Goddamn it Prince, I love you, but sometimes I wish you weren't so awesome that even a 20 year-old hot singer wants to look like you at 50.
Friday 28 November 2008
Spooky
This makes me feel odd. Rihanna is so hot, yet check this out...
Goddamn it Prince, I love you, but sometimes I wish you weren't so awesome that even a 20 year-old hot singer wants to look like you at 50.
Goddamn it Prince, I love you, but sometimes I wish you weren't so awesome that even a 20 year-old hot singer wants to look like you at 50.
Monday 25 August 2008
Prince vs. Michael Jackson
This is a debate that has plagued man since around 1984, when 'Thriller' was ruling the airwaves, and Prince made a massive splash with 'Purple Rain' and the soundtrack album.
Let's use some photos as a reminder of what we're talking about here.
In the above pictures we see two of the biggest icons of the 80s music scene. People are far more familiar with the second picture, coming from Michael Jackson's legendary dance routine performed to Billie Jean at the 25th Anniversary Celebration of Motown. The other picture is from one of hundreds of Prince concerts from the 80s, circa 1986.
Now let's catch up with them now, shall we. Firstly, let's have a look at how they scrub up (credit to Housequake.com for the first one).
Hmmmm. Something's up. At 50, Prince does not look a day over 30, and still as badass as ever. On the other hand, Mr. Jackson doesn't quite look so unchanged. I know he has personal issues, but whoever thought it would be a good idea to make him look like a homosexual version of Willy Wonka should have had their ass instantly dismissed. Seriously, Mike, stay away from the kiddy-seducing look. It doesn't really help your cause. But okay, let's have a look at how you look when you're not gracing the cover of a magazine. That way we can't make a scapegoat out of the make-up team.
Oh, dear God. Where do we start? Mr. Nelson is being accompanied by TWO women. Slightly unfair, when Mr. Jackson probably is being accompanied by two toddlers. But notice how he actually looks human.
To be honest, this is not going to be much of a debate. This is going to be a rant on why Prince is better than Michael Jackson. In my humble opinion of course.
I am sick of seeing this argument so ignorantly debated. I hear it all the time in pop music discussions. Really, it's like comparing a Ferrari to a Giant Redwood. Completely different. First off, Michael Jackson is an entertainer. He is best known for amazing the world with his truly astounding dance routines. Or at least, he used to be, but we covered the reasons why that is no longer the case in my last blog. He is an amazing singer as well, I will give credit where it is due. And before you ask, yes, he is a better singer and dancer than Prince. I will allow that.
But Prince is a musician. He is able to sing and dance, but there is much more to him that that. Like MJ, he has achieved success in the pop music scene, albeit to a lesser extent. But he has covered more ground in a shorter career than MJ is ever likely to.
The one thing I am sick of hearing is 'MJ's like sold mre records than any1 in historie and Prince dosnut have Ne gud sngs!!!!1111111'. Shut up. Shut up, now, before I scald your ass with a cup of funky tea. Sales do not equate to quality. Remember, even Mr. Blobby, The Teletubbies, Bob the Builder and Cliff Richard have multiple hit singles between them.
Michael Jackson and Epic promoted the shit out of 'Thriller', 'Bad' and 'Dangerous' by pouring millions into promotional videos. This is not to say that they are poor albums, by any stretch of the imagination. But of course they were guaranteed success because of all the effort put in by everyone involved to make them commercial successes.
With 'Purple Rain', Prince, The Revolution and Warner Bros. wanted to make a worldwide smash, both at the box office and in album and single sales. And that happened. Prince, however, never really made that kind of effort to be a commercial success again in his career. At times, under pressure from Warner, Prince would promote an album more than usual (which would lead to the infamous 'Artist Formerly Known as Prince' and slave-on-his-face period), and the record company would enforce the exposure, such as with 'Batman' in 1989, which again, was a global hit, although not as critcially acclaimed as many albums of Prince's staggering discography. Jackson definitely has bigger songs, with even less-successful singles being more widely recognised than Prince's biggest hits. But Prince's efforts were more concerned with making some truly mind-blowing album tracks, as opposed to just concentrating on one or two songs per album. Not only this, but since 1978, the only years to date in which there was no new material released by Prince are 1983, 1997, and 2005. Even in those years, there are songs and albums that were worked on in that time. He just moves on to the next project far more quickly than MJ does.
The point is, Prince has been there, done that. He is quite happy to experiment with new sounds, rather than just trying to endlessly recreate 'Thriller' all the time in search of sales. In his music, Prince has covered pop, rock, jazz, funk, soul, blues, reggae, hip-hop, rap, techno, gospel and more; whereas MJ has only really spanned two or three of those genres. A musical genius, Prince plays guitar, bass, drums, piano, synthesisers, and others, whereas MJ allegedly played the 'clapstick' on 'Dirty Diana'.
An MJ album-track is always just a less impactful version of one of the singles from the album. If it's any good it gets released. This is not the case with Prince. His album tracks are often his best songs. Songs like the wonderfully dark and beautiful 'Joy in Repetition' - a 1986 outtake finally placed onto 1990's 'Graffiti Bridge' soundtrack. Songs like 'Adore' from his magnum opus 'Sign "O" The Times' in 1987 that has the most heavenly layered vocals and inspired lyrics probably ever recorded. He makes far more material than Jackson, and it is often too obscure or obscene for release. Thousands of songs have been left off of albums or just simply not included in any particular project for various reasons. Even entire albums have been shelved at times. 'The Black Album' of 1988 is reportedly the biggest-selling bootleg of all time, and it was scrapped just days before release because Prince had a bad feeling about the dark themes on the album, and would rather release the spiritually uplifting 'Lovesexy' instead.
How many songs do you know by Jackson about oral sex, S&M or fat girls? Prince strays away from the stereotypical Jackson 'I'm in love with a girl' theme all the time, and his lyrics are generally deeper, more intelligent, and ambiguous. Jackson doesn't even write all of his songs.
As today we are in the age of the producer, where a man with a sample machine is more important than a neuro-surgeon, it must be said that Jackson is always produced by top level producers like Quincy Jones, Teddy Riley and Bill Bottrell. Prince is always produced by the same top-level producer every time, Prince Rogers Nelson. He's even an innovator on the production side of things, doing things with a sparse bass line and a linn drum machine that people like Pharell Williams are constantly repeating even now. I mean seriously, how many people would take a song like 'When Doves Cry' and say 'hmmmm. You know what would make this really sick? If we took the bass line out altogether!' Response: 'A dance/pop number with no bass line? Pah!' they laughed. Then the laughter turned to tears as 'When Doves Cry' became the biggest song of 1984, and a timeless classic. Even with no bass line.
They are worlds apart as musicians, and I feel I have made my point.
As live performers, it makes for a more balanced discussion. Michael can belt out a soulful ballad with such a tenor voice that Prince could only dream of possessing, and pop THE best dance moves of all time. If you are into entertainment, you would probably say Michael Jackson is the better of the two. He mimes his hits and performs the same routines over and over again. It is safe, familiar territory. If you are more into the experience, Prince wins, hands down. Both of them can make you dance, but Prince can take you to a higher level with the level of instrumentation displayed at his shows. Many of the world's best guitarists rank Prince as a benchmark in guitar playing these days. Not only is he an astounding soloist and lead player, but I struggle to think of one person in the history of all the guitar work I've heard that can act as better rhythm guitarist. Then of course throw in the intimate piano solo sessions he regularly performs. All that plus great dance routines you would get from a Michael Jackson show, and LIVE vocals, and you have a far more musically-impressive experience. He also has a far more spontaneous, fun element to his shows. MJ would never dream of inviting people onto the stage to interact with them during a jam. Prince regularly involves his audience and either praises them for their dancing, or will hilariously highlight those who can't dance. He just seems more human, and more in touch with his sense of humour.
At this point, it seems that Jackson's popularity is due to the accessibility of his style. He has more radio-friendly music. His pretty voice is much less of an aquired taste than Prince's raw falsetto. The themes within his lyrics are far more comfortable. Prince is just a far more challenging talent, and although it is far more rewarding to be exposed to the challenges of listening to his material, many are just scared by the nature of the task and the sheer volume of his back-catalogue. That is why those that favour MJ will generally be unaware of 95% of Prince's legacy.
Prince may seem challenging, strange, and have a very cold relationship with the media at times, but there's usually a reason for it. His life is not a circus, he's very much in control. This is a direct contrast to how Jackson constantly makes himself a target, by naively failing to conduct himself properly in public. He always lets his guard down. They are both perceived as strange and androgynous, yet Prince's purported ex-list includes Madonna, Carmen Electra, Kim Basinger, Mayte Garcia, Vanity and countless others. Michael Jackson has had IVF children with Debbie Rowe, his dermatologist, and a highly scutinized marriage to Lisa Marie Presley. There have been allegations of child abuse, painkiller addictions, obsession with plastic surgery, pet chimps, a zoo built at his home, rumours about purchasing the skeleton of the Elephant Man and sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber. Prince is rumoured to have had a rib removed to orally pleasure himself due to his insatiable appetite for sex. Although chances are none of the aforementioned rumours are true of either man, I know which reputation I would rather be stuck with. Prince may be different, but he isn't straight-up crazy. With Jackson's recent reputation, he has removed that 'radio-friendly' image, and Prince has become more popular as of the years since 2004's 'Musicology', which marked a return to tradiotonal pop music for the Purple One.
It's not really a contest. Sure, Michael Jackson wins easily on record sales. But that's like saying McDonald's is better than Burger King because it sells more burgers. McDonald's is a bigger name and has bigger, flashier advertisements and seems more of a family option. But everyone knows that BK is where it's at. Prince is just a more diverse talent, and his work transcends beyond the commercial merits that Jackson has achieved.
So long live Prince, The Whopper of the 1980s pop scene. Many may call MJ the 'King of Pop', but as Alicia Keys said on inducting Prince into the Rock 'N' Roll Hall of Fame in 2004:
"There are many kings. But there can be only one Prince".
Let's use some photos as a reminder of what we're talking about here.
In the above pictures we see two of the biggest icons of the 80s music scene. People are far more familiar with the second picture, coming from Michael Jackson's legendary dance routine performed to Billie Jean at the 25th Anniversary Celebration of Motown. The other picture is from one of hundreds of Prince concerts from the 80s, circa 1986.
Now let's catch up with them now, shall we. Firstly, let's have a look at how they scrub up (credit to Housequake.com for the first one).
Hmmmm. Something's up. At 50, Prince does not look a day over 30, and still as badass as ever. On the other hand, Mr. Jackson doesn't quite look so unchanged. I know he has personal issues, but whoever thought it would be a good idea to make him look like a homosexual version of Willy Wonka should have had their ass instantly dismissed. Seriously, Mike, stay away from the kiddy-seducing look. It doesn't really help your cause. But okay, let's have a look at how you look when you're not gracing the cover of a magazine. That way we can't make a scapegoat out of the make-up team.
Oh, dear God. Where do we start? Mr. Nelson is being accompanied by TWO women. Slightly unfair, when Mr. Jackson probably is being accompanied by two toddlers. But notice how he actually looks human.
To be honest, this is not going to be much of a debate. This is going to be a rant on why Prince is better than Michael Jackson. In my humble opinion of course.
I am sick of seeing this argument so ignorantly debated. I hear it all the time in pop music discussions. Really, it's like comparing a Ferrari to a Giant Redwood. Completely different. First off, Michael Jackson is an entertainer. He is best known for amazing the world with his truly astounding dance routines. Or at least, he used to be, but we covered the reasons why that is no longer the case in my last blog. He is an amazing singer as well, I will give credit where it is due. And before you ask, yes, he is a better singer and dancer than Prince. I will allow that.
But Prince is a musician. He is able to sing and dance, but there is much more to him that that. Like MJ, he has achieved success in the pop music scene, albeit to a lesser extent. But he has covered more ground in a shorter career than MJ is ever likely to.
The one thing I am sick of hearing is 'MJ's like sold mre records than any1 in historie and Prince dosnut have Ne gud sngs!!!!1111111'. Shut up. Shut up, now, before I scald your ass with a cup of funky tea. Sales do not equate to quality. Remember, even Mr. Blobby, The Teletubbies, Bob the Builder and Cliff Richard have multiple hit singles between them.
Michael Jackson and Epic promoted the shit out of 'Thriller', 'Bad' and 'Dangerous' by pouring millions into promotional videos. This is not to say that they are poor albums, by any stretch of the imagination. But of course they were guaranteed success because of all the effort put in by everyone involved to make them commercial successes.
With 'Purple Rain', Prince, The Revolution and Warner Bros. wanted to make a worldwide smash, both at the box office and in album and single sales. And that happened. Prince, however, never really made that kind of effort to be a commercial success again in his career. At times, under pressure from Warner, Prince would promote an album more than usual (which would lead to the infamous 'Artist Formerly Known as Prince' and slave-on-his-face period), and the record company would enforce the exposure, such as with 'Batman' in 1989, which again, was a global hit, although not as critcially acclaimed as many albums of Prince's staggering discography. Jackson definitely has bigger songs, with even less-successful singles being more widely recognised than Prince's biggest hits. But Prince's efforts were more concerned with making some truly mind-blowing album tracks, as opposed to just concentrating on one or two songs per album. Not only this, but since 1978, the only years to date in which there was no new material released by Prince are 1983, 1997, and 2005. Even in those years, there are songs and albums that were worked on in that time. He just moves on to the next project far more quickly than MJ does.
The point is, Prince has been there, done that. He is quite happy to experiment with new sounds, rather than just trying to endlessly recreate 'Thriller' all the time in search of sales. In his music, Prince has covered pop, rock, jazz, funk, soul, blues, reggae, hip-hop, rap, techno, gospel and more; whereas MJ has only really spanned two or three of those genres. A musical genius, Prince plays guitar, bass, drums, piano, synthesisers, and others, whereas MJ allegedly played the 'clapstick' on 'Dirty Diana'.
An MJ album-track is always just a less impactful version of one of the singles from the album. If it's any good it gets released. This is not the case with Prince. His album tracks are often his best songs. Songs like the wonderfully dark and beautiful 'Joy in Repetition' - a 1986 outtake finally placed onto 1990's 'Graffiti Bridge' soundtrack. Songs like 'Adore' from his magnum opus 'Sign "O" The Times' in 1987 that has the most heavenly layered vocals and inspired lyrics probably ever recorded. He makes far more material than Jackson, and it is often too obscure or obscene for release. Thousands of songs have been left off of albums or just simply not included in any particular project for various reasons. Even entire albums have been shelved at times. 'The Black Album' of 1988 is reportedly the biggest-selling bootleg of all time, and it was scrapped just days before release because Prince had a bad feeling about the dark themes on the album, and would rather release the spiritually uplifting 'Lovesexy' instead.
How many songs do you know by Jackson about oral sex, S&M or fat girls? Prince strays away from the stereotypical Jackson 'I'm in love with a girl' theme all the time, and his lyrics are generally deeper, more intelligent, and ambiguous. Jackson doesn't even write all of his songs.
As today we are in the age of the producer, where a man with a sample machine is more important than a neuro-surgeon, it must be said that Jackson is always produced by top level producers like Quincy Jones, Teddy Riley and Bill Bottrell. Prince is always produced by the same top-level producer every time, Prince Rogers Nelson. He's even an innovator on the production side of things, doing things with a sparse bass line and a linn drum machine that people like Pharell Williams are constantly repeating even now. I mean seriously, how many people would take a song like 'When Doves Cry' and say 'hmmmm. You know what would make this really sick? If we took the bass line out altogether!' Response: 'A dance/pop number with no bass line? Pah!' they laughed. Then the laughter turned to tears as 'When Doves Cry' became the biggest song of 1984, and a timeless classic. Even with no bass line.
They are worlds apart as musicians, and I feel I have made my point.
As live performers, it makes for a more balanced discussion. Michael can belt out a soulful ballad with such a tenor voice that Prince could only dream of possessing, and pop THE best dance moves of all time. If you are into entertainment, you would probably say Michael Jackson is the better of the two. He mimes his hits and performs the same routines over and over again. It is safe, familiar territory. If you are more into the experience, Prince wins, hands down. Both of them can make you dance, but Prince can take you to a higher level with the level of instrumentation displayed at his shows. Many of the world's best guitarists rank Prince as a benchmark in guitar playing these days. Not only is he an astounding soloist and lead player, but I struggle to think of one person in the history of all the guitar work I've heard that can act as better rhythm guitarist. Then of course throw in the intimate piano solo sessions he regularly performs. All that plus great dance routines you would get from a Michael Jackson show, and LIVE vocals, and you have a far more musically-impressive experience. He also has a far more spontaneous, fun element to his shows. MJ would never dream of inviting people onto the stage to interact with them during a jam. Prince regularly involves his audience and either praises them for their dancing, or will hilariously highlight those who can't dance. He just seems more human, and more in touch with his sense of humour.
At this point, it seems that Jackson's popularity is due to the accessibility of his style. He has more radio-friendly music. His pretty voice is much less of an aquired taste than Prince's raw falsetto. The themes within his lyrics are far more comfortable. Prince is just a far more challenging talent, and although it is far more rewarding to be exposed to the challenges of listening to his material, many are just scared by the nature of the task and the sheer volume of his back-catalogue. That is why those that favour MJ will generally be unaware of 95% of Prince's legacy.
Prince may seem challenging, strange, and have a very cold relationship with the media at times, but there's usually a reason for it. His life is not a circus, he's very much in control. This is a direct contrast to how Jackson constantly makes himself a target, by naively failing to conduct himself properly in public. He always lets his guard down. They are both perceived as strange and androgynous, yet Prince's purported ex-list includes Madonna, Carmen Electra, Kim Basinger, Mayte Garcia, Vanity and countless others. Michael Jackson has had IVF children with Debbie Rowe, his dermatologist, and a highly scutinized marriage to Lisa Marie Presley. There have been allegations of child abuse, painkiller addictions, obsession with plastic surgery, pet chimps, a zoo built at his home, rumours about purchasing the skeleton of the Elephant Man and sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber. Prince is rumoured to have had a rib removed to orally pleasure himself due to his insatiable appetite for sex. Although chances are none of the aforementioned rumours are true of either man, I know which reputation I would rather be stuck with. Prince may be different, but he isn't straight-up crazy. With Jackson's recent reputation, he has removed that 'radio-friendly' image, and Prince has become more popular as of the years since 2004's 'Musicology', which marked a return to tradiotonal pop music for the Purple One.
It's not really a contest. Sure, Michael Jackson wins easily on record sales. But that's like saying McDonald's is better than Burger King because it sells more burgers. McDonald's is a bigger name and has bigger, flashier advertisements and seems more of a family option. But everyone knows that BK is where it's at. Prince is just a more diverse talent, and his work transcends beyond the commercial merits that Jackson has achieved.
So long live Prince, The Whopper of the 1980s pop scene. Many may call MJ the 'King of Pop', but as Alicia Keys said on inducting Prince into the Rock 'N' Roll Hall of Fame in 2004:
"There are many kings. But there can be only one Prince".
Tuesday 15 July 2008
Setting the Record Straight
If there is to be a theme for Project Pump, it will be moaning. As an Englishman, I feel compelled to moan about everything. Even if I have nothing to moan about, I can take solace in the fact that I can moan about having nothing to moan about. A good rant can be fun. Whether it is a political concern, or something more trivial, such as the correct pronunciation of the word 'scone' (which for all you idiots out there, is most certainly not the pronunciation that rhymes with 'gone').
But today I come to you with a rant not about people's ignorance of baked goods, but of something that is altogether more important to me. Years ago, many would associate me with an immense appreciation of a certain single-glove-wearing eighties icon. Still to this day, people that I haven't seen for years ask me if I still like Michael Jackson.
Now let me get this straight, the answer to that question is not 'no'. I still listen to his music regularly. MJ has made some great tracks over the years, and has some truly classic albums. But for me, I fail to see him as an artist anymore.
He is like the old uncle that you only see at weddings. Fairly pleasant on face value (believe me, there's no pun intended there), but you do not see him often enough, so there's always the suspicion of something sinister underneath the surface.
I feel the need to address this now, before I go any further. When the trials went on, I believed Michael Jackson was innocent. I still to this day feel that in that particular case, Michael Jackson was the victim. Whether or not MJ possesses sexual desires towards young boys remains to be seen. There is obviously something not right going on there, but we can never really know his intentions. But I am outright dismissing this as the reason for me losing my interest in MJ. I will not be talking about paedophilia any more, you'll be glad to read. Unless of course you're Gary Glitter in which case I'm wondering how you ever stumbled across this.
I also feel the need to disregard any thoughts concerning his appearance. Vitiligo or just plain paranoid, I am not concerned with his appearance. Okay, I am, because he looks like the offspring of Teri Hatcher and Jack Skellington. But this blog is not concerned with that.
I'm scrutinizing Michael Jackson as though he'd never been to court, and possessed a lovely head full of soul-glo. The trouble with MJ is that he is just a manufactured pop puppet, in exactly the same way that Justin Timberlake and Chris Brown are today. The only difference is, he came from an era where it was good to be different and (pun intended here) Dangerous.
Michael wrote some of his own material, just as Timberlake does today. But had today's 'producers first' culture existed back then, maybe his tracks would have been listed as Quincy Jones ft. Michael Jackson. It's just a good job that the legendary Mr Jones was not as nauseatingly obnoxious and overbearing as Timbaland is today. But my intense hatred for that man will have to wait for another day.
There's nothing wrong with being manufactured, to be perfectly honest. If you're talented, it doesn't really matter, in fact, it just helps your career. So that cannot be the reason that I have lost my passion for Michael Jackson.
It may lie in the fact that if he is to be considered an 'artist', Michael Jackson is very lazy. An album every four or five years is remotely acceptable. But we have not heard a peep from him since 2001. What's more, we have had greatest hits after greatest hits compilations thrown at us, just to keep the cash coming in. In 1995, he released HIStory, which as well as a disc of new tracks, contained a good overview of his hits. Since that he has released one album of new material, the inconsistent Invincible in 2001, and half an album in the remix CD of Blood On The Dance Floor in 1997. So how does that merit Number Ones, The Essential Michael Jackson, a four disc Ultimate Collection and the second special edition release of Thriller? Personally, I thought HIStory would suffice for someone who has not really had any new material of note. I refuse to buy Thriller 25, partly because it's ruined by money whoring remixes by today's wave hoggers, and partly because Thriller 26 will be out next year. Probably. I say probably, because we will not have that new album he keeps promising us. Ever. And if we do, it will be so corrupted by trying to include as many producers (stay away Timbaland!), shit guest vocalists, and out-of-place faux shit-hoppers; that I probably will not buy it anyway. He's an artist now comfortably living in the past.
Speaking of where he's living, he has now moved to a village near Barnstaple. Sweet Jesus and the Seven Dwarves! Why Barnstaple of all places? Maybe I should challenge him to a Devon Dance Off. Keep your eyes peeled on Youtube for that one.
His life is no longer about music, it is just a circus. I can try to ignore all that the press label him with, but there is no music to turn to. He doesn't even perform anymore. For that, I no longer have time for him, because in my mind he is finished. In the eighties and nineties, he was an unstoppable record selling machine. But now that there is no record company to promote him, and no place for his music in today's pop industry, he is muted as a talent. It is not as though he has the variety of talent to do a jazz album, or an acoustic album to regain his favour with critics. Other than his crazy-ass hardcore fans, who think he is some kind of deity, and who should stay away from other members of society at all times; people have moved on. Ultimately, without record sales, he is nothing. Eventually people will get tired after 45 versions of the same CD, and he will possibly put out something new. Unfortunately by then, no one will care.
That is why I have lost my passion for The King of Pop. The King is dead.
Peach and pumps
But today I come to you with a rant not about people's ignorance of baked goods, but of something that is altogether more important to me. Years ago, many would associate me with an immense appreciation of a certain single-glove-wearing eighties icon. Still to this day, people that I haven't seen for years ask me if I still like Michael Jackson.
Now let me get this straight, the answer to that question is not 'no'. I still listen to his music regularly. MJ has made some great tracks over the years, and has some truly classic albums. But for me, I fail to see him as an artist anymore.
He is like the old uncle that you only see at weddings. Fairly pleasant on face value (believe me, there's no pun intended there), but you do not see him often enough, so there's always the suspicion of something sinister underneath the surface.
I feel the need to address this now, before I go any further. When the trials went on, I believed Michael Jackson was innocent. I still to this day feel that in that particular case, Michael Jackson was the victim. Whether or not MJ possesses sexual desires towards young boys remains to be seen. There is obviously something not right going on there, but we can never really know his intentions. But I am outright dismissing this as the reason for me losing my interest in MJ. I will not be talking about paedophilia any more, you'll be glad to read. Unless of course you're Gary Glitter in which case I'm wondering how you ever stumbled across this.
I also feel the need to disregard any thoughts concerning his appearance. Vitiligo or just plain paranoid, I am not concerned with his appearance. Okay, I am, because he looks like the offspring of Teri Hatcher and Jack Skellington. But this blog is not concerned with that.
I'm scrutinizing Michael Jackson as though he'd never been to court, and possessed a lovely head full of soul-glo. The trouble with MJ is that he is just a manufactured pop puppet, in exactly the same way that Justin Timberlake and Chris Brown are today. The only difference is, he came from an era where it was good to be different and (pun intended here) Dangerous.Michael wrote some of his own material, just as Timberlake does today. But had today's 'producers first' culture existed back then, maybe his tracks would have been listed as Quincy Jones ft. Michael Jackson. It's just a good job that the legendary Mr Jones was not as nauseatingly obnoxious and overbearing as Timbaland is today. But my intense hatred for that man will have to wait for another day.
There's nothing wrong with being manufactured, to be perfectly honest. If you're talented, it doesn't really matter, in fact, it just helps your career. So that cannot be the reason that I have lost my passion for Michael Jackson.
It may lie in the fact that if he is to be considered an 'artist', Michael Jackson is very lazy. An album every four or five years is remotely acceptable. But we have not heard a peep from him since 2001. What's more, we have had greatest hits after greatest hits compilations thrown at us, just to keep the cash coming in. In 1995, he released HIStory, which as well as a disc of new tracks, contained a good overview of his hits. Since that he has released one album of new material, the inconsistent Invincible in 2001, and half an album in the remix CD of Blood On The Dance Floor in 1997. So how does that merit Number Ones, The Essential Michael Jackson, a four disc Ultimate Collection and the second special edition release of Thriller? Personally, I thought HIStory would suffice for someone who has not really had any new material of note. I refuse to buy Thriller 25, partly because it's ruined by money whoring remixes by today's wave hoggers, and partly because Thriller 26 will be out next year. Probably. I say probably, because we will not have that new album he keeps promising us. Ever. And if we do, it will be so corrupted by trying to include as many producers (stay away Timbaland!), shit guest vocalists, and out-of-place faux shit-hoppers; that I probably will not buy it anyway. He's an artist now comfortably living in the past.
Speaking of where he's living, he has now moved to a village near Barnstaple. Sweet Jesus and the Seven Dwarves! Why Barnstaple of all places? Maybe I should challenge him to a Devon Dance Off. Keep your eyes peeled on Youtube for that one.
His life is no longer about music, it is just a circus. I can try to ignore all that the press label him with, but there is no music to turn to. He doesn't even perform anymore. For that, I no longer have time for him, because in my mind he is finished. In the eighties and nineties, he was an unstoppable record selling machine. But now that there is no record company to promote him, and no place for his music in today's pop industry, he is muted as a talent. It is not as though he has the variety of talent to do a jazz album, or an acoustic album to regain his favour with critics. Other than his crazy-ass hardcore fans, who think he is some kind of deity, and who should stay away from other members of society at all times; people have moved on. Ultimately, without record sales, he is nothing. Eventually people will get tired after 45 versions of the same CD, and he will possibly put out something new. Unfortunately by then, no one will care.
That is why I have lost my passion for The King of Pop. The King is dead.
Peach and pumps
Friday 11 July 2008
Welcome to The Pump Dome!
This is Project Pump. My name is Golden Pump. Well, actually, it's not, it's Daniel James Whitell. But that's not the most exciting name, so I like to go by the name of Golden E. Pump. Not that anyone actually calls me that apart from myself, of course.
Project Pump comes about from extreme boredom. I could claim to be an exciting person, but the reality is more disappointing that way. I am a writer who likes to write about himself, and is in desperate need of a hobby. So, I racked my brain for hours, and then it hit me like Ray Charles and a lampost. Maybe I could write about myself for a hobby! And other things that are just as unappealing and trivial!
Once I had finished the meticulous planning for this huge project, I then decided it was time to embark upon a journey. Waving goodbye to inactivity and tedious dullness; I stand before the road with nothing but a keyboard.
As I type, my fingers tremble with responsibility. I have but one reader (myself), and am plagued by the sudden realisation that maybe my writings will not even be enough to quench even a single thirst for reading about nothing. But fear not, young Pump, for there is already enough meaninglessness on this interactive dual-carriageway that surely yours cannot be singled out for being the most unfathomably boring blog in the universe!
So go and type, my Golden little friend. Type as though you were on a television sitcom, and you were randomly pressing keys so as to give the illusion of typing! Type as though you were a monkey, one of an infinite number, and enslaved in order to be sat at a typewriter amongst your endless fellow captives, and were doomed to type constantly until the complete works of Billy Shakespeare were extracted from your raw, weary fingertips.
It is with the image of the latter that Project Pump begins. For surely if I press enough keys, and follow enough tangents, then I'll end up with a masterpiece?
I think that's what Tarantino thought when he made Deathproof.
"Sure, I'll make my characters dull and one-dimensional. But there will be enough of them, and they will say so many inconsequential things, that if I maintain this balance for long enough, I'll end up with a new Pulp Fiction."
Oh Quentin, how I baulked at the very notion. Seriously, over the course of a couple of hours you turned Kurt Russell from a badass into someone who resembles a very good friend of mine when drunk. Whinging and moaning, but unable to stay away from girls. Albeit not because he wants to maim them with a stunt car. And what it the blue fudge was that ending about?
I would normally place a spoiler alert here. But I'm not going to, because the ending to this movie is not an ending. It's a stilettoed kick in the face. Literally. Bah, girl power wins, and Mr Tarantino gets unduly praised for crapping in the name of 'art'.
As one may gather from the previous sentence I am not a fan of girl power. This may or may not make me a misogynist. Don't get me wrong, I love strong females. Just so long as they don't hurt me. What I don't like to see is unnecessary feminism.
"Unnecessary feminism?!" I hear Emily Pankhurst cry with disgust from underneath some hooves. "Fie and poppycock!"
Women's rights. Yes. Strong badass female characters. Yes. Normal women being made into superheroes in films, whilst all their male counterparts die. No. It all stems from the rule of thumb in horror movies, that women cannot die if they are on screen for x amount of time. Michael Myers should have made Jamie Lee Curtis' (surprisingly attractive in a boyish way: see True Lies) ass into a belt in the first Halloween. Just how Kurt 'Snake Plissken' Russell should have turned these annoying wenches into chow mein at the end of Deathproof. Call it retribution all you like, but the whole male audience (read: whole audience) wanted to see them bitches get dead. Way to lose your key demographic to 'girl power'.
What if Tarantino had done this in other films? Like if in Reservoir Dogs, Mr Blonde had been played by Susan Sarandon, and instead of Michael Madsen's macabre dance of mutilation to the sounds of Stealers Wheel's 'Stuck in the Middle With You', we got Sarandon trying to look threatening, whilst listening to The Eurythmics & Aretha Franklin's 'Sister's Are Doing it For Themselves'. Girl power is good when used in the correct context. Just as rocket launchers and miniguns do not belong in Sex and the City, girl power does not belong in an action thriller. Ever.
And so ends the first ever random tangent of Project Pump. And with it, the post itself. The journey has begun, and we've learnt much already. Namely, Deathproof sucks, and so does needlessly indulgent feminism. Don't hate me, girls. More than you already do, anyway.
Peach and pumps!
Project Pump comes about from extreme boredom. I could claim to be an exciting person, but the reality is more disappointing that way. I am a writer who likes to write about himself, and is in desperate need of a hobby. So, I racked my brain for hours, and then it hit me like Ray Charles and a lampost. Maybe I could write about myself for a hobby! And other things that are just as unappealing and trivial!
Once I had finished the meticulous planning for this huge project, I then decided it was time to embark upon a journey. Waving goodbye to inactivity and tedious dullness; I stand before the road with nothing but a keyboard.
As I type, my fingers tremble with responsibility. I have but one reader (myself), and am plagued by the sudden realisation that maybe my writings will not even be enough to quench even a single thirst for reading about nothing. But fear not, young Pump, for there is already enough meaninglessness on this interactive dual-carriageway that surely yours cannot be singled out for being the most unfathomably boring blog in the universe!
So go and type, my Golden little friend. Type as though you were on a television sitcom, and you were randomly pressing keys so as to give the illusion of typing! Type as though you were a monkey, one of an infinite number, and enslaved in order to be sat at a typewriter amongst your endless fellow captives, and were doomed to type constantly until the complete works of Billy Shakespeare were extracted from your raw, weary fingertips.
It is with the image of the latter that Project Pump begins. For surely if I press enough keys, and follow enough tangents, then I'll end up with a masterpiece?
I think that's what Tarantino thought when he made Deathproof.
"Sure, I'll make my characters dull and one-dimensional. But there will be enough of them, and they will say so many inconsequential things, that if I maintain this balance for long enough, I'll end up with a new Pulp Fiction."
Oh Quentin, how I baulked at the very notion. Seriously, over the course of a couple of hours you turned Kurt Russell from a badass into someone who resembles a very good friend of mine when drunk. Whinging and moaning, but unable to stay away from girls. Albeit not because he wants to maim them with a stunt car. And what it the blue fudge was that ending about?
I would normally place a spoiler alert here. But I'm not going to, because the ending to this movie is not an ending. It's a stilettoed kick in the face. Literally. Bah, girl power wins, and Mr Tarantino gets unduly praised for crapping in the name of 'art'.
As one may gather from the previous sentence I am not a fan of girl power. This may or may not make me a misogynist. Don't get me wrong, I love strong females. Just so long as they don't hurt me. What I don't like to see is unnecessary feminism.
"Unnecessary feminism?!" I hear Emily Pankhurst cry with disgust from underneath some hooves. "Fie and poppycock!"
Women's rights. Yes. Strong badass female characters. Yes. Normal women being made into superheroes in films, whilst all their male counterparts die. No. It all stems from the rule of thumb in horror movies, that women cannot die if they are on screen for x amount of time. Michael Myers should have made Jamie Lee Curtis' (surprisingly attractive in a boyish way: see True Lies) ass into a belt in the first Halloween. Just how Kurt 'Snake Plissken' Russell should have turned these annoying wenches into chow mein at the end of Deathproof. Call it retribution all you like, but the whole male audience (read: whole audience) wanted to see them bitches get dead. Way to lose your key demographic to 'girl power'.
What if Tarantino had done this in other films? Like if in Reservoir Dogs, Mr Blonde had been played by Susan Sarandon, and instead of Michael Madsen's macabre dance of mutilation to the sounds of Stealers Wheel's 'Stuck in the Middle With You', we got Sarandon trying to look threatening, whilst listening to The Eurythmics & Aretha Franklin's 'Sister's Are Doing it For Themselves'. Girl power is good when used in the correct context. Just as rocket launchers and miniguns do not belong in Sex and the City, girl power does not belong in an action thriller. Ever.
And so ends the first ever random tangent of Project Pump. And with it, the post itself. The journey has begun, and we've learnt much already. Namely, Deathproof sucks, and so does needlessly indulgent feminism. Don't hate me, girls. More than you already do, anyway.
Peach and pumps!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
