Seriousness: Save Scartho Baths

Long time no post and this one's not even music related.

My local council are... a bit stupid? Ridiculous? They seem to operate on the basis that "if-we-say-we're-going-to-do-something-no-one-can-possibly-object". The latest example of which was their recent announcement that they plan to demolish my local swimming pool, Scartho Baths. The plan is to replace the pool with a new one at the Leisure Centre. Said new pool will be 25m long and have no diving boards. The current pool is somewhere short of Olympic standard (i.e. 50m) and has diving boards. It's on a lot of major bus routes, unlike the Leisure Centre, which is on just one bus route.

Problem, much?

Many years ago, I learnt to swim at that pool. I imagine most people in my area learnt to swim there. In the wake of the Olympics and Paralympics, demolishing a decent-sized pool and replacing it with one that's half the Olympic length seems ridiculous. What's happening with the Olympic legacy?

I should point out that the council claim that the pool is structurally unstable. Something about draining it would make the pool collapse. Now, this seems unlikely to me as I'm sure that up until fairly recently the pool was drained once a year for cleaning anyway. Obviously I know nothing about engineering. That said, the engineering report or whatever it is hasn't been made available. I'm half tempted to demand it be released so we can see how much truth is in the council's claims.

Anyways, enough ranting. I've probably missed important things out. If you're local to Grimsby, signing THIS PETITION would be vaguely helpful. And if you happen to be from the council and reading this, please think back to when you tried to shut down our nursery schools. That didn't entirely go in your favour, did it now? And I see that there's already been progress, which is also viewable at the same address as the petition.

"We won't stay silent - we'll make as much noise as we can." Enter Shikari - Tribalism

Randomness: a response to "you say [pop act], i say [generic rock band]" comments

This 'ere is a journal post from In-The-Machine on deviantART.

You say Taylor Swift,I say Breaking Benjamin
You say Lady Gaga,I say Evanescence
You say Miley Cyrus,I say Slipknot
You say T-Pain,I say Three Days Grace
You say Kesha,I say Linkin Park
you say justin bieber, fuck you
You say Flowers,I say Puddle of Mudd
92% of teens have turned to pop and hip-hop.If you are part of the 8% that still listens to real music, copy and paste this message to 5 other videos. DONT LET ROCK N ROLL DIE ! , P.S Thumbs Up If You Agree ;D

You say "don't let teh RAWK die," I say you're overexaggerating.
You say "lol I'm hardc0re," I say you're attention-seeking.
You say "fuck da pop muzik," I say you're really desperate for approval from the big kids.
You say "you suck for liking this and my taste is better," I say you're an arrogant little fucktard.
You say you know what "real music is," I say "then why don't you have Def Leppard on here?"
You say bullshit statistics, I say if you honestly think rock is "in danger of dying" you need to get out more.

There was more, but I don't think I really need to post all of it. If you really want to read all of it, you can do so HERE. What I really wanted to say was: THIS PERSON IS MADE OF AWESOME. Now, while I am definitely guilty of bemoaning the love many people have for pop, I accept that it's their choice to listen to it. Besides, I like Lady Gaga and I like McFly and I like a lot of those 'alternative' bands who should really be counted as pop because they're so squishy and mainstream. For example, right now I'm listening to Mayday Parade. They definitely have pop-rock moments. Anyway, back to the actual topic.

If people who post these "you say [pop act], i say [generic rock band]" comments really think so few people listen to rock, metal and the like, they must be even more stupid than the comment suggests. I think you'll find that while, yes, a huge number of people listen to pop and it does sell a lot more than anything else, that huge numbers of people also listen to other music. Also, if you really do want to pick fights with people over taste in music, at least chose some less generic bands to use. I like Evanescence and Linkin Park, but they're effectively pop simply because so many people listen to them. Try someone like... oh, I don't know, someone who hasn't sold millions of albums? There's so many brilliant bands out there you could use. It still doesn't mean they're any better than pop artists. OK, so maybe I think rock is generally better than pop, but that doesn't mean all pop is shit.

I'm kinda losing my thread here, so I'm going to go off on a slight tangent. It's related, I promise. The tangent is this - variety is the spice of life. I stand by that statement, so when I saw someone on YouTube say that we should stop people who like My Chemical Romance from listening to Murderdolls because MCR is "gay ass shit" and Murderdolls aren't "scene or emo", I couldn't help but reply. Since when did listening to one type of music disqualify you from listening to others? I pointed this out to her and to her credit, she was polite in her reply, which was "I didn't say you couldn't, but scene kids are taking over and we have to stop them in order to keep metal alive!!" Sorry, honey, but last I checked "scene" wasn't half as popular as it was a couple of years ago. Besides, you kinda contradicted yourself there - you're allowed to listen to whatever the hell you want, but scene kids aren't allowed to listen to some stuff because they'll kill it? Metal's in no danger of dying, dude. Let them listen to what they want and get over yourself. I dislike scenies if they're into bands because it's cool or popular to like them, but if they genuinely like them, then what's the problem? I also don't really like when bands I like suddenly get popular, but there's fuck all I can do about that.

OK, actually shutting up now. Apologies for the uber babble.

Randomness: On fairness, whining and overly demanding fans

Firstly, here's my original post on McFly's Supercity site:

I stress once again that this is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but no unprovoked bitching. Many of us around the world are waiting to hear when McFly are coming to our countries. This is perfectly natural - who wouldn't want to see one of their favourite bands live? Constant questions about when McFly are touring where is understandable. Slightly annoying at times, but forgivable. Not so forgivable and rather more annoying are fans who have had the opportunity to see McFly already on this tour cycle and still find things to whinge about. The latest seems to be with regards to Danny's after-party wotsits. There hasn't been one for every date and already I've seen people bitching that this isn't fair. It's perfectly fair. Consider the logistics. There has to be an available venue, the next show ideally shouldn't be the day after (tiredness is a bitch)... I've run out of ideas, but my point is, it simply might not be possible to put a party on after every show. It will never cease to irritate me how demanding fans can be. Your idols are human, just like you. You can't expect them to be able to fit everything in. And for the few people (very few, fortunately) that I've seen complaining that McFly aren't playing a venue near them, shut the fuck up. This applies largely to UK folks. It's a tiny bloody country, get a bloody train or something. I'm on a year abroad in Tasmania right now. Last month I left the house at 4am to fly over 1000 miles to Brisbane so I could go to Soundwave Festival. So seriously, get over yourselves. If you love a band that much, save up some money and shell out for the travel. And on that note, I'm going to shut up about how overly demanding fans irritate the shit out of me and see if I can find some nice new music. Hmmm, something in the industrial vein would be appreciated...

Now, apart from the "shut the fuck up" and "get over yourselves" aspects, I tried my hardest to be polite in that post, even though I was irritated as fuck. Basically, Danny Jones of McFly had hosted a couple of parties after certain shows on the band's current UK tour. I'd seen people whinging that it was only on some dates and it pissed me off that they thought this wasn't fair when huge numbers of McFly fans across the world simply won't get to see them on this tour, myself included. Why can't people be grateful for what they've got, I wondered? This is the response I got from one of the people who'd sparked my irritation in the first place:

Clearly about me....and no I won't shut up, your opinion means nothing to me tbh. If the parties couldn't be held for everyone then no one should have got them END OF!!!!!

Firstly, she presumes the post is solely about her. How ridiculous - I'm pretty sure I said in the post that there were a number of people who shared her views on things. I'd named no names. The shut up point I can understand - I'm perfectly happy for people to discuss things with me and had I been a little less irritated at the time of posting, I probably wouldn't have included the "shut the fuck up" part. The fact that she then goes on to say that my opinion means nothing to her, now that did annoy me. Or rather, it made me laugh - if my opinion means nothing to her, why is she so angry? If my opinion means nothing to her, she could have just ignored it. In fact, I'm pretty sure my opinion must mean rather a lot to her because I'm fairly sure the only reason she read my post was because I'd already commented on her post about the matter, giving my opinion.

Why are fans so demanding? And why when you disagree with them do some of them get bitchy instead of having a polite discussion? I would have been much more inclined to take this person seriously if she hadn't lost her temper with me. In reply to her comment, I invited her to continue the conversation, providing she stop ranting at me. However, this was before I came across this post of hers:

Omg some people on here are actual dicks! Excuse the language!

I can but presume this was aimed at me and several others who had disagreed with her opinions, going by the time it was posted (i.e. just after she'd commented on my post). If she does come back with a reply, she will be getting a very snotty remark back along the lines of "feel free to call me names, but at least say it to my face". I was rather pleased to see that the sole comment on her post re. people being dicks was as follows:

Well with an attitude like that I can't imagine why anyone would be mean to you...

Oh, how I laughed. In conclusion, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but there is a difference between disagreeing and giving a polite argument as to why you disagree and just being a ranting idiot. Why are fans so demanding? Do people simply not understand that musicians are human just like everyone else? Do they honestly expect them to make time for every single fan who wants their time? And why, when people like me, fellow fans, disagree with them and basically tell them to grow up, do they turn into raving angry mad things? Do not get.

In the very unlikely event that the person in question finds this and reads this: please note, I have revealed no names - no one will be able to find you unless they know my SC username and follow the relevant links. This is not intended to target you, but you made a very good example of an overly demanding fan. Plus you were rude to me and I reserve the right to rant about you in return in the privacy of my blog.

Randomness: Testing the limits of my tolerance

I basically have no religion. I acknowledge the remote possibility that there might be a greater being out there but I honestly don't believe it. However, I don't have a problem with other people believing in god(s). It's their choice and while I might think they're deluding themselves in a pathetic attempt to make it seem like there's some sort of meaning to life, I tolerate it. In fact, I more than tolerate it - I simply don't give a damn.

In return for me having an amazing level of tolerance for people with differing beliefs to myself, I expect at least a level of tolerance towards my beliefs. Yes, my beliefs are based on science and I will argue with people if they attempt to justify their beliefs with shoddy pseudoscience, but I won't try to force my ideas on them. Therefore, when I recently commented on a post my devoutly Christian housemate made on Facebook, I expected him to have a polite argument with me and indeed he did. A friend of his, however, upon realising that I am essentially an atheist, proceeded to make unfounded accusations. Among them was his belief that because I have no religion, I must condone eugenics and that atheism is responisble for all sorts of atrocities (he made some comment about communism in relation to this, but it made no sense to me, so I'm not going to cover it).

Suffice to say, I was insanely pissed off. More than that, I was offended. How dare this stranger make assumptions about me based on the simple fact that I don't subscribe to a religion? How dare he suggest that I am an awful person because I don't agree with his religious teachings? How dare he make sweeping statements about entire philosophies of belief based on his own warped perceptions?

I have very rarely been so pissed off at someone. It takes a lot to make me truly lose my temper and it normally comes down to situations like this where people make unfounded accusations. The guy in question in asking what alternative to Christianity I could offer also made a rather snide remark about Islam by calling it the religion of peace with more than a little sarcasm. I refrained from pointing out to him that Islam wasn't the only faction responsible for the Crusades, nor that it was largely Christians who persectued the Jewish people for centuries. You see, these accusations are irrelevant. No one is responsible for the sins of their ancestors, so in the same way that I as an atheist am not responsible for anything done by prior atheists, neither are today's Christians responsible for the actions of their predecessors.

I have always respected religion. I'm of the opinion that while I think it's a little self-deluding, people need to believe in something, to believe that there is something greater out there. I pity extremists for not seeing the wonder of variety. I would never condemn an entire group of people based on a minority's belief. But when faced with people like this, even my tolerance is pushed to breaking. This is not like having polite arguments with my Christian housemate - while we disagree on many subjects, he's never made such ludicrous accusations about me. If making such accusations is the only way you have to make an argument, you have no argument at all and therefore I must conclude that you have little if any evidence to back your beliefs up.

Somehow I managed to disguise my anger at the person in question in my response. He's not replied to me as yet. If he does and does so politely, perhaps I'll enter into a proper discussion with him. But there is no point in me contiuing if he simply insults me again. It'd be like talking to a brick wall. One that's falling down and dropping bricks on your head every time you say something it doesn't like.

/rant

Randomness: Downloading

I was going to write a post about the recent "rock is dead" crap. And then I got sidetracked and thought maybe I'd write about the X Factor and all it's associated bollocks. That brought me onto Biffy Clyro (who's track Many Of Horror got butchered by this year's X Factor winner) and that made me think about music downloading, legal or otherwise.

You see, I've now got a fair amount of Biffy Clyro in my library. Out of that, only 3 tracks were properly paid for. 4 tracks came from a free exclusive acoustic disc given away with Kerrang! last year and the rest I've taken from a friend. I am fiercely opposed to illegal downloading, so I should probably explain why I don't have a problem with sharing music with my friends. I know, if I give music to my friends, that at least I've paid for it. It's not like going on a file-sharing site and making it available for hundreds of people. That said, I was rather pissed off to find that most of the Biffy Clyro tracks my friend gave me are actually illegal downloads. My conscience kicked in and now I'm going to save up and buy them legally because I really don't like illegal downloads.

The reason I don't like illegal downloads is this. Quite simply, it's stealing. A lot of hard work goes into making music and so does a lot of money. What then, gives you the right to simply take it for free? An old advert they used to show in cinemas said "You wouldn't steal a computer, so why steal a movie?" or words to that effect. Surely the same applies to music? Just because it's not a physical entity (in the case of downloads), doesn't mean the same hard work hasn't gone into it.

Several people have said to me that they download illegally because they can't afford to buy it. What a load of shit. If you don't have the money to buy something, you don't steal it. You save up until you can afford it, just like you would with anything else.

I'm afraid I have to agree with all those people who have said that downloading has made music a disposable purchase. People hear a song, like it, download it illegally, listen a couple of times and never listen to it again. People expect to be able to get music free. And then when people like me point out to them that maybe the artist needs that money, they say they shouldn't be in it for the money. Let me say once again: a lot of money goes into making an album. You can't just magic it out of thin air. They have to make that money back somehow. And now, with the rise of illegal downloading, more money is actually made from touring and merch.

Ugh. In short, illegal downloading irritates the shit out of me, even more so when people try to justify it. And I'm going to leave it there, otherwise I'll just keep ranting.

Note to self: never ask a certain friend for music again. Just experienced another major problem with illegal downloads - the files aren't necessarily safe. Not sure what was wrong with it - no viruses found, could've been a corrupted file or something, but it crashed my laptop in exactly the same way said friend's laptop kept crashing last year. Hmm, coincidence much.

Seriousness: vaccines

I have had it up to here with people scaremongering about potentially dangerous ingredients in vaccines. The latest is this: Flu vaccine contains mercury (via @TimMinchin on twitter). Basically, it claims that one of the flu vaccines used for children contains a type of mercury that some people think is dangerous. Please note: SOME people. So I did a little digging of my own. I've seen scaremongering like this before, particularly with regards to the MMR vaccine. The doctor who authored the research which suggested MMR was dangerous subsequently got struck off for his dodgy research and in my eyes and others is at least partly responsible for those children who died because he scared their parents into not giving them the vaccine (see HERE - yes, I know it's wikipedia, but all the relevant references are linked within that section).

So, onto this mercury compound, thiomersal,  in the flu vaccine. Even a quick dig through that ever unreliable site wikipedia is enough to say it's probably safe. The World Health Organisation reckons there's no evidence for it being overly dangerous (see HERE, there's a lot of stuff). I mean, they're the biggies of the health world, you'd think they'd check through the research properly and come to a justified conclusion. Apparently certain people think not and this gives them grounds to write scaremongering articles like the one linked above. In particular, the article suggests that the removal of thiomersal from vaccines in the US and Europe is due to its dangerous effects. Try again, love. These two pieces say otherwise and I'm more inclined to believe them than some shoddy journalist: Mercury, Vaccines and Autism and The US Food & Drug Administration's vaccine FAQs. I promise they're both easy to read. The point is, the removal was precautionary, because at the time there seemed to be some evidence that thiomersal could be dangerous.

So, coming to the conclusion that thiomersal isn't dangerous, at least in the low doses present in vaccines, why oh why do people feel the need to write articles that say they are? Because they sell papers? Well, yes. But you know what, I think people are genuinely scared. They hear one little whisper of a possible danger and not being the logical minded individual that some people are, they don't consider the overwhelming body of evidence and latch onto the one, dire example. That's what happened with MMR. One man wrote a paper containing manipulated evidence suggesting the MMR vaccine, given to almost every child in the UK, was a cause of Autism Spectrum Disorders, the newspapers got hold of it and suddenly parents are panicking. I doubt most of them read the original paper. There is no link whatsoever between any Austism Spectrum Disorders and the MMR vaccine. None, nada, zilch. Andrew Wakefield, the man who wrote the paper, was struck off in May last year (2010). Among the charges against him were 12 counts of abusing developmentally challenged children, i.e. those children with autism that he used to give (shoddy) evidence for his study.


Basically, everything about Wakefield's study was a load of absolute bollocks. Having said that, if the newspapers hadn't got a hold of it, maybe we wouldn't have had the problem we had. The paper would have sat in an issue of The Lancet (a medical journal) quietly by itself, perhaps provoking some discussion among medical professionals. Instead we got nationwide panic, vaccination levels dropping and a few years later, guess what makes a comeback? Measles, mumps and rubella. Measles and mumps especially and they kill people. The man sickens me.


What's really awful though, is that even though the study has been discredited and its author struck off, people still won't vaccinate their kids because they're scared. When I was with my relatives near Sydney at Christmas, I discovered that my mum's cousin isn't going to vaccinate her 5 month old little girl. Her older sister has a son with autism and the family seem scared that it was the vaccines that did it. Regardless of the fact that his older brother is fine, they're still scared. Now, I can kind of understand this, but you know what they're using as an alternative? Homeopathy. Yes. Homeopathy, this biggest load of bull the medical world has ever come across. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that it works. How can it, when the doses are so dilute there's basically no active ingredient left? The only effect you're going to get is placebo and I'm sorry, love, but that won't work against diseases. It hurt to see them putting their beautiful little girl at so much risk, simply through fear. I wanted to say something, but my mum gave me a warning look, like, don't upset them. Upset them? By all means, if it'll protect their daughter.


And at that, I am going to end, because I'm getting pissed off once again about something I can do nothing about. Suffice to say, all vaccines are stringently tested before use and if you do happen to come across something that claims a vaccine is not safe, I'd advise you to read up on it before you freak out. Things are not always as the newspapers make them out to be.

Randomness: Super City

Prepare for ranting. Seriously, if you're not interested in my ranting, leave now before you feel the need to batter me round the head. Onwards, folks.

Oh dear fucking god. Do people seriously have such limited taste in music? Not so much limited as narrow. I thought eclectic taste in music was becoming more of the norm now, but McFly's Super City is rapidly persuading me otherwise. I've been toddling around the site for a little over 2 days now and all I keep seeing on other members' "My Music" sections is McFly (understandably), Jonas Brothers, Avril Lavigne, Rihanna, Kate Nash, Lily Allen, Demi Lovato, JLS and other such generic pop acts. I've found maybe two or three people with more alternative leaning tastes. Now, let's think, there's probably about 20,000 profiles on the site now. I've probably seen about 100 in the last couple of days from my mad profile hopping. I'm hoping I've just been missing the people with interesting taste in music. Oh, how I'm hoping.

Now, the 13-16 year olds, I can sort of understand. For some reason, it makes vague sense for teenagers to be into pop. Don't ask me why, it's just the normal state of being. But I'm seeing people my age who like Jonas Brothers. Someone please tell me what the appeal is? Then again, this is coming from a life-long McFly fan, but at least McFly have got a bit more oomph (well, did have up until the new album). I'm not saying everyone should be into alternative and rock and all that jazz, but neither should people be living off the charts. I like pop (some of it) but don't you sometimes want music with just a bit more meaning? Anyone?

Ugh. I'm not entirely sure why this is irritating me so much. I've always been a firm believer in letting people listen to whatever the hell they want. It's probably the lack of variety. Variety is the spice of life, after all. I'll just have to quietly start linking people to awesome music. Starting with Emilie Autumn, because everyone needs a little EA in their lives.

Now, if you'll excuse me and my ranting, I'm going to put Earthtone9's Inside Embers Glow on too loud and cry into my cuppa.

Randomness: Cover versions

I like a good cover version. It's nice to see another artist's interpretation of songs. Providing they do a decent job. I can name numerous good cover versions but for every one of them I can probably think of two or three crappy ones. I've linked to the covers and originals for your listening pleasure. Or pain as the case may be.

Top of this list of crimes against cover versions is Jedward's cover of Blink-182's All The Small Things. I mentioned this in a post a few weeks back, but to reiterate, it is heinous. Seriously, I tried to be nice about it, but my ears were traumatised. I had to drown them in loud, shouty music to make it go away. This monstrosity is followed by the Jonas Brothers' version of Busted's hit Year 3000. This isn't so much an awful cover (although it's not exactly good), but Busted were the band of my early teens. I loved them, idolised them even. Busted were never an epically amazing band, but they were mine (possessive, sorry). Hearing a band like the Jonas Brothers' cover them was horrifying. What makes it worse though was the fact that so few people (at least on the video I first found on youtube) actually realised it was a cover. Now, I know Busted weren't that big in the States where the Jonas Brothers have their biggest fan base, but that pissed me off. I left a couple of snarky comments. Nothing too harsh, just pointing out that firstly, I don't like JBs and I thought the cover was pretty poor and secondly that the Busted version was infinitely better. I got a response to the first one from some total psycho of a fangirl who essentially shouted at me over the internet (she had a capslock problem) that if it was such a poor cover, why were they making so much money from it? To which I once again pointed out that it was a cover - they didn't write it, the lyrics, music and whatnot are good, but the cover wasn't. Oh, and that the curly haired one (name, anyone?) had a voice that I didn't think suited the song. I think I called him whiney. I was really quite restrained considering half my brain was screaming that I should throttle her through the internet. To this I got the following reply:


"Y U SAY DAT BUT DA JONAS BROTHERS DRED AND HE SOUND GOOD AND NO U CANT HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOLZ I GAT JOKES LOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1NO HARD FEELINGS"

Told you she had a capslock problem. My initial reaction to this was, dear god, it's a troll, my bad. I checked the user page. If it was a troll, this was the only act of trolling I could find, so I came to the conclusion that she was just a crazy rabid fangirl. With piss poor taste in music in my opinion.


Anyway, moving on down my list of appalling cover versions. Avril Lavigne's live cover of System Of A Down's Chop Suey! is pretty scarily bad. I only came across it a few weeks ago and I had to stop the track a few seconds in because oh dear god my ears were going to bleed. Bad song choice, Ms Lavigne. I like Avril Lavigne, but I really wish she hadn't even attempted this song. She can't scream/growl/even get her voice to do what's necessary to make the song sound right.


Now, what else do I have on my list? Hmmm... well, I think here we move on to the not so much bad, as just should-never-have-been-done. Again, purely my opinion. Let's start with Leona Lewis' cover of Snow Patrol's beautiful Run. I first heard the cover when my parents picked me up from uni at Christmas in first year. I was traumatised. Now, I like Leona Lewis' voice. But she warbles SO MUCH. Run does not need someone warbling over it. It's a beautiful song that calls for soft, straightforward singing. Hence why I hugely prefer the original. Much more suited to the tone of the song.


Next on this list of should-never-have-been-done covers is Madonna's cover of Don McLean's classic American Pie. Again, there's nothing particularly bad about Madonna's version, it just doesn't work. It sounds a bit autotuned to me (I have a major aversion to autotune) and it's a bit bland - it doesn't have the soul that McLean had. Also, I'm so much in love with the original that I object to cutting out verses. Hey, I get annoyed that the radio stations never play the full version because it's just too damn long.


Moving on. Glee. Oh, yes, Glee. I have nothing against Glee. Well, I do. Slightly. In that, I suspect that at least some if not many of the kids who watch it don't know who did the originals of some of them songs. I'm not saying they all do. Indeed, I'm sure a lot of them know the originals. What set me off about this though is my old secondary school's annual House Music competition. One of the House's is using Glee's version of Bonnie Tyler's epic Total Eclipse of the Heart. I asked my friend why they were using that version and the answer I was given was "the original's like 7 minutes long". Yes, darling, that's the album version. Try listening to the single version, it's about the same length as the Glee version. Same arrangement just about and everything. What worries me is that maybe the song was picked because someone had heard it on Glee and only knew that version, had no idea who the hell Bonnie Tyler is. This upsets me. Bonnie Tyler has a beautiful, distinctive voice, but instead of basing their House Music entry on her version, it'll be based on Glee, which is bland. Yes, the cast can sing, but there's not the power and emotion there that Tyler has. Ahem. Ranting. Moving on.


Then we have the covers that aren't actually covers, but samples. I only have the one example to include here, although I know there are more. Gym Class Heroes sampled Supertramp's Breakfast In America for their single Cupid's Chokehold. I have no problem with this. In fact, I actually rather like the song. What I don't like is that once again, kids didn't realise it was a sample. On the bus home from school one day not long after Cupid's Chokehold was released, Breakfast In America was played on the radio and I was horrified to hear one of the younger kids say, and I quote (yes, it's actually burned into my memory):


"Oh my god, someone seriously covered it already?"


They got a bit of a shock when I turned round and rather sharply told them that this was the fucking original and maybe they should expand their knowledge of music. I was rather a lot harsher than I intended to be, but I was so annoyed. Again, moving on before I go off on a major rant about young teens and their taste in music.


And then there are the cover versions that I think are awesome. VersaEmerge are particularly good at these, I've found. Their cover of Britney Spears' Toxic is amazing. Also, it has the seal of approval from Ms. Spears, thanks to the power of Twitter. And then there is this wonderful girl called Juliana Daily who writes her own material, but also covers other artists. My favourite by her has got to be her version of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah - just beautiful. Also high on my list of favourite cover versions are most of the tracks included on Fearless Records' Punk Goes... series. At least the ones I've heard. Yes there are bad ones in there too, nevershoutnever!'s cover of Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody currently far down on my most loathed list, but for the most part they're lovely refreshing covers.

My all time favourite cover version? John Cale's version of Hallelujah. Yes, I love the song. It was John Cale's wonderful voice that actually got me listening to the song. It's seriously a beautiful version. I know a lot of people prefer the original or Jeff Buckley, but John Cale just has such a magical voice... I'm going to stop there before I babble too much. I think that'll do - I've just realised how long this post is and most of it's ranting. My bad. Sorry, folks.

Randomness: The BBC

I'm a Brit. I love the BBC. If I was living in the UK right now and had a functioning TV, I wouldn't mind paying the licence fee for good quality programming. As it is, I'm in Australia and in the UK either I'm with my parents so they pay the fee or I'm at uni where there is no functioning TV. I use BBC iPlayer online instead, which is fee-free so long as you don't watch programmes live.

This does have a point. The UK government has plans to make huge cuts to the BBC's budget via the licence fee. Currently, those cuts stand at 16% (last I heard, which was yesterday). There were fears they could be up to 26%. That's a quarter of the entire budget or equivalent to the cost of running BBC2 (so I'm told). Yes, there need to be changes in spending to sort out our money troubles, but is the BBC really considered so low on priorities that it warrants such huge cuts? Why not scrap our nuclear weapons programs, we don't need them... I'll not go into that any more. Suffice to say I strongly disagree with nuclear weapons and I'd rather the UK disarmed ours.

Anyways, back on topic, there's so many wonderful things about the BBC that're worth saving. My personal favourite is the Natural History department. Look at their output over the years - all those stunning documentaries, bringing natural history to a wider audience. Hey, I credit David Attenborough's documentaries and the Wildlife On One/Two series with my life choices - I've wanted to work with animals my whole life and conservation since I was about 11.

And then there's the drama programming. Sci-fi in the form of Doctor Who and Torchwood. Let's face it, who hasn't heard of Doctor Who? Classic show. Run by the BBC. Crime drama - Waking The Dead, New Tricks and so many more. And then there's EastEnders. Much as I hate to admit it, it's a semi-decent and obviously popular programme and one of the longest running soap operas. It's been praised for tackling often controversial issues and, OK, other broadcasters do this as well, but I'm just giving examples of what could be lost if the BBC faces too many spending cuts.

And the BBC doesn't just fund those channels with BBC in the name - some funding direct from the government also runs the Welsh channel S4C (all in Welsh, can't understand a word of it) and some funding from advertising goes towards running Channel 4. Oh, and the BBC runs BBC Alba in Scotland which I only found out about when I hit the link to it on iPlayer and the entire page translated into Gaelic. I was so confused.

You know what's also amazing about the BBC - NO ADVERTS. And you get this by paying (currently) £145.50 a year. And that means getting full hour programmes instead of 45 minute ones stretched over an hour with adverts every 15 minutes or so. That means not getting bombarded with adverts for crap you'd never buy. It does mean you have to watch a different channel in the run up to Christmas, simply because it's not Christmas until you've seen the Coca-Cola Christmas ads. And of course, there's some brilliant programmes on other channels, at least on the terrestrial ones, which you don't have to pay for because they're funded by that annoying advertising. But then we look at Sky, which is probably the BBC's biggest threat.

British Sky Broadcasting, BSkyB or just plain old Sky. A pay-TV broadcaster. So, you get adverts. And they've got most of the Premier League football games. For the privilege of this and having a whole bunch of channels you'll probably never watch, you can be paying upwards of  £19 a month. So that's £228 a year. Compare this to the current BBC licence fee: £145.50 a year. So yes, you get more channels with a provider like Sky, but what about the quality of the programming? Have a think, there's BBC1, 2, 3 and 4, CBBC and CBeebies for the kids, BBC News, Parliament, Alba, S4C, all those radio stations - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Live, 6 Music and numerous other ones that I can't remember right now. All of that programming for about 2/3 the price of a minimum Sky package. And you know what - you still have to pay the licence fee if you have Sky.

OK, so that's turned into a major babble. I love the BBC. I do not want to see it get hurt. Mm, I think that'll do before I go off on an even bigger rant. If you have a reason to love and be proud of the BBC, check out We're Proud Of The BBC and leave them your reasons.

Randomness: Music Snobbery

Music snobs. How on earth do you define a music snob? I tend to call myself a music snob because I make judgements on other people's tastes in music. On the other hand, I am all for everyone having their own taste in music and I maintain that there is no such thing as good or bad taste in music, just individual perceptions. However, when I see people who only listen to chart music or music which I consider to require very little skill or effort, I can't help but pass judgement on it. And then afterwards, even though I stand by my position on their music, I feel I've been a little harsh.

However, there are people like me, who just make vague "you seriously listen to that?" comments, and then there are people who totally rip into others who, they feel, listen to crap music. I didn't come across any for years and then I joined last.fm. I was actually horrified to see some of the comments left on the artists' pages regarding their apparently crap music. What really got me though, was that the people doing the snobbing generally had fairly limited tastes themselves. Not that limited tastes are a bad thing, but maybe you should actually consider listening to music before you write it off as crap. I will personally listen to anything once. I might then drown my ears in something loud and screamy to get rid of the feeling, but at least I try. I mean, I even gave Jedward's cover of Blink 182's "All The Small Things" a chance. I was traumatised, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt. You will see my trauma if you have a listen: TRAUMA AWAITS

I drowned my ears in Taiwanese Black Metal after that (thank you, Chthonic) because it was loud and shouty and I didn't understand a word of it. This brings me on to my next point. The worst music snobs seem to be from very specific genres. You get music snobs from all genres who will even have a go at bands who apparently give that genre a bad name. Personally, I find the metallers are the worst. And yet at the same time, I've come across metalheads who will listen to anything. But, yes, for a small number metalheads - if it's not really technical metal, it's not good music. Or not even music, according to a very small number I've come across. Following the snobby metalheads, there are the indies. Oh how they make me laugh with their more-indie-than-thou attitudes. Again, it's only a small number, but it ticks me off. There's not liking music and letting people know that you don't like it and then there's being a total arsehole about it. If you don't like it, there's no need to have a go at those people that do.

Hmmm... I think we'll end that there, before I go off on an uber-long rant.