Showdown: Live Versions

Time for another Showdown and this time, it's not video game related!
Last time I did a Showdown post, I covered songs that had been rerecorded by the same artist and, if you hadn't guessed by the title already, this time I'm looking at live versions of songs compared to the studio original.
It's fairly common knowledge that studio versions tend to be better than live versions when you're listening to the songs casually. However, even though most live versions are only awesome when you're there at the gig witnessing the band truly bringing the thunder to their well loved material, some are so incredible that they actually surpass the quality of the studio versions and become known as the greater track overall. I'll be discussing the studio and live versions of some of those songs along with a few I've thrown in that aren't as well known.
Whilst some live performances from random gigs throughout history may have been out of this world and easily trounce the originals, I'll only be counting songs from live albums that have been officially released to make it easier for you to find should you wish to listen along as you read. For the first time in a Showdown post, I've included a Spotify playlist link at the bottom of this post to make it easier for you to enjoy the music. As for the format of this post, it'll stay the same but I'll make a note of the albums (studio and live) I'm writing about in each round.
Right, let's get started!

ROUND ONE: "I Want You To Want Me" - Cheap Trick
Original (In Color) - Arguably the band's signature song and a fine piece of Bubblegum Pop Rock. It showcases the band's ability to take influence from The Beatles and still sound like their own entity but if we're being honest, it's a bit wet. It might have a catchy rhythm and all but fuck me, that guitar solo is just pathetic, isn't it? Fortunately the rest of the album has enough belters to make up for this one but how well did this song translate into a live Rock show?
Live Version (At Budokan) - Now THIS is what the song should've been. Chugging guitar throughout, a faster tempo, prominent bass and a proper set of guitar solos. The differences are small but the transformation is hugely effective, making this a perfect example of how to go off book with your live performance and make the song better instead of pissing off all the fans who just wanted to hear you play your best tracks without getting cute.
VERDICT - It has to be the Live Version, doesn't it? I mean, there's no way you can listen to the original and call it the superior version after hearing the band absolutely crush it at Budokan...ohhhh, that's where the name of the live album comes from!

ROUND TWO: "Old Man" - Neil Young
Original (Harvest) - I wouldn't call myself a fan of Neil Young by any stretch but damn, I love this song. Definitely one of Neil Young's strongest tracks and it deserves to be more well known than pretty much every other song of his you hear on the radio. The only part of the song I would consider weak would be the backing vocalists, as they're unnecessary in this recording. Everything else has a purpose and adds to the song in some way but the backing vocals arguably ruin what would've been an otherwise perfect mix.
Live Version (Live At Massey Hall 1971) - Fun fact, this live version actually came out before the studio version so I guess this is technically the original, huh...or rather the live at the BBC version is. Anyway, I chose this track to compare because I'd heard this is an excellent performance (even if it does start with Neil moaning at someone). I'm inclined to halfway agree with that sentiment, as Neil's playing is spot on and his vocals are far more passionate than they come across in the studio version. However, because it's part of an acoustic set, it's missing the crucial ingredient that the other instruments would've provided.
VERDICT - It's a tough call but ultimately, I'm going to give it to the Original. Vocally, the live version is superior but musically (where it counts, in my opinion), it comes as close as it can but doesn't reach the mark. If I could splice this version with one that has piano, bass and drums, I think I'd have the perfect "Old Man", as the casting agent said to the director.

ROUND THREE: "Lazy" - Deep Purple
Original (Machine Head) - A fan favourite and a great example of how fucking amazing Jon Lord & Richie Blackmore were. Deep Purple are mostly known for Hard Rock or a bit of Prog but this Bluesy number off one of their biggest albums shows each member of the Mk II band at their peak...well, except Ian Gillan. Presumably he was out having a crafty fag for the first half of this track but everyone else brings it. This song's definitely grown on me over time and whilst it's still not one of my favourite Deep Purple tracks, it's easily one of their strongest.
Live Version (Made In Japan) - Another popular live album from Asia that stands toe to toe with the band's studio material. The track length may exceed ten minutes and the first minute of that is what I assume to be the band trying to connect to dial-up Internet using a buggered fax machine and an amp BUT once the band stop tossing about and start to play the song, it becomes something special. With beefed up performances from each band member, this version is often considered the superior of the two, even if they do get bored towards the end and piss about for a bit.
VERDICT - I'm going against popular opinion here and siding with the Original. Whilst the live version has some excellent performances, I can't be doing with what's basically the band jerking off when there's a perfectly suitable and catchy studio version available. However, I can imagine the Made In Japan performance was fucking incredible to watch live.

ROUND FOUR: "Folsom Prison Blues" - Johnny Cash
Original (With His Hot And Blue Guitar) - Carrying on the Blues theme with this short number from Johnny Cash, many people will know this song due to the line about the man in Reno. They might also confuse it for "I Walk The Line" as they both have a similar guitar melody. Personally, I prefer this track's music and lyrics but it's a little too slow and basic for me to truly enjoy. Still, compared to other examples of Blues from the decade, this is a great song.
Live Version (At Folsom Prison) - I think the overall performance at the prison is more notable than this actual recording but as far as live versions go, this is pretty decent. Again, the tempo is sped up and musically the solos are a bit more energetic but otherwise, it's practically just the same as the studio version. Oh, and you know how the prisoners all cheer during the Reno bit? Yeah, that didn't happen. It was added afterwards. Still, makes for a good moment in the song.
VERDICT - If you couldn't tell, I'm not really gushing over either of them but it's a clear win for the Live Version here. I decide the victor mostly based on which version I'd rather listen to and if I could only choose one for the rest of my life, I think I'd get the most out of the one recorded at Folsom Prison...oohhhhhh, I just got the name for this album as well!

ROUND FIVE: "Rock And Roll All Nite" - KISS
Original (Dressed To Kill) - Considering this song was released in the mid-70s, can we really call this a Hard Rock track? It sounds more like Classic Rock to me, especially when compared to songs like "Hotter Than Hell" and "Detroit Rock City". Anyway, it's the band's signature song and it's dumb, in a word. It has a great guitar riff but it's built around the same sentiment that the Beastie Boys made fun of in "(You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Party!)". When the fucking Beastie Boys are giving you shit, you know you need to rethink things.
Live Version (Alive!) - As far as live versions go, this is damn near identical to the studio version except for one key difference; an added guitar solo. Once you listen to this version, you won't be able to enjoy the original again without feeling like it's missing something. It just fits in so perfectly and gives the song that much needed kick. In fact, it's what the WaveGroup Sound based their cover on for Guitar Hero 3: Legends Of Rock (discussed in this blog post).
VERDICT - Obviously the Live Version. If you could edit out the sound of the audience (the single biggest problem with live recordings), you'd have a pretty damn good Hard Rock song right there. With the sound of cheering still in, it's just good.

ROUND SIX: "Young Man Blues" - The Who
Original (The House That Track Built) - This is the second song on this list where the studio "original" isn't actually the original version of this song. It was included on a compilation album about four years after the live album this came from was released and since then has been featured on a Tommy deluxe reissue and on Odds And Sods as a shitty alternative recording. Most people probably don't even know that the studio version exists but I reckon everyone who's heard it knows that it's a bit fucking weak.
Live Version (Live At Leeds) - Possibly the best example of an awesome recording aided by Keith Moon going apeshit on drums and definitely the superior version of the song. Added guitar solos, a tempo that suits the rhythm, more passion in the vocals and some fine bass playing from John Entwistle too. If not the greatest live recording in this list then definitely top three. Shame I've yet to hear another live version of a song by The Who that didn't make me want to self harm.
VERDICT - Weren't you reading? Live Version takes the win. The only positive thing I'll say about the studio version is that there's some guitar playing during the vocals that sounds alright but other than that, it's live all the way!

ROUND SEVEN: "Sunday Bloody Sunday" - U2
Original (War) - I like U2 on occasion but sadly, this song doesn't make my cut. There's something about The Edge's guitar playing that annoys me and Bono's whining voice doesn't help and since this song is largely just the same guitar and bass riffs on a cycle, it doesn't do much to please me. However, for fans of U2, it's probably their most U2ish song and a good example of the band's songwriting capabilities; they weren't about flashy solos or power, they just wanted to make what they considered good music.
Live Version (Under A Blood Red Sky) - This recording is regarded as one of the best live versions of a song and what I want to know is what the fuck was everyone else listening to? It's all over the fucking place! Larry Mullen and Adam Clayton sound completely out of sync on drums and bass and they come across like a high school band that didn't practise enough before their big show. If I liked the song, I might have a better reception of this track but as it stands, this sounds like absolute tosh to me. At least Bono still sounds like Bono, although it's debatable whether or not that's something that should be praised.
VERDICT - I don't like either track but it's definitely going to the Original here. An absolute mess of a recording with inconsistent drums that may or may not change tempo throughout. In order to know for certain, I'd have to listen to the live recording again and I need some fucking time after hearing it once.

ROUND EIGHT: "Free Bird" - Lynyrd Skynyrd
Original ((Pronounced 'Leh-'Nerd 'Skin-'Nerd)) - I don't really need to say anything about this, do I? We all know the song, we all know that the solo is amazing and every time I mention it on this blog, I have to say the same things about the song over and over again. It's an awesome song, even if the slower first half does get a bit dull when you've heard all the other Southern Rock epics out there.
Live Version (One More From The Road) - I've discussed this entire live album before and still think it's one of the best collections of music out there for anyone who likes Skynyrd's music. Every song on it's great to listen to but the track everyone agrees stands out is their 13-minute rendition of "Free Bird". Apparently, this what stoked the flames for the trope of everyone shouting "FREE BIRD!" at live shows, since Ronnie Van Zant asks the crowd what song they'd like to hear before they break into it. It's a fucking fantastic performance too with possibly the greatest big rock ending to any song ever recorded.
VERDICT - Jesus, this is tricky. The original is like stonehenge; it's an artifact that will stand the test of time and probably still be around longer than anything released today. However, that live version is spectacular and I still get chills when I listen to their big finale. I'd like to give the win to both on this one occasion but if I have to pick a winner, I'm going with the Original. The lead into the main riff during the solo is brilliant and whilst the outro on the live version may be superior, the lengthy ballad section at the start goes on just a bit too long for me (cut to about 6:27 for the good bit).

ROUND NINE: "Whipping Post" - The Allman Brothers Band
Original (The Allman Brothers Band) - Southern Rock followed by more Southern Rock, that's just how I roll. It's hardly the most famous Allman Brothers Band track but it was one of their first big songs. It starts off with an ominous bass riff before introducing a Wild West guitar riff that still remains one of their best contributions to music alongside "Jessica" and the solo in "Blue Sky". It's a Bluesy Southern Rock number but it's still pretty damn good.
Live Version (At Filmore East) - Buckle up, boys. If you thought the last live version was long, you ain't heard nothing yet! This rendition of "Whipping Post", despite having a faster tempo, clocks in at over 23 minutes long. Whilst this is an impressive feat for any live band, the tragic fallacy is that people assume this is an incredible live version of a song when really it's a pretty poor version compared to the original. Sure, the first half or so is great but then the band run out of steam and start jerking each other off for a while without knowing when to bloody end. This is one of those few times where faster tempos can make a song worse (see also "Hocus Pocus" - Focus).
VERDICT - An easier decision this time; Original takes the win again. Granted the solos in the live version are something every Rock fan needs to toughen up and listen to all the way through at least once (even if they can probably stop around the ten minute mark), I know which track I'd rather listen to again. It's a shame The Allman Brothers Band couldn't bring this fretting fury to the studio but at least they managed to capture their raw talent at Filmore East.

ROUND TEN: "Do You Feel Like We Do" - Peter Frampton
Original (Frampton's Camel) - Did you know a studio version of this song existed? You'd think it was another "Young Man Blues" what with all the hype around the live version but we'll get onto that in a bit. The studio original is noticeably slower and obviously lacks the middle talkbox section, instead introducing the outro solo a lot earlier. It's actually quite a decent tune and I'd recommend checking it out if you've only heard the live version.
Live Version (Frampton Comes Alive) - Another looooong live song but luckily, this is just 13 minutes as well. Regarded as possibly the most famous live recording on this list, a large portion of this song is dedicated to the credits jam between Frampton and "Buck-Man" on the keyboards before they eventually break into the glorious outro solo. Some people consider "Show Me The Way" to be the better live recording off the album but there's always something to be said for the last song on a band's live album. They've fed off the crowd's energy and now they're ready to release it one last time, hence "Do You Feel Like We Do".
VERDICT - I feel like both deserve some recognition here too but the win's going to the Live Version for taking the material provided in the song and using it more effectively than the studio original. If I could speed up the original just a little bit, I'd probably prefer that version but goddamn, Frampton needed to come alive in the studio that fateful day...OOOHHHHHH, now I get the album name, it's because the Allman Brothers recorded At Filmore East! Fuck, that one took a while to sink in.


Well it's been an educational blog post for some but was there anything I missed? Did I fail to include an even greater example of where the live recording was greater than the studio version or have I absolutely fucking nailed it, once again? Let me know in the comments or via Twitter.

As promised, here's the Spotify playlist for this post and I apologise if any of the verdicts were spoiled for you in scrolling down to the bottom of this post.

How To Tell If A Band Is In It For The Money

Time to kick off September with a short little opinion piece!
When dealing with fans from practically any mainstream Rock band, you'll always have a bunch insisting that said band have sold out. Whether it's a Grunge band going Alternative or a Thrash Metal band going Heavy Metal, any stylistic changes to a band's sound will always result in grumpy fans arguing that they've lost their way and "forgotten about the real fans".
So how can you tell if a band have really sold out or if they're simply adapting their material into a new sound because they don't want to become stale? How can you tell if a band are still going because they care about their fans enough to challenge themselves into recording quality music or because they need some way of paying off various mortgages and lawsuits?
Hopefully, this blog post will help answer those questions!

Let's start with one sure-fire way of telling if a band is after the cash; deluxe albums.
I've mentioned my hatred of deluxe edition albums via Twitter and this blog before, something I doubt I will ever apologise for. Deluxe editions are something I can tolerate if they were released decades after the original album, containing never before heard demos or various edits/live versions on a second disc. If a band chose to rerelease their material in order to introduce younger fans to a classic album whilst also giving older fans something new to enjoy, that's understandable...provided it happened before services like iTunes and Spotify came about.
However, now there's a trend of bands releasing deluxe editions alongside the standard editions. Not only that but the deluxe editions contain brand new studio versions of tracks that, for some reason, the band chose to omit from the original album. Any band that does that is categorically doing it for the money or, at the very least, isn't big enough to tell their record producers (who are absolutely in it for the money) not to cash in off their fans.
So what should a band do if they have too much material to fit on one album but don't want to rush through writing a new album for the sake of three filler tracks? Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you...the double album!

Let's look at a few recent examples. Iron Maiden released their first double album this time last year, claiming that their decision was based around having longer songs that wouldn't all fit on one disc. Since they wanted to release all of the music they'd written in one package, they chose to make The Book Of Souls a double album. No deluxe edition, no Best Buy version, just the album you paid for. Iron Maiden are definitely in it for the fans and a love of their craft.
Now let's look at an upcoming album, Metallica's long awaited Hardwired...To Self-Destruct; also a double album. They first teased this album a couple of years ago with the track "Lords Of Summer", a solid Thrash tune that followed the Metallica formula and got fans excited, even though they only officially released a demo version of it (if you're not counting the times fans filmed them playing it live). Cut to a month or so ago where Metallica announced the date, title and lead single off the album; title track "Hardwired".
It's a mediocre album opener, title track and lead single compared to "Lords Of Summer" that sounds like it was one of the last songs written for the album after Hetfield and Hammett ran out of the epic riffs they usually load their songs with. But enough dishing about that, let's dish about something else. Turns out "Lords Of Summer" isn't on the main tracklist. Instead, it's been relocated to the first track on the third disc of the deluxe edition, shortly before a shitload of random crap from the studio, certainly worth the £6 extra you'll have to pay!
Hey, Metallica, the whole point of a double album is to include ALL the songs you record. If you've got too many to fit even on a double album, maybe don't wait eight goddamn years between album releases! Alternatively, release one as a non-album single and wait until the next album to release the other (assuming you've only got a couple of extra tracks spilling onto the deluxe edition, which is always the fucking case). The point is Metallica may have some integrity and their new album will probably be good but as far as squeezing hardcore fans for more pennies goes, they're as crooked as a crone's fingers and that's WITHOUT the whole Napster thing entering the equation.

Another way of working out if a band are actively trying to make their album as commercial as possible is by counting the number of versions of each song. Some bands will record an album, release it and not touch those tracks until it's time for a live or remastered album. Others will release demo versions, live versions, single edits, clean edits, alternate takes, extended cuts, deep dishes, stuffed crusts, hot dog stuffed crusts, burger stuffed crusts, tearaway cheesy bites, quadruple stuffed bacon and oreo wrapped crusts and studio outtakes.
You could argue most of these are for the fans (especially hot dog stuffed crusts) but when a band releases a clean single edit for radio play before the extended and/or explicit album version, you know they want that chart money. The best example I can think of right now would be Tenacious D recording two different versions of their Rize Of The Fenix album; one with original lyrics, the other with clean, radio/licensing friendly ones. I'm assuming the reason for this is because of the financial loss they took after The Pick Of Destiny album, tour and film so I can forgive them for wanting to make a bit of dosh back by playing it safe.
I suppose now's as good a time as any to remind you that there's nothing wrong with more modern bands starting out wanting to make more money so they can take off and have more creative freedom for future records. Hell, there's nothing wrong with a band wanting money at all. I mean, this is their career. However, there will always be a difference between a worker who has a genuine love of what they do and one who is counting down the hours until clocking off. When it gets to the point that these clockwatchers are conning the fans with old rope masquerading as rare studio cuts, that's when you can put the tiny violins away.

Finally, the last surefire way of telling if bands are in it for the money is the amount of Greatest Hits tours they go on. Most tours are in aid of promoting a new album (not a cynical money grab as it's still providing a service and giving fans what they want) and some bands will fill a live setlist with hits because they're playing various festivals, the perfect venue for fan favourites. However, bands that repeatedly go on tour just to play the same twelve chart singles without any new material are fuelled by a desire to make enough cash to afford a new car.
The difference between these bands and bands that go on anniversary tours, plugging a rerelease or remaster, are that the latter bands will be playing filler tracks that they haven't played live in decades. Most fans, old and new, won't have heard these songs live before and the band will have to relearn them after years of neglect. That requires effort on their part, unlike acts that are going through the motions on stage each night because it's all they know and all anyone else wants.
Of course, some fans can argue that they only want to hear the hits and that the band are giving them exactly what they want. Guess what? Those aren't fans. Fans can name filler tracks, fans are aware of a band's career outside of maybe two well known songs. If you go to see a band on their own tour and spend the entire gig waiting for them to play their signature song at the end, you're a glory supporter and have no right to dictate what a band includes on their setlist. On an unrelated note, there's a difference between fans who see a band live just to hear one song and fans who see a band live only knowing one song but hoping to discover more.

There are, of course, other ways to tell if a band are more interested in cash than reaching new fans (for example, excessive licensing to shitty ads/TV shows/films/games) but they're more or less alternate versions of what I've just said and I'm not interested in undermining everything above, thank you very much.
Be that as it may, there's a chance I may have missed some glaring signs that a band have made the transition from Rock icons to marketing whores. If that's the case, feel free to educate me via Twitter or the comment section. Don't tell me about reality TV shows though as they only create/promote Pop bands and the only Pop bands not in it for money are in it for fame and awards too.
I hope you enjoyed reading this piece and if you're wondering when I'm going to start reviewing new albums again, the answer is hopefully this month and the next!

Live Shows: Dos & Don'ts

Part of supporting your favourite bands comes down to seeing them play live whenever they go on a certain tour, whether it's to promote a new album or just to remind everyone that the frontman isn't dead yet. Most of the time, bands get it spot on. They come out, they rock the house and leave to play again another day. However, there are a few bands that manage to successfully fuck it up and it pains me to say that it's often the older bands that think they're too famous to make mistakes.
This blog post is designed to highlight the parts of live gigs that bands SHOULD and SHOULDN'T be allowed to get away with. As always, it's all opinion based but it'd be great if some bands guilty of the Don'ts take these on board before their next performance. Let me know if you're one of those bands or if you just agree/disagree with that I've said.

DO engage in banter with the audience between songs
It's not exactly the main reason people go to gigs but it's a great break in between songs if the band has a frontman with charisma. It can be as simple as telling them brief stories about songs or asking if any of them have been to one of their gigs before, as long as it's not just "Here's one of our songs. Here's another song. Thank you for having us. Here's our latest single". I would say that the banter should be kept outside of the songs but I saw The Darkness recently and they frequently stopped tracks to tell jokes and piss about with the audience. It actually made the show more entertaining than if they just came out and played a set, so I guess it can work on occasion. However, I doubt it'd go down well at a Genesis or Opeth gig.

DO pick a good warm-up band
I'm sure I've mentioned it on this blog before but I have a theory that only "old" bands have good warm-up acts. Any time I go to see a band that started around the 70's or 80's, they always get a great warm-up. Iron Maiden got Sweet Savage, Deep Purple got Cheap Trick, Judas Priest got Saxon. However, whenever I see a band that became popular within the last 10 years or so, the warm-up is ALWAYS terrible. The Darkness got some twats playing the same boring Blues song over and over, Tenacious D got an annoying cunt dressed as a Sasquatch who thought he was incredible, Muse got about three different Indie acts who rocked about as hard as a used snot rag.
I'm not saying that bands like Royal Blood could get AC/DC as their opening act but surely there are better bands than all the ones that seem to be picked. I should also mention that sometimes older bands do pick shitty warm-ups, like the one before Motley Crue and Alice Cooper. I suppose the message here should probably be Don't Pick Bands Your Kids Like/You're Mates With If They Sound Nothing Like Your Music.

DO play an encore
I suppose I should add "unless the audience fucking hate you" but assuming the show goes well and the audience give you well deserved applause at the end, an encore is a must for any headline act. Not sure how many songs to perform? It's always 2 or 3, but here's a handy guide detailing the quantity of tracks played and a translation of what it represents:
No songs/encore: "We couldn't be fucked to do the thing that's kind of expected from every band by now because we don't care about you as a paying audience".
1 song: "There, we've done your precious encore. Now fuck off so we can go home".
2-3 songs: "Thank you, have a great night! We certainly did!"
4+ songs: "We could've included these in the main show but decided to include crap off our recent albums instead and had to put a bunch of tracks you wanted to hear after the main show finished".
2nd encore: "AREN'T WE THE GREATEST BAND IN THE WORLD?! TELL US HOW GREAT WE ARE SO WE CAN MASTURBATE SOME MORE!!"

DON'T neglect fan favourites
I can understand the reasoning behind bands choosing to omit some of their signature songs after decades of playing them. However, these bands need to remember that some of their fans will be experiencing them playing live for the first time. Sure, the venue will contain seasoned concert-goers but some of those will be bringing their kids along and some of them may even be adults who have recently discovered their music thanks to Spotify or some other music streaming service. They may have better songs but part of seeing a band live IS hearing at least one of their big songs performed there in person.
Bands that decide to cut songs that audiences love to hear just because they're bored of playing them or want to swap them out for new singles that they're plugging have forgotten the main reason they're playing live in the first place, or at least the reason they should be playing. It's understandable if the band doesn't enjoy playing 30-year old songs anymore but I'm pretty sure they can stomach one song in a 90 minute set.

DON'T make the audience do all the work
We've all heard anecdotes about bands/frontmen who get the audience to sing along for the majority of the chorus, the kind of egotistical twats who can only get off when they hear a stadium full of fans chanting their name or lyrics. In fact, it's probable that most of us have been to those gigs. For me, it was a Judas Priest gig where Rob Halford sung literally none of "Breaking The Law". I paid to hear a talented Metal vocalist sing the song, not a stadium full of drunk wankers! Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the vocalist pointing the mic towards the crowd every now and then, especially if the audience are as loud as the band anyway. My problem is vocalists who do it for every bloody line.

DON'T get cute with your performance
I'll admit that I could be in the minority here but when I see a band live, I want to hear them playing the song off the album. I don't want to hear them playing a new solo, I don't want to hear them trying something new with the vocals and I definitely don't want to hear a fucking acoustic rendition just so the drummer can have a piss. There are some examples where adding some backing vocalists or maybe speeding the tempo up slightly can improve the song but when bands actively think "Hey, let's try something different with this one" and experiment by mixing another song into the middle of it (e.g. Whitesnake covering Deep Purple's "Burn" with "Stormbringer" clumsily wedged in the middle or David Coverdale/Glen Hughes screeching "AH! AH! AH! AH!" before the solos), it sounds less like a band performing for a crowd and more like a band performing for themselves so they don't get bored.

Coming soon: REVIEWS! There's quite a few albums coming out this month so if you want to read lots of reviews on here, keep checking back every weekend! If you want me to write other posts, request some on Twitter or the comment section!