When the seagulls follow the trawler...

I'm just going to come straight out with it: football doesn't really appeal to me. Barring an oh-so-brief and oh-so-arbitrary childhood flirtation with Liverpool - I think I just liked red, and my older cousins had told me that Manchester United fans were only glory hunters - it has mostly just seemed to me to be a bunch of men in shorts, running up and down after a ball. I could explain to you the offside rule in theory, but not identify it in practice. It's safe to say that the communal bonding aspect of the beautiful game has bypassed me nigh-on entirely.

Good thing, then, that Looking for Eric isn't just a film about football. It is a film about football - and a poignantly nostalgic one at that - but it's also a film about many other things: love, fear, inspiration, hope and (whisper it) redemption. Oh, and Eric Cantona; he's more of a metaphor, though. Inner strength and all that.

The concept is an interesting one. A postman (named Eric, conveniently) is struggling to come to terms with the fact that he's left with nothing, not even the respect of his stepsons. One of whom is harbouring a gun for the local hardman. So he repeatedly hallucinates his hero, Eric Cantona, who helps him to work through it all and get himself back onto his feet.

Having someone, especially someone with as much cultural baggage behind him as Cantona, play a large cameo role - indeed, one which forms the driving force of the entire plot - is always risky. But here Loach pulls it off successfully, incorporating the audience's expectations of the footballer into the screenplay in an arch manner; it's funny, but always manages to fall the right side of ridiculous.

Part of this success also comes from the characterisation of the protagonist. Though ultimately flawed, Eric Bishop is easy to empathise with; he's both heartbroken and heartbreakingly human. Steve Evets occasionally plays him a little flat in tone, but for the most part he's not in the least difficult to emotionally invest in.

This is helped by Loach's realistic filming style, contrasting the absurdity of Cantona as a spiritual guide with the mundanity of everyday Manchester existence. The film's climax, while a little too drawn-out, is the perfect realisation of this - a hundred-odd pseudo-Cantonas storming the palatial house of a tyrannical gang-man in a show of fan solidarity.

Original and emotional, and somehow, incredibly, approaching believable: yet another triumph for Film4 Productions. It'd be hard for even a non-football fan to walk away from Looking for Eric unmoved.

Trailer:

Touch-a Touch-a Touch Me

A little behind the technological times, perhaps, but yesterday I acquired an iPod Touch. I'm the first to admit to skepticism when it comes to touch-screen gadgets; I made the mistake a while back of getting a touch-screen phone when changing contracts, and hated it so much that I eventually exchanged it for a downgrade, just so that I could have buttons.

I was pleasantly surprised, though. To be honest, I'd only really got the iPod as it was pretty much free with the MacBook I was buying - there was an offer on meaning that if I got both, I got £145 off. So the iPod was £20, and I thought that 20 quid for a brand-new iPod wasn't really something to be argued with. Now, I love it.

iPods have always been user-friendly and nicely designed, but the Touch takes this to a new level; it really is a bit of a joy to use. And the Apps are amazing fun - I don't expect them to revolutionise my life (as an article I once read claimed that they would), but I enjoy being able to pop virtual bubble-wrap on a boring car journey. I'm currently also addicted to the Coldplay edition of 'Tap Tap Revenge', which is basically a dance mat for your fingers, set to Coldplay songs. And to think, I once derided the idea of band-related Apps as for sell-outs. Hell, to think that I actually like Coldplay. Should have kept quiet about that one, eh?

I've had an iPod before, but my last one was just a normal black 30GB one, whereas the new one is 8GB. Allowing space for hardware, or software or whatever it is that automatically takes up X amount of space, as well as space for Apps, that's about 6.5GB of music, give or take. In musical terms (as well as in life in general), I'm a bit of a hoarder; why get rid of something that you may, possibly, potentially, at some distant point in the future, wish to listen to again, even if just the once?

Having only limited space to fill has made me somewhat cutthroat about what to add to my iPod and what not to. I've had to make careful decisions about what is, to my mind, essential listening.

There were certain things that were necessary: Morrissey, Belle and Sebastian, Bright Eyes, Nick Cave (barring a few albums, as I had too many), Ash (again, barring a couple of albums and a mass of b-sides). Some things had to be added whole - for example, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't live without having all of Pulp's 'Different Class', The National's 'Boxer or Bon Iver's 'For Emma, Forever Ago'. Some albums just deserve to be listened to in their entirety. I could slice off half of albums by The Sounds and Graham Coxon, though. I needed the whole of the first Long Blondes album, but only half of the disappointing second one.

I've been meaning to streamline the music I carry with me (though not that which is kept on my computer) for quite some time; this has finally given me the impetus to do so. While partially liberating - there was a hell of a lot of dead wood on my old iPod - it was also way more difficult than I was expecting it to be. On the plus side, it's a much more pleasant experience to listen to everything on shuffle, with much less skipping past songs to be done.

I'm not gonna lie, though - 'Tap Tap Revenge' is still the best thing about it, though.

This song definitely made its way onto my new iPod:

Doubleplusgood

Big Brother's star is very much on the wane; for all of its self-hype, it has simply become a parody of itself to many. I remain staunchly loyal to the franchise; I bloody love it. All of the reasons which people now use to criticse it are simply reasons which increase my enjoyment of it.

Yes, everyone who enters the hallowed house nowadays is simply doing so as a means of trying to win themselves a poxy 13.5 seconds of gossip-rag 'fame'. Yes, they are all now permanently aware of the fact that they are being filmed. Yes, they are all idiots. So much the better - it makes for more entertaining viewing.

Anyway, it's summer. What would summer be without its yearly freak parade? So,as per usual, there's a redesigned house (this year resembling the aftermath of an explosion in a Lego factory), a (much-dimished) crowd - one of whom, either through irony or genuine reverence, was brandishing an "RIP Jade Goody" sign - and Davina McCall in an ill-flattering black dress. And, of course, the freaks themselves, whose combined stupidity was as overwhelming as ever.

A few first impressions:

Freddie - token posh white-boy reggae fan whose assertion that "I vote conservative but I'm anarchist at heart" was obviously designed to shock Daddy. Could be a slow-burning dark horse in the charm stakes.
Lisa - looks like Kitten from BB5 crossed with Tourette's Pete and managed to irritate me within five seconds simply in her refusal to say anything other than "whhhoooooaaaaaaayyyyy!!!"
Sophie - Barbie Samanda who thinks that being clever and being able to hold a beer bottle between her breasts are her most interesting features. Not sure I've ever heard those two in the same sentence before.
Kris - fit-but-he-knows-it Brand lookalike. Seems boring but will probably endure for a fair few weeks, even if just because he is hot.
Noirin - probably put into the house simply as a result of her hints that she'll either get her tits out a lot or shag somebody in there. Claims to have kissed Russell Brand, so it could well be Kris that gets lucky - watch this space.
Cairon - his nonsensical rhyming probably makes him think he's an urban Auden, but it just makes me laugh. Nearly as much as his sillily-topiaried eyebrows did. He ain't gay, alright?
Angel - it genuinely took me until Davina introduced her to realise that she wasn't a man, and she seems genuinely slightly deranged. Her 'corpse of Sweeney Todd' aesthetic really does scare me a fair bit.
Karly - wanna-wag who will blatantly be duller than stagnating dishwater. I've almost forgotten who she is already.
Marcus - I think the fact that he proclaimed himself "cool as fuck" while sat in front of the electric fire in his mum's living room says it all. Wolverine would howl in shame at that sideburns-and-mullet combo.
Beinazir - amazing hair and looks like Amy Winehouse. One of the most normal in there and actually does seem relatively sane. Obviously slipped through the producers' nets.
Sophia - did the lupus she allegedly had as a child (and there was me thinking it was never, ever lupus) leave her with some form of brain damage which renders her unable to stop her sodding screaming?
Rodrigo - sweeter than a bag of puppies made of candyfloss. Blatant early favourite to win; I love him already. Plus, I think he looks like he ought to have popped straight out of a Manga book.
Charlie - oh my, more crazy eyebrows. Or rather eyebrow, given that the other is remarkably intact. He's lopsided; maybe Cairon can give him lessons in symmetry. Then again, maybe not, as the eyebrow-related speculation you can engage in is about the only attention-catching thing about him.
Saffia - if you're so keen to be a self-created 'bitch', why aren't you trying out for The Apprentice instead?
Sree - has everything chosen for him by his parents and can sport a hangover after just half a pint: he'll either be voted out with incredible rapidity or else get utterly massacred in the house.
Siavash - says his biggest regret is not having a bigger cock. Yeah, from his ridiculously flamboyant dress sense and constant moustache-twiddling, I had guess that he was over-compensating for something.


As well as the fun of making my first judgements (I maintain that this is what they've put themselves out there for, and so deserve them), I love the fact that Big Brother has actually started dishing out ritual humiliation this series. Making Rodrigo shave off Noirin's eyebrows and draw a pair of glasses and a 'tache on her in permanent marker may be harsh, but she did volunteer for it. Making yourself look stupid in the name of TV has never been taken so literally but hey, at least she's a 'proper' housemate now, right?

You'll take your choice

Originally published in gair rhydd [http://www.gairrhydd.com/pdf/download/898]


Illegally downloading music is, as the name suggests, illegal. So technically, it’s a very naughty thing to do. Steer clear or you’ll be made to go sit in the corner, etc. The thing is, it’s become such a widespread activity that, well, nobody really pays attention to whether or not they’re officially allowed to do it. It is, arguably, now somewhat equivalent in people’s minds to underage drinking or defacing a coin of the realm. No big deal.

There is often a sort of idealistic mentality which accompanies music downloading, as well; music will be more widely and freely available, and it won’t matter whether a band is signed to a major label, an independent, or even unsigned. The exposure will be the same for all bands; it will be a veritable musical democracy.

This is, apparently, just idealism. Apparently, it’s not like this in real life. Boooo! Well, unless you’re already a big-selling artist, that is – according to a study carried out for PRS for Music by that well-known dream team of an economist and a media tracker.

They claim that big acts are just being made bigger by piracy, with smaller artists being left choking in the dust by the side of the information superhighway.

Talk about stating the obvious, to a certain degree. If a certain proportion of the population likes, say, the platinum-haired, teacup-wielding and slightly scary Lady Gaga, this proportion isn’t suddenly about to change just because the music is available for free.

Not to discount their point about popular artists’ popularity further increasing as a result of illegal downloads, but I doubt this is an accurate depiction of the full picture.

If people can get something for free, it’s more than likely that they will do so. You can deduce all you like from that about the bad side of human nature and how we always want more than we’re willing to pay for, but that’s, sadly, just the way it is. As such, it makes perfect sense that the most-downloaded songs correspond roughly to the most-purchased ones.

Exposure thanks to music piracy for smaller bands might not add up to more CD or download sales – for rock and indie bands it’s perhaps more likely to be seen in terms of concert tickets or merchandise sales. Music sales for these bands may not immediately increase, but there is the opportunity for a lasting fanbase to be built.

A new band might only receive X number of downloads, in comparison to the 500X downloads of a track by U2, but who’s to say that, without piracy, this new band would have reached X number of listeners? It’s difficult to quantify, but that’s not to say that the effect isn’t there.

IAMX, Laura Marling, Leonard Cohen, Belle and Sebastian – would I be listening to any of these bands if it wasn’t for the fact that I have, at some point, downloaded some of their music? Quite simply – no.

The industry might say no (of course they will, though; they’re out to protect themselves here) but it’s true that piracy does allow people to listen to music with no monetary commitment. What they choose to do afterwards is out of anyone’s control, but at least they’re listening in the first place.

The study was ostensibly carried out to see if the ‘long tail’ theory was actually much cop in terms of music piracy. The long tail theory being (bear with me here, as I’m not a business student) that if people are offered a greater amount of choice and the help to take said choice, they will do so. Survey says no.

I’m not entirely sure, though, where this “help” to take the choice of lesser-known music. There are music blogs, yes, which obviously provide a lot of exposure to new and lesser-known bands, but they are little contest for the likes of Radio 1.

The problem doesn’t necessarily lie in the habits of downloaders, but perhaps in the lack of variety offered by mainstream radio, instead.

The conclusion drawn by the survey was that the Internet, bizarrely, offers too much choice. I know – I was a bit confused by that one, too. Surely choice is a good thing?

Services like Spotify might be helping the crusade against illegal downloading, offering a literal library of music at users’ fingertips, but it’s doubtful that people will exhibit any different listening patterns here than they do when downloading music. After all, streaming music for free is only one step (if a great deal of legality) away from pirating it.

If the industry are this concerned about smaller bands, perhaps they should spend more on promoting them. After all, Jonathan from Spotify has a hell of a lot of ad space to fill.

Return of the kings?

Ash are back! I'm sure that's a much-overused sentence but, damn it, they don't half have a penchant for disappearances and comebacks. They're also one of those bands who feel like they've been around forever. Hell, over the past 15 years Ash have practically written the textbook on summery boy-meets-loves-or-leaves-girl guitar-pop.

Sadly, they seemed to have meant what they said at the time of the release of 2007's Twilight of the Innocents: that it was their last album release in the traditional format. Fortunately, for those convinced of the imminence of a split, they've also stuck to their word that they would continue to release material online.

This week heralds the band's first release since TOTI, the free download 'Return of White Rabbit', which is...well, slightly underwhelming, frankly. It seems to mark a strange change in sound for Ash - almost as if their well-honed trademark sound is now being filtered through a post-new rave prism. The guitar is bit anaemic; the bass is a bit too heavy; the echoiness of the vocals falls slightly to the wrong side of Klaxons. Oh, and the pre-chorus "ooaah" reminds me too much of the titles from Gok's Fashion Fix. That last one is a subtle, but once you've picked up on it, it's impossible to un-notice. It's certainly no 'Burn Baby Burn'.

It does still have the classic Ash hook, though, and a rather nice synth solo, so their future doesn't look entirely bleak. Excitingly, they've announced, alongside 'Return of White Rabbit''s release, that there is more to come. In September, the launch of the A-Z Series will begin.

The A-Z Series seems obviously designed to show off Ash's new way of going about things. Rather than release a single or two, an album and then another single or two, they'll instead be releasing a download/vinyl single per fornight on their own Atomic Heart label. For a year. Starting with 'a' and working their way right through to 'z'. Yes, that's 26 singles in 52 weeks.

I have to say, I'm pretty keen to see how all this pans out. In theory, I think the idea is a solid one. Fans will, in essence, have something new to look forward to every two weeks. Spreading the downloads in such a manner should also hopefully keep the cost of these singles down. The only worry is that the novelty will wear off - after all, half the fun of purchasing an album is the sense of occasion which arguably accompanies it.

For an act that have long been known as a "singles band", this bold move could well pay off. Ash may not be a new band, but it seems they're certainly not short on new ideas. Roll on September; I'm excited.


'Return of White Rabbit' available free at ash-official.com.

Now my throat is sore

(I am amused that nme.com used this picture to accompany a news story about these cancellations)

It's got to be a tough life being Morrissey. After all, there are a lot of people that hate you with a startling amount of venom, the smell of burning animal flesh at festivals sickens you, and David Cameron has 'fessed up to being a fan. Oh, and you keep getting ill all the time. Heaven knows you're miserable now.

Morrissey seems to be gaining a bit of a reputation for illness these days. On Monday and Wednesday this week, he cancelled dates at London's Royal Albert Hall and Brimingham Symphony Hall - dates for which it is yet to be announced whether there will be rescheduling or not. This is on top of the cancellation of the start of his world tour in the US, and the three out of six shows at the Roundhouse which were cancelled last January.

This might not sound like too much, but 11 dates from a 100-odd date tour equates to about 10% of the tour being cancelled. It's little wonder that fans are unsurprised at every new cancellation which is announced, especially as the given excuse is usually "illness" or "throat trouble".

Granted he's getting on a bit in musical terms: the man is almost 50, so of course he's slowing up. He's not the only artist to be plagued with recurring health issues. But not all ageing musicians have problems performing. 51-year-old Nick Cave, for example, is still performing storming two-hour sets with seemingly no problem. And, as an ex-heroin addict, I'm sure he's ravaged his body far more than Morrissey ever has.

Everybody gets ill from time to time; I by no means dispute this fact. I do dispute, however, that it is the norm among artists to have cancelled four concerts within the space of 18 months within the same city. Maybe I'm cursed with bad luck (having travelled from Cardiff to London for this week's RAH show and the first of last year's cancelled Roundhouse shows, I have yet to witness Morrissey play a full set), but I do question why he bothers scheduling so many shows within a fairly short spaces of time when it's questionable that he'll be able to fulfil the commitment. Six shows within seven days is bound to strain your voice; if you're already prone to throat problems, why risk it?

I understand that days off on tour are essentially days for which crew are paid to do nothing; they aren't an efficient way of spending money. However, is it really any more efficient to try and cram in as many dates as possible, resulting in cancelled shows? Tickets have to be refunded and the crew still have to be paid; it's just as economically wasteful as a day off. I don't know much about venue protocol, but I'm assuming that the venue would also require at least some fee. So even worse than a day off, really. Maybe a few days off here and there to avoid tour burn-out aren't so wasteful, after all.

When it comes down to it, though, I guess his "people" can afford to take the chance - people will keep buying the tickets and taking their chances. Standing tickets for the Royal Albert Hall sold out in literally the time it took me to fill out the order form; I was unsuccessful in obtaining anything other than seated tickets, despite being online as soon as the tickets were released. The demand was obviously there, especially with Morrissey's frequent hints that he won't be carrying on in music much longer.

These threats may be no more than smoke and mirrors, but you can never quite be sure with him - almost every album or tour is invariably rumoured to be his last. With his latest single, 'Something is Squeezing my Skull', however, only reaching #46 in the charts (apparently leading to it having been dropped from his set) there has been forum speculation that the chart-obsessed Morrissey is sulking.

As for me, I'll be on eBay, seeking tickets for the London dates at the end of this month and praying it's third time lucky.


The Smiths - There is a Light that Never Goes Out


Oh, and kudos to anyone who 'got' what I was doing in the title of this post...

To boldly go...

I went to see the new Star Trek film last night. It's normally everything I'd avoid in a film - I'm not generally a fan of sci-fi, couldn't care less about Lost and tend to think that if a film is genuinely good, it's able to carry itself without the need for excessive big-budget special effects. But back in November I saw a preview of some of the footage for Quench and wrote an article about it (available here). After knowing a fairly large chunk of the storyline, I had to see the film properly, simply to quell my curiosity.

I was surprised to say that I was moderately impressed with the film. It's probably not something that I'd watch again (because the film most likely wouldn't work properly on anything smaller than a cinema screen, if nothing else) and it doesn't do anything new within the sci-f genre, but what it does, it does well.

One of the most impressive things about Star Trek is how good the aesthetic is. It's simultaneously retro and modern, and colour is used really well. It looks sleek, and there are some incredibly stylish shots in it, particularly during the action scenes. And it's all set to a satisfyingly epic score.

Zachary Quinto is great, too; Spock could easily have been hammed-up or stonily monotonous, but Quinto manages to fall into neither extreme, instead playing the character in as convincing a way as is possible. Considering that Spock is an alien. Who meets his time-travelling older self who's come back from the future. And who is played by Leonard Nimoy.

That, actually, is one of the best aspects of the film: it's incredibly knowing, accepting the weight of the franchise that it succeeds and recognising that it will never escape it. It's arch, and funny in a manner which at times even approaches irony. It cracks out all of the classic, clichéd Star Trek lines, but manages to raise a laugh in doing so.

There could be more laughs, though. Simon Pegg is criminally under-used here. The man is a comedy legend; you'd think that if you'd managed to get him on board, you'd want to make a bit more of his part. As it is, he's a minor character, always vying for a little bit more attention than he's ever granted.

There's also a lot of the obligatory morality stuff, and the usual side-story about making a dead person proud. Not that you'd realise that Kirk's father was dead, because it's not mentioned at all. Well, not aside from a massively over-dramatic opening scene featuring baby Kirk being born as his mother is snatched from the jaws of death thanks to his father's courage and sacrifice. Completely overblown and slightly unnecessary.

Also a little overblown but rather more necessary is the plot. There's a lot of time travel; it all gets a bit Doctor Who? from time to time. It's one of those storylines that you can follow as long as you don't pay too close attention to it. It all ties up very neatly, though, and I guess that plausibility isn't an issue when you're setting a movie in space.

Overall, it's enjoyable. It's a semi-riveting way to spend two hours, and require no former Trekkie knowledge to understand. Think of it as Star Trek for beginners. It's hardly reinventing the wheel - or the spaceship, for that matter - but it does seem like JJ Abrams did good here.


Trailer: