taken seriously, and this ad... well, I suppose its not not serious... so it does the job?

Anyway, I do have one big problem with this ad. IT DOESN'T PLAY ONLINE. I should explain. The ad provided at the link is again a slightly different version. This means both a different version and a different play speed. This is because the version on Blip doesn't play smoothly. It plays like a video that keeps buffering. This ad just wasn't designed for the Internet. It might seem that my Internet is the problem, but I have watched this ad and one of the others back to back. I have never had a problem with the playing speed of other ads. MY only conclusion is that this ad was incorrectly uploaded. For fucks sake, its an insurance company. It has the money to check this shit!

Anyway, this ad is offensively inoffensive,  attempting to target every demographic simultaneously, and suffering for it. To be fair, the best thing I can say about insurance ads in general is "annoyingly gimmicky," so I suppose "dull" is about as good.

Well, I can't really say more than that. If you want to see more ad reviews, either leave a comment or wait a good while until I have something else interesting to say. It'll be a wait. Also, the use of the word "else" implies this is interesting. Sorry about that.

Feedback welcome.

H. Rourke

Elsewhere For 8 Minutes

Well, I'm half asleep, exhausted and should be studying for so many different things so it's poor decisions time! Tonight's poor investment of a portion of my life, if you haven't already guessed is in the form of an album review, specifically of Something For Kate's 1997 debut release, Elsewhere for 8 Minutes.

As per usual, let me begin with my experience with the group. My exposure to Something For Kate comes mainly for my immense enjoyment of the lead vocalist, Paul Dempsey's, solo album, "Everything is True, " which I still love to this day. Beside the runaway hit "Monsters, " there are no songs from this group that I can think of. My opinion from listening to some of their stuff is that Dempsey's vocals are greatly mismatched to the style of music. Will that be my major gripe in listening to this album? Let's find out.

Track 1: Anarchitect

The sound of this song, right off the bat, is muffled and generic. Dempsey is not doing his voice any favours. Perhaps if my first exposure to Dempsey was through SfK I'd feel differently, but it just sounds like he's doing a (rather poor) impression of early Daniel Johns. The music at first also feels generic, but loosens up at points during the song, which may be even more frustrating as it shows that the group know what they're doing.

The word that best describes this song is "immature." I honestly don't mean this in a very negative way, it's what I think. Dempsey, a name synonymous with calm, relaxing and thoughtful music in the late 2000's is obviously going to sound quite different in a rock outfit in '97, and I'll try my best to keep this in mind. All the same, the difference is clear.

Lyrically, this song seems to be a rather typical, albeit interpretive, rehash of the usual "I'm trapped in modern society" angle. Think...the music video to "Spaceship" by Phrase or "Clockwork" by...Phrase. What does Phrase have against society.

Track 2: Pinstripe

Initially, this song gave me Powderfinger vibes, but soon returned to feeling like a companion to "Frogstomp." The music is a little less generic and more toned down. Less is certainly more with a front man like Dempsey. It is very clear that this is an early part of Dempsey's career, as he is less cool and much more... whiny. I love the voice of modern Paul Dempsey, but my God does he sound like the typical 20-something whining at the state of his life.

The lyrical content is not helping. This song is a definite thematical continuation of the first track, being about either a person or a couple going out of their way to escape the bondage of modern life and enjoy elicit thrills in simple joys. This, I think, is going to be a recurring theme in this album, possibly to the point of "concept album" designation. I think I'll adapt to Dempsey's voice, as you can hear hints of a better voice than average sneaking through at points.

Track 3: Captain (Million Miles an Hour)

The major success of the album, being the first single and placing on Triple J's Hottest 100 of 1997 at 39th. What's it about? Escape. That's a new one.

I'd be lying if I claimed to completely understand the central metaphor of the song, with the protagonist of the song attempting to build an aeroplane with which to leave at, as the title suggests, unreasonable speed. The reveal at the end of the song, that the plane is a model, is somewhat confusing. Dempsey claims this song was about his habit of distracting himself from his somewhat troubled home life as a child by building model planes, which does shed a lot of light, and makes some of the lyrics easier to understand, as they can be taken more literally and as they pertain to a real person, require less vagaries to relate it to human nature.

Track 4: Paintbrushes

I admit to always reading the lyrics of a song before listening to it (if I'm reviewing it) so I can kind of understand the spirit it is intended in. There are many songs which will try to throw you off from the central message by having a completely different tempo. This song, judging just by the lyrics, is a missing track from The Thermals "The Body, The Blood, The Machine" about, surprise, surprise, escaping a "Christofascist" USA. OK, the "escape" part is the unsurprising part. I don't mean to imply SfK are in any way discussing Christofascism (That's right Blogger, keep pretending that's not a real word). The lyrics are, as all four songs have been, very open to interpretation, with no strict narrative to be found. Imagery is much more what the group seems to be going for. As such, the song seems to be about escaping from everyday life to live a less comfortable but more fulfilling life with nature. Yeah, I see a theme emerging.

The emphasis of this song is on the music, and I actually really like that. More recent SfK releases have fantastic vocals and more generic music that I feel isn't doing Dempsey any favours, but considering that Dempsey was still developing his voice here, I think the music actually is really impressive, being very versatile. I will have to listen carefully when calling them poor quality in the future. The can keep up to Dempsey's style but don't/ Maybe my assumptions on mismatched styles are wrong, and the entire sound of the group is more deliberate than I give it credit for.

This song is by far my favourite, especially for the complete change of tone in the last third, which demonstrated much more of Dempsey's modern style. I may seem to be incredibly biased with my constant discussions of Dempsey and SfK as completely different entities. This is because I am extremely biased. I can't deny that. I still feel my opinion is valid, but please don't expect me (or any reviewer, in fact) to be unbiased. Nobody is unbiased.

Track 5: Prick

Well, this is a nice change of pace. A character analysis! Yes, it does have a throwaway line about escaping to open air, but that isn't the crux of the track.

The song, from my perception alone, is about a social butterfly who uses their friends and partners almost as some kind of identity... sort of a Blanche DuBois type. The perspective, however, is of someone who is realising how unreliable and selfish this character is, and despite attempting to please them, is beginning to wonder why, what they offer in return.

The lyrics are much more interesting than the musical aspects of the song. I've said several times that parts of this album sound generic, and I might be being a little two harsh with such throwaway statements, but this song is so far the best demonstration of the more unlikeable parts of SfK's musical lineup. The song is short, forgettable, and just really doesn't have any standout features. This would have been particularly notable in the '90's, when music of this genre were much more common.

Despite this, this song was the second single off the album. I've got nothing. Also, the title is kind of a tease. I was expecting a more aggressive song lyrically about an unlikeable individual (who is admittedly present), but the title seems more to refer to the motif of "hooks", with the second line being "got hooks in my side." Prick = cut or small injury, not dickhead.

Track 6: Glass Timing

I've got to admit that this title greatly intrigued me. As a fan of naming things after two random words shoved together (such as "Red" and "Television") I was expecting to find the song completely unrelated. Sadly, it was to a degree, and I can't really call it completely random. Shame.

Lyrically, this is possibly the most vague, and I can only sum it up with the word "inaction." Look up the lyrics yourself, and tell me if there is more to read into it.

The music is pretty good, and not just generic 90's rock, although Dempsey is getting whinier, which is getting more and more aggravating. I really want to like all of this bloke's work, but I just can't. Not bad, by any means, especially considering the era, but still too much and too little in the wrong areas.

Track 7: Soundczech

I think the standout aspect of this album is in naming songs. Short of Sufjan Steven's "Illinois", I can't think of an album with such odd names. That being said... what is it with artists slightly changing the spelling (but not the pronunciation) of regular words to include a completely inexplicable reference to Eastern Europe? Admittedly, the only other song in this category is "Brainwascht" by Ben Folds, so not exactly a trend, but still odd.

I can't really make that much of the lyrics, despite them being plentiful, but the definite ideas of entrapment and a need for movement emerge. Considering the otherwise completely pointless inclusion of a reference to the Czech republic in the title, I'm going to run on the theory this is about a gap year in Europe. Prove me wrong.

I don't have any massive problem with the music of this song. It has a definite sense of being somewhere else. It sounds cold and hollow and generally hostile, which works well with the entrapment idea. On the other hand, the chorus seems much more pop-compliant, which I do pick up on like a lifeline to a world I recognize. Considering 4 singles were released from this album, the first two of which I wasn't a massive fan of, at least musically, I'm surprised there wasn't any movement to release this one. The name alone would have made it stand out, although "Prick" and "Captain" aren't exactly common song titles.

Track 8: Working Against Me

I swear to God each song is more obtuse than next. I, again, can't tell you much more than buzzwords that seem to arise from the lyrics, in this case betrayal and planning. Is there a story? Maybe. Does it sound fascinating? Hell yeah. Will I ever find out? Almost certainly not. Sure, It's nice to have some depth in your song lyrics, and making them more about imagery helps that idea. The problem is, it only really works for groups who have proven they are doing it out of choice. If you don't write more comprehendable songs, it just makes it look like you can't/ Again, I must remember this is a debut. Everything might change.

Musically, pretty decent. There was an annoying beeping in the opening few bars but it either stopped or I stopped noticing. This was the third single of the album, and I'm still not overly impressed.

Track 9 : Strategy

Let's start with the lyrics. SfK proved me absolutely wrong in a way. They proved they could write a decently decipherable track, about something other than escaping. Bravo. What is it about? As far as I can tell, it's about a couple who are going through the motions, just trying to keep things civil while they get up the courage to end it or... well, die of old age. It seems the reverse of "You Don't Know Me" by Ben Folds and Regina Spektor. The problem here is that there is not real connection, but they know each other too well. They both seem to know the other wants to end the relationship, but because of this thinks they can just wait the other out. It's a fascinating, vicious cycle. I'm definitely reading too much into it, but I think the psychology of it is intriguing.

Wait, there is music with these words? Huh. The music is kept to a minimum, with a focus on Dempsey's voice. While he isn't at his solo album quality, he is doing pretty well from this album, and the entire song seems to be aware that the words and emotion behind them are what the song is about and what powers it forward. It's good and plays to the groups strengths. I can't really ask for more than that, can I? It's just silly to ask for the group to "be better" or "know what you're doing" on a debut album. I respect what these people were doing, and they worked out what to do. Your front man is the most recognisable part of your ensemble, your music improves the less of it there is, and the quieter what little there is is played and good songwriting is always an option, will always improve a song in someones eyes and can bring you nothing but respect.

No, of course it wasn't released as a single.

Track 10: Roll Credit

I may be mistaken, but I think I need to pull out my third Ben Folds comparison for the review, with that of "House". Simply put, I'm pretty sure this song is about a house. The thing about songs about locations is that unless you have a very clear narrative in mind, you end up offering a series of short pieces which end up confusing the listener. It makes sense: there are very few places you can reside where you don't have a multitude of feelings, both good and bad, and even if the feelings are unanimous, these are hard to express with sounding like your changing topics constantly.

Music is OK. It's not particularly memorable, but I had no real negative feelings for it.

This, of course, is single number four.

Track 11: Like Bankrobbers

This song has some good qualities, both lyrically and in the music.

Musically, Dempsey is decent, but the inclusion of what I swear is a violin really adds to the poetry of the song, and breaks up a little of the mounting monotony of the album.

Lyrically, the song is about two people linked only through their desperation. They are in a bad situation, don't necessarily like each other, but are forced to be together as they hit rock bottom. The analogy of "bankrobbers" makes sense, overall, but the other, or both being "terrorists" is somewhat more intriguing. As this album is from 1997, modern ideas of "terrorists" weren't quite the same. The 2001 attacks on America hadn't yet occurred, and the 2002 attacks on Australians in Bali hadn't occurred either. I'd be interested to know what a "terrorist" was in 1997 to a group of young Australians.

Once again, I like the psychology and my only real gripe is that the song is almost completely metaphor. Sure, they're "like" bankrobbers and terrorists, but what the fuck are they actually? I suppose it doesn't really matter, but it does leave a bit of a gap.

Track 12: The Last Minute

Full credit to this title. This acknowledges that the song is last and is also a reference to the title of the album. Classy, neat and not too hard. Appreciated, SfK, appreciated.

Musically and lyrically, this song is just so very clearly connected to "Tomorrow" by Silverchair. Greed, loss, inevitable destruction... the usual in here. Again, no clear story, but I suppose the last track is a fair enough location to be vague and emotional. As I always say, it's only really fair to leave the listener with an accurate depiction of the album as a whole in the last track, or at least not to shove a crap song in this slot.

Dempsey pushes the whiny factor to 11, and it gets really irritating, but I suppose for the last song, you may as well over hype it a little bit. Whatever.

Final Thoughts:

This album was more good than bad. My point of reference is that even after a review of a decent album, I'm looking forward to the end of the album so I can end my review. That didn't happen here. I kept listening excitedly. I wanted SfK to do new things, so I could interpret. Sure, the songs were very similar and at some points indistinct, but I wasn't bored, and I think that's pretty damn important.

Something for Kate is a good group, one I want to like more than I do, and I would like anyone to give them a chance so that there can be more people out there genuinely liking them, not trying to make themselves.

3 Songs: Ben Folds vs. Rich Shapero vs. They Might Be Giants

Yes, I'm back. What of it?

Song #1: Give Judy My Notice by Ben Folds (Songs For Silverman, 2005, Track 7)

Oh, thank God. We are officially moving on from the "Walking the Dog" ... incident (Yes, it's the crappiest name for an incident ever, but who cares?). Back to my wheelhouse with the magical music of Mr. Folds.

Musically, this song isn't one of Folds' great melodies, but there's nothing wrong with it. A minimal amount of piano is notable, which is handy for making this song stand out from others on the album, but does have the major problem of not containing enough Folds' piano. Slow, but not overly sentimental, but not having the vitality of spirit (I've wanted to use that phrase all day) that normally accompanies the best of Folds.

Vocally, this song is sung by Ben Folds. That's 6 on a 5-star scale. That is the highest praise I can give. Folds manages to give the song the personal impact he always manages. Sad songs by Folds always have the feeling that they were rehearsed once, delivered to the intended target and recorded then. They sound honest, realistic, and, in conjunction with the lyrics, sound exactly like what a person in this position would say. Just... perfect.

Lyrically, this song seems to tell of a man arranging to break up with his girlfriend/wife. The metaphor of the title is of quitting from a job. The lyrics paint the picture of a man attempting to establish a fair and loving relationship with Judy, only to be mistreated, ignored and just generally made miserable by her. The idea of just filling a position clearly stems from how the man feels there is no real tenderness in the relationship and he is merely doing what needs to be done. The lyrics are wonderful, going from formal complaint, to angry and slightly more personal to just breaking down and saying "It's going to be hard, but it had to happen" in the conclusion. I honestly haven't paid much attention to this song before, as Songs For Silverman is a generally sad album, and it's easy to kip over some songs that sound very par for the course. This song makes me think I'll have to go back. A wonderful song.

Song #2: Entreaty by Rich Shapero (The Ram, 2004, Track 7)

Oh God. Oh, God. No. No. God, no. It's time for Rich Shapero. Who is Rich Shapero, you may ask? Beyond this, I've no friggin' idea. What I do know a little about is "Wild Animus". Wild Animus is a multimedia story of a man trying to find himself in the wild...by turning into a ram. Yup... animal transformation. And no, it's not the cool Animorphs style explained and useful style. It's the spiritual, never brought up style. Now, Wild Animus consists of three CDs and a book. I haven't read the book. I'm just saying I might be missing something, but I somewhat doubt it for this song. Why? Because this song is a minute and a half instrumental piece. Let's get moving.

How to explain what this sounds like? Firstly, because the piece is short, I have it on loop. If I'm not following the blue bar, I have no idea when it restarts. It's that goddamn uneventful. In essence it's background music. It sounds eerily like the music from Age of Empires II, if anyone, like myself, has spent far too much time listening to it. This music is... I can't actually call it boring. It's not a dull piece of Fatboy Slim album filler meant to be lively and dancy. It's not a piece of music as most of the songs on these lists are. It's meant to be atmospheric and contemplative. And it really succeeds at that. I can listen to this and think I'm a long way away. It's a song that just whispers to you that you're a long way from home, and you don't know what's happening. It's a song about being out in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night, as the cold sets in. It's creepy, but in a way that draws you in. I thought I'd hate this, but it grows on you really fast. I want to keep listening, because it makes me feel it's telling more of a story each time it plays. It almost has a spell around it. This is broken, somewhat, when you remember it was written about a bloke turning into a goat. Still, oddly magical.

Song #3: (She Was A) Hotel Detective by They Might Be Giants (They Might Be Giants, 1986, Track 10)

So, They Might Be Giants. My familiarity with this group, until only recently, extended to "Istanbul (Was Constantinople)" (which is still awesome). That is, until I watched a review by Phil the Bunny of a documentary about TMBG, which involved the greatest Beatles/Communism joke I've ever heard. Seriously. Now, I've heard most of their discography, with my new favourite being "Richards on Richards", which has a great beat. If you're unfamiliar with the group, they, to put it lightly, take a less than serious approach to music. Not quite "Flight of the Concords" nutty, but not straight pop or rock music.

Musically, this song is pretty solid. It has, in essence, a 60's rock song going on, with a saxophone every now and then, which is a fun improvement. I can't say much bad about it, but I also can't say it's flawless. Fun, lively and a little retro. Can't have much of a problem with that, can I?

Vocally is where I would place not just this songs greatest weakness, but the bands greatest weaknesses. The problem with comedic groups (with few exceptions) is that they sing in such ridiculous ways. This is far from the worst of it, but the over the top voices here and there really distract. For the most part, however, I can't really find any real problem. In fact, this may vocally be among the group's best.

Let's get into the lyrics.A 'hotel detective' is almost exactly what the name implies, a plain-clothes detective operating in a hotel. I understand the appeal of the term. It has a sexy, romantic style to it. Better than the other common name, 'House Dicks'. The song's lyrics are certainly open for interpretation. I can't say I did wide research, but one theory is that the lyrics refer to a hooker using a euphemism for her work. I sort of see the origin of the idea, especially in the last two verses, but I see it a different way. I think the song is, literally, about a cocky, even arrogant, 'Hotel Detective'. She says to a guest that she sees all and hears all, insults the waiter, compliments the bellhop and just generally swans about the hotel, even going so far as to claim she owns the place, which she does in the sense she knows exactly what's going on. The last verse is...odd. I really don't get the idea of it, other than that after being brushed off by the cool and calm detective, the narrator goes a little nuts regarding her. Again, open to interpretation, but the simplest explanation certainly should have some merit to it. The lyrics are fun and descriptive, if not a little repetitive and are coherent enough up until that last verse. Not too bad at all.

Overall:

Musically, I have a bit of a problem. TMBG is fun, but not fantastic, so they're out of the way in this. The real argument is between Shapiro & Folds. Although Folds is, well, Folds, I've got to go with Shapiro. The music manages to convey a story and vocals far better than expected, and although Folds is good, the music on this isn't his best. The winner is Shapiro, with Folds coming second.

I really can't call vocals a close call, as Folds is a master singer and TMBG just can't keep up. Folds wins, TMBG comes second.

Finally, lyrics. Again, a tricky one. It boils down to a tried and tested but somewhat stale premise penned by a master vs. a fun, new idea by some young blood (despite this song being released before Folds first album was released). I love both, but I have to side with TMBG. Something new and fun should always be supported, even if the lyrics sort of trailed off. Folds is the master, but breakup songs? They have been done from every possible angle, and I find very few of them introducing new aspects, or even doing the old stuff very well. Hornby's "High Fidelity" may have discussed what a great deal of sad music does to a generation, but he didn't mention how crap a great deal of it was.

Winners:
1. Give Judy My Notice by Ben Folds
2. (She Was A) Hotel Detective by They Might Be Giants
3. Entreaty by Rich Shapero

That trio was among the best three songs I've ever had to compare. That was fucking awesome. I still don't know if there will be regular updates over this fortnight, but if anyone wants more, just leave a comment or sent me an email. Also, just to be sure, if anyone is going to put a comment with a link, use either my name or one of the artists from this post in the comment somewhere, so I can tell what isn't spam. Who am I kidding? It's all gonna be spam.

Adios, feedback welcome.

H. Rourke.

3 Songs: Jet vs. The Bamboos vs. The Rolling Stones

Well, it's mid-Semester break, so time for a little bit of a blog post before the public holidays end. Now, I have no idea if I'll be bothered to put another post up in this beautiful fortnight, but I'll see what happens.

I have a question for anyone out there willing to answer... why do spammers like Ben Folds? Seriously. Anyone who's willing to scroll down just a bit will see a short post regarding a search for Ben Folds' songs. Nothing remarkable, right? Well, the spammers of the world thought otherwise. So far, I've had eight spam comments on that one post. I don't know how it looks, how many "comment deleted" marks readers can see, but I'm not just deleting negative comments, I'm just deleting spam.

Was there a keyword in there? Was there something that put my Blog in the sights of spammers? What was it? I've had two other comments in the history of this blog (one of which was spam). Why eight over the past week or so? Why?

Anyway, I'm not going to do something that takes too much effort now, as it's only midday. I'll wait until night to make a fool of myself by attempting to review something. I just reread my "Showbiz" review, and I realise exactly how I'm going to feel by the end of any album. So, for now (as the title, which will probably give a lot away, suggests) I'll be going back to my bread and butter, "3 Songs".

Song #1: Look What You've Done by Jet (Get Born, 2003, Track 4)

It's been a while since I've done a 3 Songs post, and as such I'm looking at a previous one so as to recall my format. Oddly enough, that one also started with a Jet song. I'll put a link to it here, and it should open in another window, but I admit that I didn't really talk about Jet as a group very much. Since that review, I have purchased another Jet album, Shaka Rock, but that doesn't really matter here. Jet have taken a lot of shit, both in music criticism, and just in what I've gleaned from public opinion. Honestly, I like them. Sure, it's hard to take the artists behind "Are you Gonna be my Girl?" seriously, but I enjoy the upbeat, lively tunes they make. However, they also make slow, sentimental tunes that are rather mediocre. Knowing my luck, of course this track is one of the latter.

Let's talk music. This song has been compared to tracks by both The Beatles and John Lennon's solo career (in the "copyright infringy" way, not the good way), and I do see the comparison. When I pressed the next button on my MP3 player and heard the opening bars, I was terrified that I would be comparing a Beatles song. Unfortunately, this was Jet. The music, however, is surprisingly solid for a slow Jet song. It picks up a little momentum when it needs to, and the intro with just the piano does draw more attention to the lyrics, which is clever, but not a good idea considering the lyrics.

Vocally, Carter isn't horrible, and does have a voice strong enough to switch from the overly sentimental to the accusing, and isn't jarring in the least. It is, and this may sound odd, a little boring. After listening to the first few lines, you just start to drift away, focusing on the instrumental aspect, or the previous song, or what you're having for lunch. It works in rock, when you're being all but shouted at, but this is clearly sung in his "album filler" voice. The song was wildly successful, however, so I must default to thinking that this opinion is held by few but me.

Lyrics. Well...the lyrics are vague. Not "insert your own situation here and think of it every time the song comes on" vague. Annoyingly vague. Okay, both are annoyingly vague, but the point is I don't know what the hell is going on in this song. I'm thinking breakup (although death and acceptance of end of something else are still possibilities), but who broke up with who? What happened? What was the relationship like? I can grasp that the not-narrator part of the relationship was controlling, considering "Give me back my point of view", but this just raises more questions. The line that breaks it for me is "You've made a fool of everyone." HOW? How can EVERYONE be fooled by a relationship ending? Although the line is appropriate for the date (Happy April Fools), I can't make heads nor tails of this song. I'm sure it has a story behind it, but I really shouldn't have to do research to understand a chart topping pop song, should I?

Song #2: Typhoon by The Bamboos (4, 2010, Track 12

My introduction to The Bamboos was during last years ARIA awards, when both The Bamboos and The Herd were beaten out by The Hilltop Hoods for Best Urban Album (that is what I call a "win-win" situation). I liked the short piece of music they played by The Bamboos, so I completely legally downloaded "4". I like it, but it's kind of hard to pin down any identity to the album or the group, because the work is just so varied.

Now, Typhoon. This is an instrumental piece. So... it's lively, cool, classy and a hell of an album ender, although I sort of follow the idea that the last song on an album should be a bit of a cooldown, and this is definitely not that. The idea that best describes this tune is car chase music. Probably from the late 70's, because of that disco-esque beat. I can't really say much about it. Although it sticks with the same core beat and rhythm, I would never call it boring, and by the end you're still paying attention. Listening, Jet? Listening?

Song #3: Walking the Dog by The Rolling Stones (The Rolling Stones, 1964, Track 12)

...So...

Let's start with the music.1964. Do you really need to know more? There's a guitar, drums and ... clapping and whistling? Why? Just... c'mon Hudson, you can do this.... the music is probably the best part of this song. That is saying so very little. Let me put it this way: this song was on The Rolling Stones debut album. I am utterly amazed they had a career after this. This is so... horrid.

Vocally, this song is like dragging a strangled cat across a chalkboard. Jagger may have many redeeming factors, but this song just crushes me. The vocals are mangled, forced and just repellent. I... have no more works. There ARE no more words.

OK, I can talk lyrics. The lyrics are by far the worst part. They are either the most miserably dull story ever told, or the most confused and undecipherable metaphor in music history. The best comment in regards to this song is "drugs". My question is whether this is in response to the question "What does the metaphor of 'walking the dog' pertain to?" or "Why was this song made?" I have to stop writing to turn it off. Just... no.

Overall:

Musically, I have to give this one, hands down, to The Bamboos. Jet is decent, but whenever I compliment the music, I feel like I'm just saying so in comparison to other Jet songs, which isn't really the spectrum 3 Songs runs on. The Rolling Stones deserve no compliments.

Vocally, Jet wins by default. The Bamboos offered an instrumental piece, and as such can't really win this, so The Rolling Stones, although deserving no compliments, come second.

Lyrically, Jet wins again by default. As neither of the other groups produced listenable lyrics, I'm going to pick The Bamboos to come second just for being generally awesome.

Winners:
1. Look What You've Done by Jet
2. Typhoon by The Bamboos

Losers:
Humanity, because of Walking the Dog by The Rolling Stones. (I'm aware they didn't write it, but they sure destroyed it.)

It's over. Leave. Don't listen to Walking the Dog. Goodbye.

Feedback welcome.

H. Rourke.

Ben Folds Song With Trumpet

I was just going through the stats for this blog, and I noticed there was one search which ended up here after "Ben Folds song with trumpet".

If that person happens to stumble here again, that song is most likely "Army" from the 1999 album, "The Unauthorised Biography of Reinhold Messner" by Ben Folds Five. Go listen to that song.

Was that the song? You're welcome.

Was that not the song? Sorry, but you're welcome for making you hear "Army".

H. Rourke

Slow Down

News! I've got to say this Blog is going into near non-existence. I'm going for my Bachelor of Arts at the ANU, so I'm probably not going to be doing regular updates...although it would be hard to argue my updates were ever regular. If anyone on earth has this bookmarked, or checks it with any regularity (although my 'Blog Views' count says this is an inexistent group I'm talking to. Fuck, I don't even have this blog bookmarked. 20 Sided by Shamus Young? Yes. Chez Apocalypse by Nostalgia Chick and Co.? Yes. Red Television by me? Fuck it.) just check this every month or so. I'm sorry, but I running out of things to say, and I don't think I'm saying them to anybody. Sorry.

H. Rourke