If you're like me when it comes to opinions about music journalism then chances are you find posts on blogs/websites along the lines of "Ten Best Songs Of [A YEAR/DECADE]" to be all the same. A bunch of Indie songs, some generic pop and usually Kanye Fucking West.
NOT THIS ONE!
Rather than pretend to be some sophisticated tosser who is all about how deep and lyrically influential music is, I plan on writing about my 10 favourite songs of the year that fall strictly within the Rock/Metal parameter...though chances are I'll still sound like a snob at times. There's a strong possibility that none of them will be on any official Top Songs Of 2014 lists as the spaces on those lists are reserved for paragraphs overly praising how great David Bowie is for releasing an album over 30 years after he stopped making good music or how innovative and talented the Foo Fighters are for capturing the pure, raw sound of Dave Grohl stroking his dick across eight songs.
Anyway, here are the songs that came out within the last 12 months that I would recommend to people above all other upcoming bands/artists. Once again, I remind you that these are in no order of greatness as I think they're all awesome:
1. "30 Years To Life" - Slash
One of the singles off World On Fire (I'll just leave this little review here for anyone who may have missed it) and probably my favourite song from the album. Granted it starts off a little shaky but luckily it soon finds its feet after the intro. The reason I preferred this song to others on the album probably comes down to the reprise at the end. The song's continual build-up manages to turn the worst part of the track into the best, leaving you with good memories of the tune you just heard...at least it did for me, anyway.
2. "1000hp" - Godsmack
Time for a bit of Metal! I don't know much about the music of Godsmack but I do know this song has about as much power as you can possibly want for modern Metal. My favourite aspect of this song is easily the way each drum beat in the intro and verse sounds like a hefty punch. In fact, the drumming throughout the whole song is as tight as a banker's pocket but when you listen to the track, you'll know what I mean. Some may argue that it sounds stiff but I'd rather that than it sounding sloppy and overly reliant on cymbal crashes.
Oh yeah, and the other band members are great too.
3. "Crash Landing" - Toseland
Whilst all the pictures of the guy make him look like a self-obsessed cunt too big-headed even for TOWIE, his music definitely earns its place here. Unlike other entries in this list where one or two instruments clearly dominate the others, this song is a perfect example of how each member of the band contributes an even share towards making a great tune. Yes, the guitar and vocals tend to stand out more but once you listen to the drums and bass all the way through, you'll realise they're pulling their weight just as much as Mr Essex himself.
4. "Deceived" - Red Dragon Cartel
More Metal! From the opening riff, you know you're gonna be in for a treat and luckily, the rest of the song delivers! If anything, it sounds like some modern Ozzy Osbourne but with about 30% more balls (you can thank the work of ex-Ozzy guitarist Jake E. Lee for those balls!). The only thing I would say is that the song kind of ends on a low note, despite building up so much energy. If it had the outro it deserved, I'd definitely recommend it above most other tracks on this list.
5. "Dragonaut" - Judas Priest
The only notable song on the entire fucking album. However, it's a hell of a song! You've got everything you could want from Judas Priest on it (aside from a bit more Halford falsetto but at least the band knew it wouldn't suit this song before they said "Fuck it, do it anyway" for the title track). I was tempted to leave it off this list until I realised that I've been listening to it regularly since I first purchased it in July. That makes it a top song, in my books.
6. "Heaven Knows" - The Pretty Reckless
The first song on this list that isn't all about speed and action but that doesn't mean it's not powerful. With plenty of explosive and arguably "epic" moments, this memorable track will get your feet stomping and if you don't end up humming along, chances are the chorus will stick around in your head later on that day. I'm surprised this song hasn't been used in more ads for TV shows or films, if I'm honest.
7. "Looking At You" - Uriah Heep
I was tempted to review Uriah Heep's latest album, Outsider, on this blog but decided against it in the end. If you want a shortened version, all you need to know is that there are three songs that stand out (and two of those were singles). "One Minute", "Can't Take That Away" and this one. All the others generally sound like Whitesnake knock-offs whereas "Looking At You" boasts some fine work from all instruments, particularly bass and keys.
8. "Midnight Meditation" - The Vintage Caravan
Above all else, it's the main guitar riff and drum combo that I enjoy more than the wailing vocals and fuzzy bass. Sadly, the rest of the album this came from isn't worth discussing but at least this shining jewel could be found in the grey slop that was Voyage. What I would say about the song is that it seems to go on a little bit too long. The bridge in the middle with the guitar solo is cool but perhaps the final verse could've been trimmed or adapted into an outro.
9. "Remember Me" - Black Stone Cherry
Gun to head, if I was forced to pick my favourite song of the year then this would probably be it. It's comparable to a lot of modern Hard Rock songs that rely on heavy chords and shouting but unlike those, the chords are accompanied by individual guitarwork and the shouting is fuelled by emotion rather than the need to sing about something. The only major downside to this song is that the album version contains about one minute and twenty seconds of atmospheric and unnecessary feedback at the end. It completely ruins the otherwise fantastic tune, but not enough for it to be omitted from this list.
10. "Too Many Clowns" - Magnum
I can't say I'm too fond of Magnum as their older songs are a little bit too synthy for my tastes. This song, however, has next to none of that. It's just good ol' Rock! If anything, this song sounds like ZZ Top or even Status Quo if they were fucking awesome as opposed to just awesome*. Raspy vocals perfect for Hard Rock and heavy riffing make up for the weak solo and I knew once this album came out, I had to have the song.
So those are my 10 favourite tracks released in 2014 BUT I've picked five others that deserve a mention and a listen from you if you've agreed with at least 7/10 of my choices so far:
"A Shot At Redemption" - H.E.A.T
Quite similar to "Heaven Knows" but not as grand or imposing. Instead, it beefs up the fretwork and increases the tempo to footstomping speed. If I'd ordered this list in terms of greatness, I reckon this would've made #11.
"Calling Out" - Electric River
If I'm ever involved in a dynamic motorbike chase across a near-futuristic motorway then I'd probably want this song to be playing. This song is probably more appropriate than some of the others on my list as it sounds more like Modern Rock compared to, say, Uriah Heep.
"Electric Man" - Rival Sons
I should really thank radio station Planet Rock for playing many of these songs as they're my primary source for discovering new music. The reason I bring them up now is because they've caught onto Rival Sons and have played many of their tunes from previous albums, as well as this great one. Whilst this isn't my favourite song by the band in general, it's definitely my favourite they've released this year that I've heard.
"The Outlaw" - The Treatment
A song presumably written with the sole intent of kicking ass, "The Outlaw" would've fought it out with "Deceived" on my list. I think the line "I'm the Outlaw, don'tcha know" in the chorus stopped this song from making the list. Other than that lyric, it's a great track.
"Two Doves On A Lake" - Archie Bronson Outfit
Quite kooky and definitely Wolfmotherish, this song was just a little bit too off-the-wall for my list. Not that that's a bad thing, of course. I like songs that are a bit different as much as ones that stick to conventions but in this case, I preferred the aforementioned tracks to this one. However, I would say fans of Stoner Metal and Hard Prog check this song out. Who knows, maybe other material by the Archie Bronson Outfit are worth a listen in general!
So that's my brief musical summary of 2014. We had highs and lows but what about 2015?
Well, we've got new albums from Metallica, Def Leppard, Queen featuring some other guy, possibly Iron Maiden, Saxon and other bands too, not to mention all the new acts who'll release their debuts this year and quite possibly a few other surprises along the way too.
Here's to another year of monthly blog posts! Hooraaaaaay!
*on occasion
Friday, 23 January 2015
Thursday, 4 December 2014
Rock Or Bust - AC/DC
There's a great scene in 'This Is Spinal Tap' where the band are shown negative reviews of one of their albums, the last one consisting of only two words ("Shit Sandwich"). I reckon I can top that and summarise AC/DC's latest album, Rock Or Bust, in just one.
Bust.
For those of you wanting a more in-depth critique, feel free to carry on reading.
Rock Or Bust is the 15th studio album from AC/DC but the first not to feature veteran guitarist, Malcolm Young. This is quite a significant departure as many consider Malcolm to be the life-blood of the band. It's his ability to create iconic riffs that have made the Aussie/Scottish rockers what they are today and whilst this isn't the first great loss the band has faced, it's definitely one that put the future of the group into question. However, rather than accept defeat, they carried on with determined faces and recorded this album...but perhaps they should've retired after all.
The album opener/title track is average at best. A slow plodding rhythm and an easily forgettable riff set the tone for the rest of the record. Cliff Williams' bass playing is unsubstantial and Phil Rudd's drumming is practically lifeless, although I guess organising murder really takes it out of you. Thankfully, Brian Johnson's vocals are still raw but I'd be lying if I said he makes any of the songs stand out. As for Stevie's guitar playing, he's certainly no Malcolm. His playing is bland, uninspired and sounds like something a mediocre guitarist would play to warm up before a gig.
If you think I'm being too harsh, here's an experiment for you.
Have you heard their first single, "Play Ball"? If not, follow this link and listen to the whole song, start to finish. Don't carry on reading this, pop out of this blog for a couple of minutes and give the song a try. When it's finished, come back here.
Heard it?
Right, now it's time for the test.
If you've heard the song several times before, you might do quite well but if you've heard it less than twice then here's your challenge:
Can you recall any of what you've just heard other than the words "Let's Play Ball"?
Don't be surprised if you can't, it's easily one of the most unremarkable Rock songs I've ever heard and it took me about four listens to remember the chorus alone.
Whose fucking idea was it to release that as the first single?! Surely, with Malcolm gone, you'd want a dynamic song to show people that you're still awesome and can bring the thunder on demand, not some limp Dance-Rock mush that has no fire or passion in the slightest? What's worse is the rest of the album more or less sticks to the same pattern. It's all too safe and timid, like they made this album for the easily fucking offended.
Admittedly, there are a couple of songs that capture the essence of the band's glory days. "Rock The House" is one that fans of "Back In Black" may appreciate and "Baptism By Fire" will likely get your foot tapping to the rhythm but other than that, the album is quite simply boring. Songs start to sound almost identical to their predecessors ("Sweet Candy"), tracks with powerful names carry the explosive energy of a diet pill induced follow-through ("Got Some Rock & Roll Thunder" and "Dogs Of War") and the final song, "Emission Control"...well, it says quite a bit about an ageing Hard Rock band when the closing track on an album fades out, let's just put it that way.
I would talk about how previous AC/DC songs have had memorable solos as well as classic riffs for every aspiring guitarist whereas Rock Or Bust is completely devoid of talented soloing BUT I believe the album was intentionally recorded without complex guitarwork* so I won't fault them for that. What I will fault them for is creating a pointless album that sounds like a bunch of old boys trundling out tired music who have lost the key component to what made them great in the first place, hence my score of 2/10.
What's most annoying about this album is that I really struggled to think of who to recommend this to. Even shite albums like 13 - Black Sabbath appeal to people who like their Metal covered in sludge but Rock Or Bust is just anemic sound. It's not even Rock, it's fucking Wood. If you did enjoy listening to it then I'm pleased for you but if you reckon you could look me in the eyes and tell me that this is an album Hard Rock fans should seek out then you, good sir or madam, are a bloody liar.
* Malcolm Young had composed these tracks with Angus before leaving the band due to Dementia. My theory is that they're deliberately quite short and simplistic to make it easier for him, since the producer and band mates likely recognised his failing mental health before his departure. I dunno, I could be reading too much into it but as I said, I'm not deducting or adding points for just a theory.
Bust.
For those of you wanting a more in-depth critique, feel free to carry on reading.
Rock Or Bust is the 15th studio album from AC/DC but the first not to feature veteran guitarist, Malcolm Young. This is quite a significant departure as many consider Malcolm to be the life-blood of the band. It's his ability to create iconic riffs that have made the Aussie/Scottish rockers what they are today and whilst this isn't the first great loss the band has faced, it's definitely one that put the future of the group into question. However, rather than accept defeat, they carried on with determined faces and recorded this album...but perhaps they should've retired after all.
The album opener/title track is average at best. A slow plodding rhythm and an easily forgettable riff set the tone for the rest of the record. Cliff Williams' bass playing is unsubstantial and Phil Rudd's drumming is practically lifeless, although I guess organising murder really takes it out of you. Thankfully, Brian Johnson's vocals are still raw but I'd be lying if I said he makes any of the songs stand out. As for Stevie's guitar playing, he's certainly no Malcolm. His playing is bland, uninspired and sounds like something a mediocre guitarist would play to warm up before a gig.
If you think I'm being too harsh, here's an experiment for you.
Have you heard their first single, "Play Ball"? If not, follow this link and listen to the whole song, start to finish. Don't carry on reading this, pop out of this blog for a couple of minutes and give the song a try. When it's finished, come back here.
Heard it?
Right, now it's time for the test.
If you've heard the song several times before, you might do quite well but if you've heard it less than twice then here's your challenge:
Can you recall any of what you've just heard other than the words "Let's Play Ball"?
Don't be surprised if you can't, it's easily one of the most unremarkable Rock songs I've ever heard and it took me about four listens to remember the chorus alone.
Whose fucking idea was it to release that as the first single?! Surely, with Malcolm gone, you'd want a dynamic song to show people that you're still awesome and can bring the thunder on demand, not some limp Dance-Rock mush that has no fire or passion in the slightest? What's worse is the rest of the album more or less sticks to the same pattern. It's all too safe and timid, like they made this album for the easily fucking offended.
Admittedly, there are a couple of songs that capture the essence of the band's glory days. "Rock The House" is one that fans of "Back In Black" may appreciate and "Baptism By Fire" will likely get your foot tapping to the rhythm but other than that, the album is quite simply boring. Songs start to sound almost identical to their predecessors ("Sweet Candy"), tracks with powerful names carry the explosive energy of a diet pill induced follow-through ("Got Some Rock & Roll Thunder" and "Dogs Of War") and the final song, "Emission Control"...well, it says quite a bit about an ageing Hard Rock band when the closing track on an album fades out, let's just put it that way.
I would talk about how previous AC/DC songs have had memorable solos as well as classic riffs for every aspiring guitarist whereas Rock Or Bust is completely devoid of talented soloing BUT I believe the album was intentionally recorded without complex guitarwork* so I won't fault them for that. What I will fault them for is creating a pointless album that sounds like a bunch of old boys trundling out tired music who have lost the key component to what made them great in the first place, hence my score of 2/10.
What's most annoying about this album is that I really struggled to think of who to recommend this to. Even shite albums like 13 - Black Sabbath appeal to people who like their Metal covered in sludge but Rock Or Bust is just anemic sound. It's not even Rock, it's fucking Wood. If you did enjoy listening to it then I'm pleased for you but if you reckon you could look me in the eyes and tell me that this is an album Hard Rock fans should seek out then you, good sir or madam, are a bloody liar.
* Malcolm Young had composed these tracks with Angus before leaving the band due to Dementia. My theory is that they're deliberately quite short and simplistic to make it easier for him, since the producer and band mates likely recognised his failing mental health before his departure. I dunno, I could be reading too much into it but as I said, I'm not deducting or adding points for just a theory.
Sunday, 30 November 2014
World On Fire - Slash featuring Myles Kennedy & The Conspirators
Before I talk about the latest album from Slash and Myles Kennedy, I'd first like to tell you about the latest tour from Slash and Myles Kennedy...or at least one of the shows from the tour.
Without going into too much detail about the dire warm-up performance from California Breed (although mostly Glenn Hughes) as you can read my condensed rant on Twitter, Slash played with his band for damn nearly two hours last night. For most bands, that would've been a real slog to sit through and, if I'm honest, it's probably my only small complaint. However, Slash and crew kept the majority of the audience* enthralled from start to finish, playing a variety of hits from past solo albums with a few select fan favourites from his days in Guns N' Roses.
The band were easily capable of recreating tunes from solo albums to a near pitch-perfect quality and even the GNR covers sounded close to identical to the originals from 1987. In fact, I would say that seeing Slash play live now is as close to the perfect Guns N' Roses gig we'll ever get. Myles was more than capable of covering Axl Rose, hitting all the correct notes without all the unnecessary, irritating shit Axl does. It's no surprise Slash chose Myles to become his permanent vocalist, since he's basically what Axl would sound like if he wasn't the aural equivalent of scraping a knuckle on a cheese grater.
Of course the rest of the band nailed their respective parts too but it was easily a combination of powerful vocals and furious fretting that made the night spectacular. That and the fantastic decade-spanning setlist. So with that in mind, what did I think of their latest album?
Before you read this review, I need to make one thing even clearer than I've already made it.
I don't like Axl Rose.
Not in the slightest.
I think he's fucking terrible.
He may be technically skilled but that means sod-all if the finished product sounds like a rooster. That's like commending someone for being a technically proficient arsonist or BNP spokesperson.
No, this isn't because of the whole Activision lawsuit thing. I actually agreed with him on that one. I don't like him because he's the single driving force behind my ambivalence towards Guns N' Roses. I know for a fact that I would enjoy them a lot more if he had no influence or purpose in the band, although sadly I can't prove it. All I can do is base my theories on the last five years of Slash's musical career.
I had a theory a while ago that Axl Rose ruined Hard Rock but I've since adapted that into a hypothesis that Axl Rose only tainted Hard Rock, merely ruining Guns N' Roses and his reputation. Some of their songs have awesome riffs but hearing Axl rasp "motherfucker" pisses them down. Thankfully, Slash's solo work is slowly trying to make up for it, almost like a spoilt child's dad apologising to the other parents at a birthday party for spawning such a little cunt.
I came close to forgiving and forgetting after hearing Apocalyptic Love for the first time last year. It's full of Hard Rock, pure and simple. The slower songs still pack a punch and manage to sound softer without going into handbag sporting Aerosmith territory. So with that in mind, I was looking forward to Slash's follow up to see if he would continue with more of the same or develop his sound into something new.
Interestingly enough, he's managed to do both.
World On Fire starts off with an aptly named explosive bang, doing what every great album opener does by setting the bar high. Fortunately, the band manage to maintain that high (unlike Judas Priest did with their latest offering) with a strong collection of face melters and headbangers. If there's one thing you can learn from Slash's music (and let's face it, you're unlikely to learn more than one or two things), it's that he's the Ronseal of Hard Rock. He does exactly what it says on the tin...uhh, album.
The songs don't contain metaphors concealed within another metaphor mirroring art under the pretence of bollocks and if that's what you strive for in music then go cream yourself over David fucking Bowie like all the other tossers out there who say things like "Bravo" without sarcasm. Slash's music is straight forward, down to Earth and fucking awesome. It doesn't need to be analysed, it just needs to be heard and that's something that remains constant throughout all three of his solo albums.
Whilst the debut had a series of guest musicians, making it easily comparable to previous album which introduced Myles Kennedy & The Conspirators as 'the band', the main difference between this and Apocalyptic Love is the number of songs that feel slightly less guitar-oriented. Whilst it's clear Slash's signature is scrawled across the record, it certainly feels like the band have had more input with the creation of this material. You've got your slower, more ensemble based songs like "Battleground", "The Unholy" and "Dirty Girl" along with ones crying to be played on a six-string such as "Bent To Fly", "Avalon" and "Withered Delilah".
It's a healthy mix of weight distribution among the band and a winning formula that's kept Slash in fresh leather pants and drug abuse for over 20 years. Personally, I preferred Apocalyptic Love and would recommend that album to anyone who likes Riff-Based Rock. It's an hour of Guitar Hero music and there will always be room in my iTunes library for that. However, World On Fire is a must-listen to anyone who likes Hard Rock as there's something for most preferences, whether you favour vocally driven belters or heavy drumming tracks. The biggest downside is that there isn't as much repeat value but that may be down to personal taste.
I rate it 8/10 for having many enjoyable tracks that don't disappoint or feel like carbon copies at first listen. I'm mostly just relieved that Slash didn't feel the need to include shite covers and 8 minute piano ballads, as I'm almost certain Axl pricking Rose pushed for during the GNR days. It honestly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Axl was responsible for all of GNR's cruddiest tracks but I'm too apathetic about the band to want to research my claims so I'll just remain in blissfully ignorant hate until someone puts me straight.
Are you gonna be that someone? Have anything else to add to the Axl debate? Feel free to voice opinions in the comments...unless you're a fanboy. If you are an Axl Rose fanboy and/or GNR purist, feel free to run far away-ay-ay-ay-ay.
* Except for a boy in front of me who was using his mum's shoulder as a pillow throughout the second half, poor little bunny.
Of course the rest of the band nailed their respective parts too but it was easily a combination of powerful vocals and furious fretting that made the night spectacular. That and the fantastic decade-spanning setlist. So with that in mind, what did I think of their latest album?
Before you read this review, I need to make one thing even clearer than I've already made it.
I don't like Axl Rose.
Not in the slightest.
I think he's fucking terrible.
He may be technically skilled but that means sod-all if the finished product sounds like a rooster. That's like commending someone for being a technically proficient arsonist or BNP spokesperson.
No, this isn't because of the whole Activision lawsuit thing. I actually agreed with him on that one. I don't like him because he's the single driving force behind my ambivalence towards Guns N' Roses. I know for a fact that I would enjoy them a lot more if he had no influence or purpose in the band, although sadly I can't prove it. All I can do is base my theories on the last five years of Slash's musical career.
I had a theory a while ago that Axl Rose ruined Hard Rock but I've since adapted that into a hypothesis that Axl Rose only tainted Hard Rock, merely ruining Guns N' Roses and his reputation. Some of their songs have awesome riffs but hearing Axl rasp "motherfucker" pisses them down. Thankfully, Slash's solo work is slowly trying to make up for it, almost like a spoilt child's dad apologising to the other parents at a birthday party for spawning such a little cunt.
I came close to forgiving and forgetting after hearing Apocalyptic Love for the first time last year. It's full of Hard Rock, pure and simple. The slower songs still pack a punch and manage to sound softer without going into handbag sporting Aerosmith territory. So with that in mind, I was looking forward to Slash's follow up to see if he would continue with more of the same or develop his sound into something new.
Interestingly enough, he's managed to do both.
World On Fire starts off with an aptly named explosive bang, doing what every great album opener does by setting the bar high. Fortunately, the band manage to maintain that high (unlike Judas Priest did with their latest offering) with a strong collection of face melters and headbangers. If there's one thing you can learn from Slash's music (and let's face it, you're unlikely to learn more than one or two things), it's that he's the Ronseal of Hard Rock. He does exactly what it says on the tin...uhh, album.
The songs don't contain metaphors concealed within another metaphor mirroring art under the pretence of bollocks and if that's what you strive for in music then go cream yourself over David fucking Bowie like all the other tossers out there who say things like "Bravo" without sarcasm. Slash's music is straight forward, down to Earth and fucking awesome. It doesn't need to be analysed, it just needs to be heard and that's something that remains constant throughout all three of his solo albums.
Whilst the debut had a series of guest musicians, making it easily comparable to previous album which introduced Myles Kennedy & The Conspirators as 'the band', the main difference between this and Apocalyptic Love is the number of songs that feel slightly less guitar-oriented. Whilst it's clear Slash's signature is scrawled across the record, it certainly feels like the band have had more input with the creation of this material. You've got your slower, more ensemble based songs like "Battleground", "The Unholy" and "Dirty Girl" along with ones crying to be played on a six-string such as "Bent To Fly", "Avalon" and "Withered Delilah".
It's a healthy mix of weight distribution among the band and a winning formula that's kept Slash in fresh leather pants and drug abuse for over 20 years. Personally, I preferred Apocalyptic Love and would recommend that album to anyone who likes Riff-Based Rock. It's an hour of Guitar Hero music and there will always be room in my iTunes library for that. However, World On Fire is a must-listen to anyone who likes Hard Rock as there's something for most preferences, whether you favour vocally driven belters or heavy drumming tracks. The biggest downside is that there isn't as much repeat value but that may be down to personal taste.
I rate it 8/10 for having many enjoyable tracks that don't disappoint or feel like carbon copies at first listen. I'm mostly just relieved that Slash didn't feel the need to include shite covers and 8 minute piano ballads, as I'm almost certain Axl pricking Rose pushed for during the GNR days. It honestly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Axl was responsible for all of GNR's cruddiest tracks but I'm too apathetic about the band to want to research my claims so I'll just remain in blissfully ignorant hate until someone puts me straight.
Are you gonna be that someone? Have anything else to add to the Axl debate? Feel free to voice opinions in the comments...unless you're a fanboy. If you are an Axl Rose fanboy and/or GNR purist, feel free to run far away-ay-ay-ay-ay.
* Except for a boy in front of me who was using his mum's shoulder as a pillow throughout the second half, poor little bunny.
Monday, 27 October 2014
Tenology: Ten Remixes I Want Added To Hyrule Warriors
Sorry everyone. It's another video game post.
For the second half of September, I've been spending my days playing 'Hyrule Warriors', the latest game in the Zelda franchise that departs from traditional gameplay in favour of 'Dynasty Warriors' battles, borrowing the characters, weapons and locations from the Zelda universe.
It's a fantastic game but the best thing about it is the music (which is also true to most other Zelda games). This game not only has a soundtrack combining Rock instruments with orchestral tunes but it also remixes existing Zelda tracks from past games into more exciting battle anthems.
Before you start to realise that I'm pretty much just repeating what I said about Super Smash Bros Brawl in a previous blog post, the point of this post isn't to tell you about my favourite tracks from this game. The reason you're still reading (and I'm still typing) is because I've picked 10 tunes that weren't used in 'Hyrule Warriors' that I'm hoping will be added along with the DLC after being remixed.
To give you an idea about the soundtrack of both Zelda games AND 'Hyrule Warriors', I've selected a couple of choice picks to compare the original and the remix.
First, there's the Boss Battle theme from 'Ocarina Of Time' followed by the 'Hyrule Warriors' version.
Then there's the Skyloft theme from 'Skyward Sword' and the 'Hyrule Warriors' mix, adding the Ballad Of The Goddess in there too to make it even more awesome.
As you can hear, they add some bitchin' guitars and successfully manage to improve tracks that were already damn good. Of course, these aren't the only pieces of music in the game but one of the few flaws about 'Hyrule Warriors' is that for a game that was essentially a love letter to console Zelda fans, the number of remixes from console Zelda games was not quite as high as it could've been.
So which tracks should've been added and given the 'Hyrule Warriors' treatment? In my opinion, the following ten (in no particular order):
1. Boss Theme - Majora's Mask
An obvious pick but still an awesome one. Personally, I prefer this Boss theme to the one from 'Ocarina Of Time', if only for the galloping rhythm. It works well in 'Majora's Mask' due to the time-based gameplay and often by the time you've finished a temple to reach the boss, you're racing against the clock to beat them before it's game over. It's a shame the game only had about 4 bosses (not including the final one) but for the upcoming 'Majora's Mask' DLC, a remix of this battle track with a chugging guitar rhythm would be amazing.
2. Dragon Roost Island - Wind Waker
Probably the best piece of music in the entire game despite not being featured as often as other tunes. Since 'Wind Waker' has a completely different art style to the other Zelda games and isn't really featured in 'Hyrule Warriors' (aside from a couple of pretty rubbish weapons you can get), it's unlikely we'll be seeing DLC featuring enemies and music from this game, even though fans would buy it in a heartbeat. However, a heavier remix of this calm island melody would be all kinds of awesome to fight to.
3. Mini Game Medley - Ocarina Of Time (1), Twilight Princess (2), Skyward Sword (3)
OK, I'm not sure how well this would translate as a song to fight to but if 'Hyrule Warriors' can have music from the 'Skyward Sword' Bazaar and 'Ocarina Of Time' House interiors then there must be a way of making a mix of mini game songs from the three main titles that went into making this game. The hardest one to translate would probably be the 'Skyward Sword' one, as it's the slowest. But hey, with a bit of creative reworking, it's surely possible!
4. Zant Boss Theme - Twilight Princess
One thing that stuck in my mind with 'Twilight Princess' was the fun boss fights. Not only did each one have their own music but they also felt more fun than previous installments, particularly Stallord who easily has one of the best boss fights in the whole Zelda series! However, the Zant fight was something special. It involved multiple battlefields taking place across a variety of stages from OTHER boss fights in the game, each with a variation of the same tune. If you listen to the whole piece, you can hear it becoming more frantic and crazed, much like the character of Zant as the game progresses. Anyway, considering he's playable in 'Hyrule Warriors', it would've been neat to have this tune properly remixed instead of the Twilight-y song they had which merely borrowed elements of this one.
5. Song Of Storms - Ocarina Of Time
Another iconic Zelda tune right here, and not just because it involves a paradox where you learn a song by travelling forward in time, learning it off a disgruntled windmill owner, travelling back and playing it to him, causing him to be disgruntled/learn the song in the first place (even though the song you learn is the exact one he's playing in his windmill all the time...). It's surprisingly catchy and even though various re-recordings of it are all awesome, the original played on the music box will always be the best. That being said, a heavier remix with guitars would certainly be appreciated, maybe if it's mixed with other songs you learn on the ocarina (although not the song from Ganondorf's Castle, like in Super Smash Bros Brawl).
6. Spooky Music - Majora's Mask
I couldn't think of a better name for this one, since the same tune is used repeatedly in different levels but with different instruments. The sample I've chosen is from Great Bay Coast, since it's the creepiest to me, but the Mountain Village at Snowhead is also good. Slow and haunting, this theme for each of the four corners of Termina carries the weight of death that lingers throughout this game. Looking back on it, 'Majora's Mask' might have the most depth of any Zelda game. Shame I didn't find it as fun as other titles, although I'd buy a 3DS re-release without hesitation.
7. Koloktos/Moldarach Battle - Skyward Sword
Easily my favourite action song from 'Skyward Sword' and quite possibly one of my top ten favourite Zelda boss battles (Koloktos, not Moldarach). To me, this is one of two songs from the game that prove it doesn't take Koji Kondo to make fantastic Zelda music. This song wouldn't require much of a change, just a few extra instruments and it's perfect for 'Hyrule Warriors'. It would've been cool to have Koloktos as one of the bosses to appear instead of The Imprisoned, which is a horrible boss fight in both games. Absolutely horrible and annoying. But sadly, it's also necessary.
8. Saria's Song - Ocarina Of Time
During Darunia's victory cut-scene, you can hear an orchestrated version of this tune being played. This is a nice nod to a scene from 'Ocarina Of Time' but honestly, it would've been much cooler to have a proper version of this classic Zelda song. Maybe if they decide to do Lost Woods DLC as an add-on to the Faron Woods level, they could spruce up this cheerful tune into a mystical remix (kinda like they did with the Sacred Grove in 'Twilight Princess').
9. Hidden Village - Twilight Princess
A Wild West type tune that, again, only plays a couple of times in the game but is able to strike a chord with the average player. With a bit of extra power and a slightly faster tempo, those acoustic guitars would transform into a great battle track, perfect for the Gerudo Desert stage (same could be said for the Gerudo Desert song, although I haven't included it on this list).
10. Hyrule Field - Ocarina Of Time
Despite the fact that the first level takes place outside Hyrule Castle on the fields of Hyrule, the theme from 'Ocarina Of Time' is surprisingly absent. Instead, we get a rip-off of 'Mars, Bringer Of War' by Gustav Holst followed by a remix of the original Zelda theme (which is great, admittedly). However, I'll never forget the excitement at hearing this upbeat tune for the first time. Having left Kokiri Forest after getting my first ocarina, it marked a momentous occasion in-game for me...then I got stopped by that fucking owl, but that's another story. Either way, it'd be great to hear a thundering remix of Hyrule Field from 'Ocarina Of Time' as opposed to the inferior 'Twilight Princess' one we got instead.
So that's my list. It's not perfect and I'll be honest, I was struggling to think of ten songs that I'd want as remixes but alas, it was possible. Are there any tunes you think would make great 'Hyrule Warriors' remixes? Perhaps more songs from 'Wind Waker' or any of the handheld/pre 'Ocarina Of Time' games? Let me know in the comment section and I'll check them out/add them if I agree. It's unlikely the DLC will add new tunes but I really hope they do, since it'd be a shame to have levels, enemies and objectives based on 'Majora's Mask' without the music to complete the atmosphere.
Also, apologies for the video game related post after my last one. I plan on reviewing Slash's latest album for my November post but I'm not sure when that'll be posted. Possibly towards the end of the month as I'm seeing him live with my awesome girlfriend then. I might combine the album and gig into one mega-review...or I'll review the album before the gig and add an update to it after seeing him live.
Who knows? I certainly don't.
For the second half of September, I've been spending my days playing 'Hyrule Warriors', the latest game in the Zelda franchise that departs from traditional gameplay in favour of 'Dynasty Warriors' battles, borrowing the characters, weapons and locations from the Zelda universe.
It's a fantastic game but the best thing about it is the music (which is also true to most other Zelda games). This game not only has a soundtrack combining Rock instruments with orchestral tunes but it also remixes existing Zelda tracks from past games into more exciting battle anthems.
Before you start to realise that I'm pretty much just repeating what I said about Super Smash Bros Brawl in a previous blog post, the point of this post isn't to tell you about my favourite tracks from this game. The reason you're still reading (and I'm still typing) is because I've picked 10 tunes that weren't used in 'Hyrule Warriors' that I'm hoping will be added along with the DLC after being remixed.
To give you an idea about the soundtrack of both Zelda games AND 'Hyrule Warriors', I've selected a couple of choice picks to compare the original and the remix.
First, there's the Boss Battle theme from 'Ocarina Of Time' followed by the 'Hyrule Warriors' version.
Then there's the Skyloft theme from 'Skyward Sword' and the 'Hyrule Warriors' mix, adding the Ballad Of The Goddess in there too to make it even more awesome.
As you can hear, they add some bitchin' guitars and successfully manage to improve tracks that were already damn good. Of course, these aren't the only pieces of music in the game but one of the few flaws about 'Hyrule Warriors' is that for a game that was essentially a love letter to console Zelda fans, the number of remixes from console Zelda games was not quite as high as it could've been.
So which tracks should've been added and given the 'Hyrule Warriors' treatment? In my opinion, the following ten (in no particular order):
1. Boss Theme - Majora's Mask
And now you've got Odalwa's chant stuck in your head!
An obvious pick but still an awesome one. Personally, I prefer this Boss theme to the one from 'Ocarina Of Time', if only for the galloping rhythm. It works well in 'Majora's Mask' due to the time-based gameplay and often by the time you've finished a temple to reach the boss, you're racing against the clock to beat them before it's game over. It's a shame the game only had about 4 bosses (not including the final one) but for the upcoming 'Majora's Mask' DLC, a remix of this battle track with a chugging guitar rhythm would be amazing.
2. Dragon Roost Island - Wind Waker
Personally, I wasn't a huge fan of Wind Waker thanks to the boring fucking sailing parts
Probably the best piece of music in the entire game despite not being featured as often as other tunes. Since 'Wind Waker' has a completely different art style to the other Zelda games and isn't really featured in 'Hyrule Warriors' (aside from a couple of pretty rubbish weapons you can get), it's unlikely we'll be seeing DLC featuring enemies and music from this game, even though fans would buy it in a heartbeat. However, a heavier remix of this calm island melody would be all kinds of awesome to fight to.
3. Mini Game Medley - Ocarina Of Time (1), Twilight Princess (2), Skyward Sword (3)
Dunno about you but that's definitely how I would hold a panicked chicken. Right over my head
OK, I'm not sure how well this would translate as a song to fight to but if 'Hyrule Warriors' can have music from the 'Skyward Sword' Bazaar and 'Ocarina Of Time' House interiors then there must be a way of making a mix of mini game songs from the three main titles that went into making this game. The hardest one to translate would probably be the 'Skyward Sword' one, as it's the slowest. But hey, with a bit of creative reworking, it's surely possible!
4. Zant Boss Theme - Twilight Princess
Shame his awesome attacks couldn't quite properly transfer over to 'Hyrule Warriors'
One thing that stuck in my mind with 'Twilight Princess' was the fun boss fights. Not only did each one have their own music but they also felt more fun than previous installments, particularly Stallord who easily has one of the best boss fights in the whole Zelda series! However, the Zant fight was something special. It involved multiple battlefields taking place across a variety of stages from OTHER boss fights in the game, each with a variation of the same tune. If you listen to the whole piece, you can hear it becoming more frantic and crazed, much like the character of Zant as the game progresses. Anyway, considering he's playable in 'Hyrule Warriors', it would've been neat to have this tune properly remixed instead of the Twilight-y song they had which merely borrowed elements of this one.
5. Song Of Storms - Ocarina Of Time
I always thought the secret tunnel from his hut to the graveyard was a bit suspicious, kinda like Sweeney Todd
Another iconic Zelda tune right here, and not just because it involves a paradox where you learn a song by travelling forward in time, learning it off a disgruntled windmill owner, travelling back and playing it to him, causing him to be disgruntled/learn the song in the first place (even though the song you learn is the exact one he's playing in his windmill all the time...). It's surprisingly catchy and even though various re-recordings of it are all awesome, the original played on the music box will always be the best. That being said, a heavier remix with guitars would certainly be appreciated, maybe if it's mixed with other songs you learn on the ocarina (although not the song from Ganondorf's Castle, like in Super Smash Bros Brawl).
6. Spooky Music - Majora's Mask
The whole sequence with the dying Zora is made even more chilling thanks to the music
I couldn't think of a better name for this one, since the same tune is used repeatedly in different levels but with different instruments. The sample I've chosen is from Great Bay Coast, since it's the creepiest to me, but the Mountain Village at Snowhead is also good. Slow and haunting, this theme for each of the four corners of Termina carries the weight of death that lingers throughout this game. Looking back on it, 'Majora's Mask' might have the most depth of any Zelda game. Shame I didn't find it as fun as other titles, although I'd buy a 3DS re-release without hesitation.
7. Koloktos/Moldarach Battle - Skyward Sword
The boss that made water temples tolerable
Easily my favourite action song from 'Skyward Sword' and quite possibly one of my top ten favourite Zelda boss battles (Koloktos, not Moldarach). To me, this is one of two songs from the game that prove it doesn't take Koji Kondo to make fantastic Zelda music. This song wouldn't require much of a change, just a few extra instruments and it's perfect for 'Hyrule Warriors'. It would've been cool to have Koloktos as one of the bosses to appear instead of The Imprisoned, which is a horrible boss fight in both games. Absolutely horrible and annoying. But sadly, it's also necessary.
8. Saria's Song - Ocarina Of Time
This took me way too long to complete as a kid
During Darunia's victory cut-scene, you can hear an orchestrated version of this tune being played. This is a nice nod to a scene from 'Ocarina Of Time' but honestly, it would've been much cooler to have a proper version of this classic Zelda song. Maybe if they decide to do Lost Woods DLC as an add-on to the Faron Woods level, they could spruce up this cheerful tune into a mystical remix (kinda like they did with the Sacred Grove in 'Twilight Princess').
9. Hidden Village - Twilight Princess
"Right, time to find those feckin' cats!"
A Wild West type tune that, again, only plays a couple of times in the game but is able to strike a chord with the average player. With a bit of extra power and a slightly faster tempo, those acoustic guitars would transform into a great battle track, perfect for the Gerudo Desert stage (same could be said for the Gerudo Desert song, although I haven't included it on this list).
10. Hyrule Field - Ocarina Of Time
"Oh look, a pretty floweSHITSHITSHITSHITSHITSHITSHITSHITSHIT"
Despite the fact that the first level takes place outside Hyrule Castle on the fields of Hyrule, the theme from 'Ocarina Of Time' is surprisingly absent. Instead, we get a rip-off of 'Mars, Bringer Of War' by Gustav Holst followed by a remix of the original Zelda theme (which is great, admittedly). However, I'll never forget the excitement at hearing this upbeat tune for the first time. Having left Kokiri Forest after getting my first ocarina, it marked a momentous occasion in-game for me...then I got stopped by that fucking owl, but that's another story. Either way, it'd be great to hear a thundering remix of Hyrule Field from 'Ocarina Of Time' as opposed to the inferior 'Twilight Princess' one we got instead.
So that's my list. It's not perfect and I'll be honest, I was struggling to think of ten songs that I'd want as remixes but alas, it was possible. Are there any tunes you think would make great 'Hyrule Warriors' remixes? Perhaps more songs from 'Wind Waker' or any of the handheld/pre 'Ocarina Of Time' games? Let me know in the comment section and I'll check them out/add them if I agree. It's unlikely the DLC will add new tunes but I really hope they do, since it'd be a shame to have levels, enemies and objectives based on 'Majora's Mask' without the music to complete the atmosphere.
Also, apologies for the video game related post after my last one. I plan on reviewing Slash's latest album for my November post but I'm not sure when that'll be posted. Possibly towards the end of the month as I'm seeing him live with my awesome girlfriend then. I might combine the album and gig into one mega-review...or I'll review the album before the gig and add an update to it after seeing him live.
Who knows? I certainly don't.
Friday, 17 October 2014
The Rock Family
On a drive back from work the other day, I started to think about the different musical genres and their place in Rock. Some fans will argue that Grunge killed Metal and others that Classic Rock is better than Modern Rock. Of course, these are all just opinions and all statements are as accurate as each other without facts...but it still provides food for thought. Where does each subgenre of Rock fall?
I won't describe the rest of my thought process that evening but basically, it ended up with me comparing the main genres of Rock to members of one big family. This post isn't meant to be taken seriously, nor does it offer any educational purpose as it's pretty much just my opinion mixed with a bit of general consensus/stereotyping. But yes, here's my analysis of the different Rock genres and their subsequent conversion into fictional family members. Enjoy!
Hard Rock = Awesome Dad
When you think of this family, the image of this guy usually springs to mind. Hard Rock might not be young but he still packs the same energy and attitude he had in his youth. Granted not everything he does is awesome...in fact, there have been many moments where one of his acts has generated embarrassment and even hate but when all's said and done, Hard Rock is good at what he does and does it to keep his family going strong. Top bloke!
Classic Rock = Distant Uncle
Back in their day, Classic Rock and Hard Rock were inseparable. Nowadays though, you don't see much of him anymore. Only the occasional selection of "greatest hits" from his past. However, just because he's not around now doesn't mean stories of his antics aren't still great to crack out every now and then. Plus, he has a pretty diverse history, ranging from his psychedelic drug phase in the 60's to his trip to the Southern parts of America in the 70's. It might not be cool to like him among the younger generation but you can't deny he was one great guy.
Metal = Successful Son
One of the many children of Hard Rock, Metal started out as quite a rebellious lad in his youth but as time progressed, so did he. Metal grew up and made a big name for himself. Now he's raking in mega bucks and dealing with stadiums of people in his day job. He might still think of himself as one of the boys but the fact is he's significantly more corporate than he used to be. That doesn't mean what he does has gone down the pan, though. His business manner is quite aggressive and might put some people off his personality but he's no idiot and he definitely has some interesting points to make about society and often politics. Just don't get him started on one of his long rants about war, though.
Punk Rock = Dipshit Brother
Every family tree has one rotting branch. One yellow-tinted part of the gene pool with a band-aid floating around in it and whilst it's disputable that Punk is that member, evidence certainly does point to that conclusion. Friends of Punk will go on about how important he is and how his acts of anger and frustration are necessary but come on, stop taking the piss. Everyone has issues and the rest of the Rock family have found a way of channeling their fury into art without sounding and acting like inarticulate yobs. In his youth, Punk got into trouble a lot and as a result, hasn't really amounted to much today. He has work and he makes enough money to get by but you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple of respectable people who would consider their work influenced by his.
Alternative Rock = Stay-At-Home Mum
Whilst Hard Rock is out partying and having a good time, Alternative Rock is at home doing her own thing. She's got her own life and her own business that may involve meeting up with friends for casual activities or working for large numbers of clients but if there's one thing she's not, it's lazy. Alternative has kept the family going through the difficult times and supported them through her smarter, more professional image. She is very fashion conscious and is always experimenting with new styles to suit her. Because of this, she's incredibly successful in her field and is responsible for showing a more educated side of the family.
Prog Rock = Autistic Child
Not everyone always understands Prog Rock but I think it's fair to say the key players in the Rock family all treat them with respect, even though Prog is a bit weird. You might find yourself stuck 7 minutes into one of their discussions about a train ride they took or trying to keep up with their temperamental mood changes but it's very difficult to actually hate this family member, unless you're particularly lacking in the brain department. Prog doesn't have many hobbies or interests but if there's one thing you can rely on, it's that they sure do love to play their keyboard!
Hair Metal = Teenage Daughter
It's all about the looks for this daughter of Hard Rock. When she's not trying out outrageous outfits or spending ludicrous amounts of time and money on styling her hair, she's out partying and spouting off about how hot things are. It's very easy to look at Hair Metal and think she's nothing but a fucking idiot, all style and no substance...and there are times when you're right, but beneath the mask of trying to be popular so that people will buy her things, there's someone who has the potential to be as successful as her older brother. She just needs to grow up and work on how she sounds. But hey, there's no hurry to grow up. She's only got about 8 years of obnoxiousness in her teenage life. Might as well make the most of it!
Blues Rock = Elderly Grandparent
There was a time where this old chap was the life and soul of the family. He would get everyone up and dancing in a matter of seconds but now his age is showing and his kids have taken over the family business. What's more, his head isn't what it used to be. He'll mostly spend his days producing simplistic stories that seem to go on and on and on and on with the same bit of the story being repeated to no end. That being said, he does hold technical knowledge and without him, there wouldn't be any of his kids ruling the roost so he's not a pointless element of the family. He's still alive and kicking and doesn't show any signs of slowing down soon either!
There you have it! A glimpse into the Rock Family. Before you start messaging me about Grunge and Nu-Metal, you should know that I haven't gone into details about the WHOLE family just yet. You never know, I might revisit the family tree quite soon...
But anyway, enough metaphorical teasing for now. Did you agree with my descriptions? Would you change any of the family members around? Or am I just plain talking out of my arse as usual? Let me know in the comment section along with your preferred order of family members/genres.
Oh, and expect a post about 'Hyrule Warriors' to be popped online this month...although I'll forgive you for giving it a miss.
I won't describe the rest of my thought process that evening but basically, it ended up with me comparing the main genres of Rock to members of one big family. This post isn't meant to be taken seriously, nor does it offer any educational purpose as it's pretty much just my opinion mixed with a bit of general consensus/stereotyping. But yes, here's my analysis of the different Rock genres and their subsequent conversion into fictional family members. Enjoy!
Hard Rock = Awesome Dad
When you think of this family, the image of this guy usually springs to mind. Hard Rock might not be young but he still packs the same energy and attitude he had in his youth. Granted not everything he does is awesome...in fact, there have been many moments where one of his acts has generated embarrassment and even hate but when all's said and done, Hard Rock is good at what he does and does it to keep his family going strong. Top bloke!
Classic Rock = Distant Uncle
Back in their day, Classic Rock and Hard Rock were inseparable. Nowadays though, you don't see much of him anymore. Only the occasional selection of "greatest hits" from his past. However, just because he's not around now doesn't mean stories of his antics aren't still great to crack out every now and then. Plus, he has a pretty diverse history, ranging from his psychedelic drug phase in the 60's to his trip to the Southern parts of America in the 70's. It might not be cool to like him among the younger generation but you can't deny he was one great guy.
Metal = Successful Son
One of the many children of Hard Rock, Metal started out as quite a rebellious lad in his youth but as time progressed, so did he. Metal grew up and made a big name for himself. Now he's raking in mega bucks and dealing with stadiums of people in his day job. He might still think of himself as one of the boys but the fact is he's significantly more corporate than he used to be. That doesn't mean what he does has gone down the pan, though. His business manner is quite aggressive and might put some people off his personality but he's no idiot and he definitely has some interesting points to make about society and often politics. Just don't get him started on one of his long rants about war, though.
Punk Rock = Dipshit Brother
Every family tree has one rotting branch. One yellow-tinted part of the gene pool with a band-aid floating around in it and whilst it's disputable that Punk is that member, evidence certainly does point to that conclusion. Friends of Punk will go on about how important he is and how his acts of anger and frustration are necessary but come on, stop taking the piss. Everyone has issues and the rest of the Rock family have found a way of channeling their fury into art without sounding and acting like inarticulate yobs. In his youth, Punk got into trouble a lot and as a result, hasn't really amounted to much today. He has work and he makes enough money to get by but you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple of respectable people who would consider their work influenced by his.
Alternative Rock = Stay-At-Home Mum
Whilst Hard Rock is out partying and having a good time, Alternative Rock is at home doing her own thing. She's got her own life and her own business that may involve meeting up with friends for casual activities or working for large numbers of clients but if there's one thing she's not, it's lazy. Alternative has kept the family going through the difficult times and supported them through her smarter, more professional image. She is very fashion conscious and is always experimenting with new styles to suit her. Because of this, she's incredibly successful in her field and is responsible for showing a more educated side of the family.
Prog Rock = Autistic Child
Not everyone always understands Prog Rock but I think it's fair to say the key players in the Rock family all treat them with respect, even though Prog is a bit weird. You might find yourself stuck 7 minutes into one of their discussions about a train ride they took or trying to keep up with their temperamental mood changes but it's very difficult to actually hate this family member, unless you're particularly lacking in the brain department. Prog doesn't have many hobbies or interests but if there's one thing you can rely on, it's that they sure do love to play their keyboard!
Hair Metal = Teenage Daughter
It's all about the looks for this daughter of Hard Rock. When she's not trying out outrageous outfits or spending ludicrous amounts of time and money on styling her hair, she's out partying and spouting off about how hot things are. It's very easy to look at Hair Metal and think she's nothing but a fucking idiot, all style and no substance...and there are times when you're right, but beneath the mask of trying to be popular so that people will buy her things, there's someone who has the potential to be as successful as her older brother. She just needs to grow up and work on how she sounds. But hey, there's no hurry to grow up. She's only got about 8 years of obnoxiousness in her teenage life. Might as well make the most of it!
Blues Rock = Elderly Grandparent
There was a time where this old chap was the life and soul of the family. He would get everyone up and dancing in a matter of seconds but now his age is showing and his kids have taken over the family business. What's more, his head isn't what it used to be. He'll mostly spend his days producing simplistic stories that seem to go on and on and on and on with the same bit of the story being repeated to no end. That being said, he does hold technical knowledge and without him, there wouldn't be any of his kids ruling the roost so he's not a pointless element of the family. He's still alive and kicking and doesn't show any signs of slowing down soon either!
There you have it! A glimpse into the Rock Family. Before you start messaging me about Grunge and Nu-Metal, you should know that I haven't gone into details about the WHOLE family just yet. You never know, I might revisit the family tree quite soon...
But anyway, enough metaphorical teasing for now. Did you agree with my descriptions? Would you change any of the family members around? Or am I just plain talking out of my arse as usual? Let me know in the comment section along with your preferred order of family members/genres.
Oh, and expect a post about 'Hyrule Warriors' to be popped online this month...although I'll forgive you for giving it a miss.
Sunday, 31 August 2014
Compilation Albums: Dos & Don'ts
Apologies for the late post. I've been settling into my new home and new job, leaving this space empty whilst more important parts of my life take priority. However, I have a bit of spare time so I thought I'd go ahead and type up some bits and bobs about something every music fan is familiar with.
Compilation Albums.
We've seen them advertised on TV and dotted around record stores. We mostly just assume they're a collection of well known songs by the band from all their albums on one handy CD, but there's a little bit more to them than that. Some bands decide to add tunes from a select number of albums across 10 years and a few even choose to add lesser known tracks just because they're favourites among band members.
Either way, for every magnificent compilation representing the band's greatest triumphs of Rock and Metal (although usually Rock), there's one that's clearly been churned out by means of generating cash by the record label. If you're like me and find yourself occasionally buying the old compilation album from a band you're not hugely into but still enjoy listening to, maybe you'll agree with some of these cardinal sins and shining diamonds in the world of musical anthologies.
Firstly, Dos!
DO learn the difference between "Greatest Hits" and "Best Of"
Technically, bands should never release Greatest Hits OR Best Of albums if they're still recording music, since it's basically them saying "Yeah, we're still making albums but fuck it, the songs we recorded 20 years ago shit all over them. You might as well not bother. We certainly didn't!". However, if you're a band that realises that fans will always see the classic material as the collection of superior tunes (or if you're Deep Purple), there's no point pretending anything you write now can be considered the best of your efforts.
So you come out with a compilation album. What do you call it?
WELL, if you're releasing a compendium of all your most successful songs that comprise fan favourites, chart topping singles and/or songs that gained popularity through use in the media, you go with "Greatest Hits" or "The Singles Collection".
If, however, you're choosing songs that consist of both well AND lesser known tracks that are highly regarded by fans and band members alike, you call it "The Best Of".
The number of fucking times I've seen an album boasting the "Essential" songs by a band, only to find some of their most awesome tunes absent is too damn high. What's more, it shows that whoever named it couldn't be arsed to actually listen to the songs included, which means the album is no more worthy of your ears than a Spotify playlist assembled by a deaf tween.
DO include stories about each song from band members in the leaflet
If the band are popular enough to have a compilation album and you like them enough to buy it, chances are you're at least a little bit interested in their history. Plus, some of these songs that'll probably end up on compilations have some rather fascinating stories behind them. If you're not bothered about that, you don't have to read the leaflet but the info in there about each song is a lot better than some blurb about the band in general written by their manager or some pillock who works for a music magazine.
"Oh but what if there are songs that don't have fun stories behind them?"
Song ideas have to come from somewhere, whether it's a bad day, a strange encounter, a handy dream or just plain ol' life experience. If a guitarist came up with a riff because he wanted something to sing in the shower, I call that a good enough story to share. The point is that songs included on these compilations can't just be ones that the band made by fucking about and even if they are, that's an anecdote in itself. Don't believe me? Check out the story behind Sweet Child O'Mine.
DO include album versions of songs
9/10 times, the album version of the song is a lot better than the single edit. Some songs work better with an edit, yes, but when a compilation butchers songs and removes some of the awesome elements like the guitar solo or an extra verse, forcing you to either settle for a substandard edit or pay more money for the full album version, it feels like a slap in the face. The only time single edits are suitable on compilations is when they're on "The Singles Collection". "Greatest Hits" is debatable, "Best Of" is a giant no-no.
And now for the Don'ts!
DON'T include live versions
This is the ultimate fuck you from whoever's responsible. I don't care if it's because the record label only has permission to use live tracks or if the band think they're better than the studio versions, it's a giant middle finger and nothing else. It's very rare for a live version to be better than the original (unless you're there at the gig, you're a fan of that band or it's pre-plane crash Lynyrd Skynyrd*) and it's even rarer for people to want the live version on a compilation.
OK, if a live version was released as a single, it has its place then. Also, if you include the original on one disc and a live version on another, that's understandable too. But live versions without the studio on a compilation album? Hell. Fuckin. No. The same can also be said for "remixes". Remasters are fine, remixes can piss right off.
DON'T release US and UK versions with different songs
A while ago, I acquired a Billy Joel compilation album. Recently, I revisited it after seeing the same album online with the song Scenes From An Italian Restaurant. But what's this? My version didn't have that track. So for some reason, a different region wants different songs, right?
WRONG!!
Nobody wants that. Same compilation, same tracklist. Every time; no excuses.
DON'T release a load of them with a mishmash of tracks across compilations
So a band decides to release a compilation that you go out and buy? Good. Same band release another compilation with different songs on it? Great! Band release another compilation with most the songs previously used on existing compilations? NO NO NO!
I accept that sometimes this is inevitable. If a band have existed for over 30 years and the compilation was released near the start of their career (an aforementioned sin), it might be necessary to include the earlier songs on a large compilation also including a lot of unused songs. However, including the same songs over and over whilst neglecting some that deserve a place more than the same hit used five times is a result of only one motivation. Greed.
Aerosmith are guilty of this and Black Sabbath had the fucking cheek to release two different compilations with exactly the same tracklist on both. I shit you not! There had to be better ways of promoting their godawful recent album than to rip off gullible fans like that.
In fact, there has to be a better way of handling compilation album tracklists in this digital age. There should be a company like Spotify that has access to entire back catalogues from bands and allows you to pick a selection of the band's material to burn onto a blank CD, which they send you for a price. Minimum 10 songs, maximum...I dunno, 15-20? Depends how much CD space there is.
£7.99 for 10 songs (plus small postage fee), £12.99 for over 15, custom album artwork from a selection of pictures on a band's "page", you can choose between studio, live, alternate and re-recordings and the money is split between the website and the band. I have no idea if a concept like this already exists for compilations but if it doesn't, the idea originated from me on August 31st 2014 and this blog post is proof.
I think the Kaiser Chiefs did something like this for their fourth album (pity it wasn't as good as their second) but an idea like this would be perfect for people who want a large selection of the band's entire existing material without spending a small fortune. It would also show bands which album tracks or B-sides people want to hear due to how often they're selected, in case they're struggling to think of new songs to add to a live setlist.
I guess people are moving to digital media rather than purchasing CD's so this idea probably wouldn't take off in the same way iTunes did but I dunno, I think it could work if done correctly with a wide selection of musicians supporting it. Anyway, that's it from me. Do you have any pet peeves about compilation albums? Let me know in the comment section. Until next time, be seeing you!
* Even though "One More From The Road" boasts material that blows nearly all of Skynyrd's studio work out the water, I would still want the originals on a compilation. If you want the live versions, buy the fucking live album.
Compilation Albums.
We've seen them advertised on TV and dotted around record stores. We mostly just assume they're a collection of well known songs by the band from all their albums on one handy CD, but there's a little bit more to them than that. Some bands decide to add tunes from a select number of albums across 10 years and a few even choose to add lesser known tracks just because they're favourites among band members.
Either way, for every magnificent compilation representing the band's greatest triumphs of Rock and Metal (although usually Rock), there's one that's clearly been churned out by means of generating cash by the record label. If you're like me and find yourself occasionally buying the old compilation album from a band you're not hugely into but still enjoy listening to, maybe you'll agree with some of these cardinal sins and shining diamonds in the world of musical anthologies.
Firstly, Dos!
DO learn the difference between "Greatest Hits" and "Best Of"
Technically, bands should never release Greatest Hits OR Best Of albums if they're still recording music, since it's basically them saying "Yeah, we're still making albums but fuck it, the songs we recorded 20 years ago shit all over them. You might as well not bother. We certainly didn't!". However, if you're a band that realises that fans will always see the classic material as the collection of superior tunes (or if you're Deep Purple), there's no point pretending anything you write now can be considered the best of your efforts.
So you come out with a compilation album. What do you call it?
WELL, if you're releasing a compendium of all your most successful songs that comprise fan favourites, chart topping singles and/or songs that gained popularity through use in the media, you go with "Greatest Hits" or "The Singles Collection".
If, however, you're choosing songs that consist of both well AND lesser known tracks that are highly regarded by fans and band members alike, you call it "The Best Of".
The number of fucking times I've seen an album boasting the "Essential" songs by a band, only to find some of their most awesome tunes absent is too damn high. What's more, it shows that whoever named it couldn't be arsed to actually listen to the songs included, which means the album is no more worthy of your ears than a Spotify playlist assembled by a deaf tween.
DO include stories about each song from band members in the leaflet
If the band are popular enough to have a compilation album and you like them enough to buy it, chances are you're at least a little bit interested in their history. Plus, some of these songs that'll probably end up on compilations have some rather fascinating stories behind them. If you're not bothered about that, you don't have to read the leaflet but the info in there about each song is a lot better than some blurb about the band in general written by their manager or some pillock who works for a music magazine.
"Oh but what if there are songs that don't have fun stories behind them?"
Song ideas have to come from somewhere, whether it's a bad day, a strange encounter, a handy dream or just plain ol' life experience. If a guitarist came up with a riff because he wanted something to sing in the shower, I call that a good enough story to share. The point is that songs included on these compilations can't just be ones that the band made by fucking about and even if they are, that's an anecdote in itself. Don't believe me? Check out the story behind Sweet Child O'Mine.
DO include album versions of songs
9/10 times, the album version of the song is a lot better than the single edit. Some songs work better with an edit, yes, but when a compilation butchers songs and removes some of the awesome elements like the guitar solo or an extra verse, forcing you to either settle for a substandard edit or pay more money for the full album version, it feels like a slap in the face. The only time single edits are suitable on compilations is when they're on "The Singles Collection". "Greatest Hits" is debatable, "Best Of" is a giant no-no.
And now for the Don'ts!
DON'T include live versions
This is the ultimate fuck you from whoever's responsible. I don't care if it's because the record label only has permission to use live tracks or if the band think they're better than the studio versions, it's a giant middle finger and nothing else. It's very rare for a live version to be better than the original (unless you're there at the gig, you're a fan of that band or it's pre-plane crash Lynyrd Skynyrd*) and it's even rarer for people to want the live version on a compilation.
OK, if a live version was released as a single, it has its place then. Also, if you include the original on one disc and a live version on another, that's understandable too. But live versions without the studio on a compilation album? Hell. Fuckin. No. The same can also be said for "remixes". Remasters are fine, remixes can piss right off.
DON'T release US and UK versions with different songs
A while ago, I acquired a Billy Joel compilation album. Recently, I revisited it after seeing the same album online with the song Scenes From An Italian Restaurant. But what's this? My version didn't have that track. So for some reason, a different region wants different songs, right?
WRONG!!
Nobody wants that. Same compilation, same tracklist. Every time; no excuses.
DON'T release a load of them with a mishmash of tracks across compilations
So a band decides to release a compilation that you go out and buy? Good. Same band release another compilation with different songs on it? Great! Band release another compilation with most the songs previously used on existing compilations? NO NO NO!
I accept that sometimes this is inevitable. If a band have existed for over 30 years and the compilation was released near the start of their career (an aforementioned sin), it might be necessary to include the earlier songs on a large compilation also including a lot of unused songs. However, including the same songs over and over whilst neglecting some that deserve a place more than the same hit used five times is a result of only one motivation. Greed.
Aerosmith are guilty of this and Black Sabbath had the fucking cheek to release two different compilations with exactly the same tracklist on both. I shit you not! There had to be better ways of promoting their godawful recent album than to rip off gullible fans like that.
In fact, there has to be a better way of handling compilation album tracklists in this digital age. There should be a company like Spotify that has access to entire back catalogues from bands and allows you to pick a selection of the band's material to burn onto a blank CD, which they send you for a price. Minimum 10 songs, maximum...I dunno, 15-20? Depends how much CD space there is.
£7.99 for 10 songs (plus small postage fee), £12.99 for over 15, custom album artwork from a selection of pictures on a band's "page", you can choose between studio, live, alternate and re-recordings and the money is split between the website and the band. I have no idea if a concept like this already exists for compilations but if it doesn't, the idea originated from me on August 31st 2014 and this blog post is proof.
I think the Kaiser Chiefs did something like this for their fourth album (pity it wasn't as good as their second) but an idea like this would be perfect for people who want a large selection of the band's entire existing material without spending a small fortune. It would also show bands which album tracks or B-sides people want to hear due to how often they're selected, in case they're struggling to think of new songs to add to a live setlist.
I guess people are moving to digital media rather than purchasing CD's so this idea probably wouldn't take off in the same way iTunes did but I dunno, I think it could work if done correctly with a wide selection of musicians supporting it. Anyway, that's it from me. Do you have any pet peeves about compilation albums? Let me know in the comment section. Until next time, be seeing you!
* Even though "One More From The Road" boasts material that blows nearly all of Skynyrd's studio work out the water, I would still want the originals on a compilation. If you want the live versions, buy the fucking live album.
Monday, 14 July 2014
Redeemer Of Souls - Judas Priest
Two posts in one month...and one of them's a review?!
Don't say I never give you anything. Even if those things aren't what you want, I still give them to you.
With that, onto this review of Judas Priest's latest album!
I really wanted this album to be awesome.
With a cover like that, I wanted it to blow my fucking balls off with dynamic Metal anthems, blistering solos and riffs perfect for any headbanging air guitarist. Don't get me wrong, the album delivers those on most tracks...and yet my balls remain fully attached. The closest they came to flying out of my trousers in an explosion of Rock was after the album opener, Dragonaut.
The standard is set incredibly high with a thunderous powerhouse that could easily go toe to toe with any of Priest's heaviest songs to date. Not only does it deliver excellent riffs and vocal work from Glenn Tipton and Rob Halford respectively but it also proves that new guitarist Richie Faulkner (replacing K.K Downing who left in 2011) fits right into place with the Metal Gods.
Unfortunately, the standard is set a little too high as none of the other songs on the album come anywhere near it. The closest songs that recreate the level of intense energy and power are Down In Flames, which could've been written for "Point Of Entry" with its thumping rhythm and lyrics about "going down in a blaze of glory", Halls Of Valhalla, sporting a typical Power Metal intro on guitar followed by classic Priest, and Battle Cry, featuring some operatic vocals from Halford.
There are plenty of tracks that were good but failed to hook me in the way those four did. The familiar Judas Priest musical staples are all there, from Scott Travis' double bass pedal domination on Sword Of Damocles to the lyrics about some kind of tremendous juggernaut devastating everything in its path on Metalizer. To the band's credit, they still know how to write great music. If performed by any other band, March Of The Damned would sound like a knock-off of Sign Of The Crimson Storm - Riot. However, when combined with Halford's raspy growls and Tipton's raw chugging chords, the tune becomes their own.
There are also tracks that deviate from the sound you'd expect to hear on a Judas Priest album, such as Secrets Of The Dead which gets a bit progressive with synthesiser solos and Cold Blooded which feels like it'd be more at home on one of the more recent Iron Maiden albums. It probably comes down to taste with these songs, as I was completely indifferent to them despite knowing that they're not bad songs in the slightest.
Unfortunately, there are also tracks that felt like a chore to listen to all the way through. Beginning Of The End finishes the album on a wet and moody note, featuring Halford doing his Ozzy Osbourne impression to some soulful guitar playing until the drums kick in and turn the track into a power ballad. Yeah, because that's how you end a Metal album. A fucking power ballad.
So what's worse than a weak ending? How about a flat title track? Redeemer Of Souls feels very plain for a band of this calibre and certainly lacks the energy and ferocity I would expect from a title track on a Metal album, let alone the second song on the entire record. If anything, it sounds like it was performed by one of the many European Metal bands who have tried to be Judas Priest since the late 80's, galloping rhythm and all. It may follow the formula but it lacks the spark that makes the band stand out from all the others.
All in all, "Redeemer Of Souls" is a solid album. You've got track diversity with a comprehensive range from 'absolutely fucking awesome' to 'what in the shit is this doing on a Judas Priest album?' and there's not one weak link in the band. Sadly, this lacks the consistently passionate rage of "Painkiller" and the talented riffwork of "Screaming For Vengeance" which two out of three singles from the album promised, meaning there are few tracks I would ever want to listen to more than a couple of times.
I give it a 7/10 and would recommend it to fans of Judas Priest and modern Heavy Metal but not Metalheads who only know Priest for their signature tracks. I probably should've known this album wouldn't meet all my standards when I first heard Redeemer Of Souls months ago. After all, you can't judge a book by its cover but I guess you can judge an album by its title track.
* I'm not reviewing the Deluxe edition of this album with the five extra songs because personally, I don't see why they couldn't have included those tracks on the regular album instead of giving places like HMV an excuse to charge an extra tenner for it. I think one of the guitarists gave some piss-weak explanation about how they belong on their own disc but sadly, I'm not buying it...in every sense of the term.
Don't say I never give you anything. Even if those things aren't what you want, I still give them to you.
With that, onto this review of Judas Priest's latest album!
I really wanted this album to be awesome.
With a cover like that, I wanted it to blow my fucking balls off with dynamic Metal anthems, blistering solos and riffs perfect for any headbanging air guitarist. Don't get me wrong, the album delivers those on most tracks...and yet my balls remain fully attached. The closest they came to flying out of my trousers in an explosion of Rock was after the album opener, Dragonaut.
The standard is set incredibly high with a thunderous powerhouse that could easily go toe to toe with any of Priest's heaviest songs to date. Not only does it deliver excellent riffs and vocal work from Glenn Tipton and Rob Halford respectively but it also proves that new guitarist Richie Faulkner (replacing K.K Downing who left in 2011) fits right into place with the Metal Gods.
Unfortunately, the standard is set a little too high as none of the other songs on the album come anywhere near it. The closest songs that recreate the level of intense energy and power are Down In Flames, which could've been written for "Point Of Entry" with its thumping rhythm and lyrics about "going down in a blaze of glory", Halls Of Valhalla, sporting a typical Power Metal intro on guitar followed by classic Priest, and Battle Cry, featuring some operatic vocals from Halford.
There are plenty of tracks that were good but failed to hook me in the way those four did. The familiar Judas Priest musical staples are all there, from Scott Travis' double bass pedal domination on Sword Of Damocles to the lyrics about some kind of tremendous juggernaut devastating everything in its path on Metalizer. To the band's credit, they still know how to write great music. If performed by any other band, March Of The Damned would sound like a knock-off of Sign Of The Crimson Storm - Riot. However, when combined with Halford's raspy growls and Tipton's raw chugging chords, the tune becomes their own.
There are also tracks that deviate from the sound you'd expect to hear on a Judas Priest album, such as Secrets Of The Dead which gets a bit progressive with synthesiser solos and Cold Blooded which feels like it'd be more at home on one of the more recent Iron Maiden albums. It probably comes down to taste with these songs, as I was completely indifferent to them despite knowing that they're not bad songs in the slightest.
Unfortunately, there are also tracks that felt like a chore to listen to all the way through. Beginning Of The End finishes the album on a wet and moody note, featuring Halford doing his Ozzy Osbourne impression to some soulful guitar playing until the drums kick in and turn the track into a power ballad. Yeah, because that's how you end a Metal album. A fucking power ballad.
So what's worse than a weak ending? How about a flat title track? Redeemer Of Souls feels very plain for a band of this calibre and certainly lacks the energy and ferocity I would expect from a title track on a Metal album, let alone the second song on the entire record. If anything, it sounds like it was performed by one of the many European Metal bands who have tried to be Judas Priest since the late 80's, galloping rhythm and all. It may follow the formula but it lacks the spark that makes the band stand out from all the others.
All in all, "Redeemer Of Souls" is a solid album. You've got track diversity with a comprehensive range from 'absolutely fucking awesome' to 'what in the shit is this doing on a Judas Priest album?' and there's not one weak link in the band. Sadly, this lacks the consistently passionate rage of "Painkiller" and the talented riffwork of "Screaming For Vengeance" which two out of three singles from the album promised, meaning there are few tracks I would ever want to listen to more than a couple of times.
I give it a 7/10 and would recommend it to fans of Judas Priest and modern Heavy Metal but not Metalheads who only know Priest for their signature tracks. I probably should've known this album wouldn't meet all my standards when I first heard Redeemer Of Souls months ago. After all, you can't judge a book by its cover but I guess you can judge an album by its title track.
* I'm not reviewing the Deluxe edition of this album with the five extra songs because personally, I don't see why they couldn't have included those tracks on the regular album instead of giving places like HMV an excuse to charge an extra tenner for it. I think one of the guitarists gave some piss-weak explanation about how they belong on their own disc but sadly, I'm not buying it...in every sense of the term.
Sunday, 6 July 2014
Digital Streaming/Downloading vs. The Artist(s)
NOTE: In this post, Digital Streaming/Downloading applies to legal content people pay for. This isn't an argument about bands vs. online piracy, although if I get really bored/desperate I might voice my full opinion on that another month.
The year is 2014.
...Well, at the time of typing this up, it is.
For all I know, some lone survivor in the apocalyptic wasteland of New Korea has just picked up a cracked iPad with this blog post inexplicably on the screen.
If that is the case, hello survivor! Sorry 'bout the whole end of the world thing. Hang in there, K?
...where was I?
Oh yeah, music (or to the survivor, noise that isn't explosions or children screaming)!
So it's 2014 and the idea of having music streamed/downloaded to an electronic device of your choice is more commonplace than the knowledge of how to make music without said device to do all the legwork for you. Despite expensive licensing fees for iconic bands such as The Beatles or Led Zeppelin, they still appear in the iTunes library for you to access for less than £1 a song.
There are various articles online that discuss whether this is fair to the band, especially with subscription sites like Spotify that don't demand money to listen to each song and pay peanuts to the musicians. For this reason, there are many bands who disagree with these services using their music and, as a result, are absent from the online database.
These absent bands include Slade, Def Leppard, Scorpions and The Black Keys, although not all necessarily due to financial disagreements. Granted most people couldn't give half a fuck about Slade not being easily available (even though 1981's "Till Deaf Do Us Part" is one for all Hard Rock fans to check out, especially if they like Whitesnake and Motley Crue) but I know for a fact that all of these bands are capable of producing great material and would like the chance to listen to it via the most convenient medium.
I could always listen to scattered discographies on Grooveshark (a great and totally free music service that's perfect for locating more obscure tunes along with hits, if you're interested!) but I'm still intrigued to know what these bands have against services that the majority of existing musicians seem to have little to no problem with. It may have taken bands like AC/DC and Metallica a while to cooperate but in the end, they realised that it benefits a lot of people (presumably including themselves).
Nigel Godrich and Thom Yorke of Radiohead have gone on record as stating Spotify is bad for new musicians and is better for old bands who want people to hear their music again. Whilst Yorke may have a point about there being a better way to provide musicians with the money they deserve for their efforts, he seems to be missing the fact that musicians don't do what they do for themselves, unless they're Pop stars.
Yes, I'm speaking as a consumer but surely Spotify is primarily for consumers. It's allowing listeners to hear a wider selection of albums than they'd hear via radio or other methods. From that, they develop a taste for a band and decide to buy their albums or go to their concerts. I can't tell you how many albums I've bought as a result of listening to them first on Spotify or how many songs I've discovered through spending evenings digging through the plentiful selection of 70's and 80's Rock, an experience that's the closest to rooting through CDs at a second hand record shop most kids today will ever get to enjoy.
The Black Keys seem to have a similar stance, claiming that they haven't released all their albums on Spotify because they believe it's unfair to the artist but are open to it when a better deal comes along...in other words, they want more money. As for the older bands I mentioned, I have no idea why their albums aren't readily available, especially with Scorpions and Bob Seger who have a selective catalogue of live albums and a few studio ones available.
Maybe it's a region thing, as I know there are Americans who can't access albums in the UK/Europe versions of iTunes and Spotify, even though organisations who insist region blocks are necessary consist of nothing less than Fucking Cunts. However, the main point of this post is to decide whether or not one side is in the "right". Are the bands doing the right thing by saying their material shouldn't be available in digital format or are they being complete tools and inviting themselves open to piracy?
In my opinion, it's the latter all the way.
There are lots of things that piss me off but big bands getting high and mighty with their own material, making it harder for people to pay for their product and pretending that they're doing it for the greater good by depriving fans of their art? I see no flawless excuse for it. It's either greed, stupidity or misguided disdain.
I seem to recall Pink Floyd arguing that their music was designed to be listened to as a whole album, not as individual tracks to purchase whenever necessary. This would be a good argument if you never heard Pink Floyd songs as individual tracks on the radio. Clearly you CAN listen to songs on their own, so why stop people from buying the songs that they want?
Def Leppard have some of their recent live/re-recorded albums on Spotify and several studio ones available in America, despite being a British band. I doubt this applies to them but I know some bands get pissy about fans wanting their old material and not paying attention to the newer albums. Whilst this is an understandable irritation from an artist's perspective, they owe their own history more respect than they're giving it. Without their iconic albums and hit songs, it's doubtful that they'd ever be in a position to say "Hey, I've got a new solo Indie record out, go check it out BUT DON'T ASK ME ABOUT THE ALBUMS I RECORDED THAT MAKE YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ME IN THE FIRST PLACE!"
Also, some of these big-headed Rock-divas need to get some fucking perspective. Do you think it's ever occurred to them that maybe, just maybe, their newer material isn't as good as their older classics? Songs become hits for a reason and if Robert Plant's new single doesn't reach the same level of acclaim that Stairway To Heaven, Whole Lotta Love or Immigrant Song received when they were released, surely that tells you something. Just because he's got a million dollar name doesn't mean he's entitled to have swarms of flies buzzing around every turd he craps out.
Then there's the Anti-Glee argument that Dave Grohl gave us a while back during one of his finer moments. Long story short, after Slash and Kings Of Leon said no to the dickbag in charge of Glee when asked for permission to use their songs, Dickback then went off on one and basically called them jerks for not allowing kids to hear their music. Dave Grohl then stepped in and said something along the lines of "not every band aspires to be in fucking Glee", followed by the Internet cheering in unison at this magnificent middle finger to someone who well and truly had it coming.
Well, the same argument could apply here. It's not compulsory for bands to give their music away and they should be well within their own right to say "You know what? No. I don't want my music on the same place as those other bands", so long as they're happy with the fact that people will pirate their music if they can't buy it. With most pirates, it's not a simple matter of laziness or being a cheap twat. People are happy to pay 99p for a song IF it's available. If the artist has made it difficult to access their song, people will turn to the next easiest method which is probably ripping it from Youtube or using some other site.
Now, if the artist is happy with that, then there's no problem. If they're happy to let their fans access their music for free in shitty quality because of their own beliefs against a service that seeks to provide art to those willing to pay a small fee, that's their prerogative. It's not one that I agree with but I'm not gonna protest it. I would argue that with Glee, it was a matter of taking a Rock song and turning it into a bland, soulless showtune sung by mediocre actors and drug abusers, whereas this is still their original song. I would argue that but it doesn't change the outcome.
What I will argue is a band claiming this when really they're against the service for a different reason are a band who need to sort their shit out. When a band claims they're doing it for "the smaller bands" when really they mean their own little solo project? When a band doesn't want people to buy songs individually because they want people to buy the more expensive album instead? That's when they need to pull their head out their arse and perhaps even release an album that has more than one or two worthwhile songs on it.
Another reason that I haven't mentioned is due to the record companies. A lot of bands have had to swap record labels and, as a result, haven't got a portion of their career on these sites due to the record industry that owns certain albums being wankers. I know it's easy to blame greed when it comes to record labels...so I'm gonna blame greed. Damn, that WAS easy!
Sometimes, it simply takes time to sort this issue out. Bands like The Eagles, Styx and Slayer have started off without notable albums on Spotify but over time, their back catalogue has been gradually added, presumably after the company earned enough money to meet the record label's demands. The last reason a band might disagree is because the band might have beef with someone who owns one of the organisations (see Black Keys again).
Again, can't blame them for not wanting to pay an arsehole but they seem to be forgetting that the service isn't meant for the arsehole. If Spotify's entire purpose was to let people make members of the band fellate the CEO by playing their music, that reluctance to cooperate would make more sense. It'd also see me single-handedly funding the company just by leaving Wheatus on repeat but that's not the point nor the purpose of Spotify. For the billionth time, and say it with me here folks, IT'S FOR THE CUSTOMERS!
The whole point of releasing albums is for people to listen to and enjoy or reflect upon. So you have to help fund a piece of shit, big deal! Everyone works for a knob at some point in their life. You can bitch about it and refuse to chip in to buy him a new private jet but at the end of the day, who are you hurting more? Some tosser who's already got enough money to hire footballers to fight to the death or the people who care about you enough to want to hear your work?
To recap, I can understand why a band or artist disagrees with iTunes, Amazon or Spotify (among other companies whom I've not bothered mentioning because nobody gives a shit about them; looking at you, Google Play) and appreciate some of their motivations towards keeping their music off those sites for now.
I don't fully agree with it and I'm sure there are other reasons I've missed that make a lot more sense than ones I've written about, but obviously I can't comment on them until I know what they are. If you have any opinions or better knowledge on this subject matter, feel free to educate me in the comment section.
In a perfect world, we'd be able to listen to any band we wanted to without ads, lag, region lock or DRM issues. I would've thought a paid subscription service like Spotify would help break down those barriers and allow people to enjoy the widest collection of music available in peace but between the CEOs or record companies demanding more cash for someone else's work and the tired artist angry at the percentage of profit they get relative to the number of times someone plays their new single, someone needs to back down for the people actually spending the money.
The year is 2014.
...Well, at the time of typing this up, it is.
For all I know, some lone survivor in the apocalyptic wasteland of New Korea has just picked up a cracked iPad with this blog post inexplicably on the screen.
If that is the case, hello survivor! Sorry 'bout the whole end of the world thing. Hang in there, K?
...where was I?
Oh yeah, music (or to the survivor, noise that isn't explosions or children screaming)!
So it's 2014 and the idea of having music streamed/downloaded to an electronic device of your choice is more commonplace than the knowledge of how to make music without said device to do all the legwork for you. Despite expensive licensing fees for iconic bands such as The Beatles or Led Zeppelin, they still appear in the iTunes library for you to access for less than £1 a song.
There are various articles online that discuss whether this is fair to the band, especially with subscription sites like Spotify that don't demand money to listen to each song and pay peanuts to the musicians. For this reason, there are many bands who disagree with these services using their music and, as a result, are absent from the online database.
These absent bands include Slade, Def Leppard, Scorpions and The Black Keys, although not all necessarily due to financial disagreements. Granted most people couldn't give half a fuck about Slade not being easily available (even though 1981's "Till Deaf Do Us Part" is one for all Hard Rock fans to check out, especially if they like Whitesnake and Motley Crue) but I know for a fact that all of these bands are capable of producing great material and would like the chance to listen to it via the most convenient medium.
I could always listen to scattered discographies on Grooveshark (a great and totally free music service that's perfect for locating more obscure tunes along with hits, if you're interested!) but I'm still intrigued to know what these bands have against services that the majority of existing musicians seem to have little to no problem with. It may have taken bands like AC/DC and Metallica a while to cooperate but in the end, they realised that it benefits a lot of people (presumably including themselves).
Nigel Godrich and Thom Yorke of Radiohead have gone on record as stating Spotify is bad for new musicians and is better for old bands who want people to hear their music again. Whilst Yorke may have a point about there being a better way to provide musicians with the money they deserve for their efforts, he seems to be missing the fact that musicians don't do what they do for themselves, unless they're Pop stars.
Yes, I'm speaking as a consumer but surely Spotify is primarily for consumers. It's allowing listeners to hear a wider selection of albums than they'd hear via radio or other methods. From that, they develop a taste for a band and decide to buy their albums or go to their concerts. I can't tell you how many albums I've bought as a result of listening to them first on Spotify or how many songs I've discovered through spending evenings digging through the plentiful selection of 70's and 80's Rock, an experience that's the closest to rooting through CDs at a second hand record shop most kids today will ever get to enjoy.
The Black Keys seem to have a similar stance, claiming that they haven't released all their albums on Spotify because they believe it's unfair to the artist but are open to it when a better deal comes along...in other words, they want more money. As for the older bands I mentioned, I have no idea why their albums aren't readily available, especially with Scorpions and Bob Seger who have a selective catalogue of live albums and a few studio ones available.
Maybe it's a region thing, as I know there are Americans who can't access albums in the UK/Europe versions of iTunes and Spotify, even though organisations who insist region blocks are necessary consist of nothing less than Fucking Cunts. However, the main point of this post is to decide whether or not one side is in the "right". Are the bands doing the right thing by saying their material shouldn't be available in digital format or are they being complete tools and inviting themselves open to piracy?
In my opinion, it's the latter all the way.
There are lots of things that piss me off but big bands getting high and mighty with their own material, making it harder for people to pay for their product and pretending that they're doing it for the greater good by depriving fans of their art? I see no flawless excuse for it. It's either greed, stupidity or misguided disdain.
I seem to recall Pink Floyd arguing that their music was designed to be listened to as a whole album, not as individual tracks to purchase whenever necessary. This would be a good argument if you never heard Pink Floyd songs as individual tracks on the radio. Clearly you CAN listen to songs on their own, so why stop people from buying the songs that they want?
Def Leppard have some of their recent live/re-recorded albums on Spotify and several studio ones available in America, despite being a British band. I doubt this applies to them but I know some bands get pissy about fans wanting their old material and not paying attention to the newer albums. Whilst this is an understandable irritation from an artist's perspective, they owe their own history more respect than they're giving it. Without their iconic albums and hit songs, it's doubtful that they'd ever be in a position to say "Hey, I've got a new solo Indie record out, go check it out BUT DON'T ASK ME ABOUT THE ALBUMS I RECORDED THAT MAKE YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ME IN THE FIRST PLACE!"
Also, some of these big-headed Rock-divas need to get some fucking perspective. Do you think it's ever occurred to them that maybe, just maybe, their newer material isn't as good as their older classics? Songs become hits for a reason and if Robert Plant's new single doesn't reach the same level of acclaim that Stairway To Heaven, Whole Lotta Love or Immigrant Song received when they were released, surely that tells you something. Just because he's got a million dollar name doesn't mean he's entitled to have swarms of flies buzzing around every turd he craps out.
Then there's the Anti-Glee argument that Dave Grohl gave us a while back during one of his finer moments. Long story short, after Slash and Kings Of Leon said no to the dickbag in charge of Glee when asked for permission to use their songs, Dickback then went off on one and basically called them jerks for not allowing kids to hear their music. Dave Grohl then stepped in and said something along the lines of "not every band aspires to be in fucking Glee", followed by the Internet cheering in unison at this magnificent middle finger to someone who well and truly had it coming.
Well, the same argument could apply here. It's not compulsory for bands to give their music away and they should be well within their own right to say "You know what? No. I don't want my music on the same place as those other bands", so long as they're happy with the fact that people will pirate their music if they can't buy it. With most pirates, it's not a simple matter of laziness or being a cheap twat. People are happy to pay 99p for a song IF it's available. If the artist has made it difficult to access their song, people will turn to the next easiest method which is probably ripping it from Youtube or using some other site.
Now, if the artist is happy with that, then there's no problem. If they're happy to let their fans access their music for free in shitty quality because of their own beliefs against a service that seeks to provide art to those willing to pay a small fee, that's their prerogative. It's not one that I agree with but I'm not gonna protest it. I would argue that with Glee, it was a matter of taking a Rock song and turning it into a bland, soulless showtune sung by mediocre actors and drug abusers, whereas this is still their original song. I would argue that but it doesn't change the outcome.
What I will argue is a band claiming this when really they're against the service for a different reason are a band who need to sort their shit out. When a band claims they're doing it for "the smaller bands" when really they mean their own little solo project? When a band doesn't want people to buy songs individually because they want people to buy the more expensive album instead? That's when they need to pull their head out their arse and perhaps even release an album that has more than one or two worthwhile songs on it.
Another reason that I haven't mentioned is due to the record companies. A lot of bands have had to swap record labels and, as a result, haven't got a portion of their career on these sites due to the record industry that owns certain albums being wankers. I know it's easy to blame greed when it comes to record labels...so I'm gonna blame greed. Damn, that WAS easy!
Sometimes, it simply takes time to sort this issue out. Bands like The Eagles, Styx and Slayer have started off without notable albums on Spotify but over time, their back catalogue has been gradually added, presumably after the company earned enough money to meet the record label's demands. The last reason a band might disagree is because the band might have beef with someone who owns one of the organisations (see Black Keys again).
Again, can't blame them for not wanting to pay an arsehole but they seem to be forgetting that the service isn't meant for the arsehole. If Spotify's entire purpose was to let people make members of the band fellate the CEO by playing their music, that reluctance to cooperate would make more sense. It'd also see me single-handedly funding the company just by leaving Wheatus on repeat but that's not the point nor the purpose of Spotify. For the billionth time, and say it with me here folks, IT'S FOR THE CUSTOMERS!
The whole point of releasing albums is for people to listen to and enjoy or reflect upon. So you have to help fund a piece of shit, big deal! Everyone works for a knob at some point in their life. You can bitch about it and refuse to chip in to buy him a new private jet but at the end of the day, who are you hurting more? Some tosser who's already got enough money to hire footballers to fight to the death or the people who care about you enough to want to hear your work?
To recap, I can understand why a band or artist disagrees with iTunes, Amazon or Spotify (among other companies whom I've not bothered mentioning because nobody gives a shit about them; looking at you, Google Play) and appreciate some of their motivations towards keeping their music off those sites for now.
I don't fully agree with it and I'm sure there are other reasons I've missed that make a lot more sense than ones I've written about, but obviously I can't comment on them until I know what they are. If you have any opinions or better knowledge on this subject matter, feel free to educate me in the comment section.
In a perfect world, we'd be able to listen to any band we wanted to without ads, lag, region lock or DRM issues. I would've thought a paid subscription service like Spotify would help break down those barriers and allow people to enjoy the widest collection of music available in peace but between the CEOs or record companies demanding more cash for someone else's work and the tired artist angry at the percentage of profit they get relative to the number of times someone plays their new single, someone needs to back down for the people actually spending the money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)