Emperor Fuckshit

Smiley Culture's bigger hit was incidentally. That Bizzle track is awesome. I should really check him out properly -- I know I'd probably like it, so... Alkala was O.K.; he has some good rhymes but his voice feels kind of generic to me. The last video (with Riz) was really good, though. Who does the second verse? I like the rap/electro blend. There seems to be a lot of that around at the moment from what I've heard -- grime & so on. It's not what I'm used to -- I generally prefer the East Coast style of understated, funky basslines. But I think I could get used to the more layered stuff. Right, I'm going to go and figure out the "Police on My Back" bassline now.

At least Craig David doesn't rap in that. Or at least not up to the point I stopped watching -- Kano's flow wasn't doing a lot for me. The Foreign Beggars thing was pretty good though. "Post 9-11 Blues" was kind of cringe in places but "if I haven't shaved / they won't sit with me on the bus" is awesome. My own contribution is from 1985. This is like the British-ified "Fuck the Police'; less crude, more fun. (I guess that makes "Post 9-11 Blues", like, the British version of something by Immortal Technique or something).

, Craig David,

To access the site you should have to phone a number and shout "BUZZ ME UP!" like it's a block of flats.

Oi! Dan! Wot you call this? Why have you got me spittin' on this? I don't usually spit on tracks like these But it's just the start and I'm startin' to like it also, wtf is with "garage" music? can i put my car in it and maybe an old dart board i don't use anymore?!?! e: wait, that's dumb. i don't own a car.

Something in the world needs to be called "Pseuds on Ludes."

Paris, Texas is, in all senses of the word, a beautiful film. By what I think is just coincidence, I've watched quite a few movies with a North-American-wilderness ambience over the past few days. Nevertheless, the rolling plains and primitive desolation of Wenders' opening shots stand out as original and affecting. The backdrops are also complemented nicely by the excellent slide guitar score. This film pretty much lives and dies on its pathos, and I challenge anyone not to be moved at least to the verge of tears by the dialogue between Travis and his estranged wife. Those scenes kind of present an interesting counter-point to the crudeness and manipulation involved with the "bleak" aspects of Requiem... I think. "Paris..." uses the tools at its immediate disposal to create a touching yet mysterious situation that is revealed slowly but foreshadowed by an ineluctable undercurrent of timorousness. But, despite that, there are plenty of bright spots. The scene in which Travis attempts to "become" a dad belongs in a Steve Martin 'All Cosy at Home in the Family House' affair. The speed and apparent lack of difficulty with which Hunter accepts the father who abandoned him at the age of three doesn't quite ring true. I'm kind of torn on that: I had no major interest in that aspect of the story, so I'm glad that it was dispensed with quickly. But the method of dispensation wasn't too convincing. I also don't quite believe in the motivations for Travis' sudden and complete retreat at the close. Are we meant to support him? Does he not have obligations? Where does he go, and how does he expect to live once there? Hmm. I guess there are plenty of beautiful things that don't stand up to deconstruction. But neither do logic and aesthetic magnificence share a Heisenberg type relationship. But I enjoyed this a lot anyway. I watched Welcome to the Dollhouse this morning. I'd kind of forgotten that I had come evening time. Which isn't good. Was there like a weird period when a bunch of American directors took it upon themselves to "lay bare" the "seamy underside" of middle-class suburbia? But also to do it in a way that was kind of mediocre? (cf. "American Beauty", "Ghost World", Solondz's own "Happiness"). This is alright -- all the bits are in the right places and it feels genuine and is not overly clichéd. But neither is it terribly inventive and none of the characters other than the lead feel real. And what's with the sudden Brandon-Weinerdog relationship thing? I probably don't have time to do justice to Audition right now. Good though, innit?

Thoughts about himself and his own work account for roughly 60% of all Kevin Smith's brain activity. Most of the rest is about, I dunno, Star Wars or twinkies or some shit.

I suppose I should say that I was watching RFAD nine years after its release, so I wasn't really measuring it against "the hype." Obviously I know that it's generally highly acclaimed (IMBD Top #100, Academy Award for Burstyn, etc.) I could certainly accept someone seeing it in 2000 or just after and being quite disappointed.

I feel the need to defend "Requiem for a Dream" somewhat. I've just written about it in the "What did You Watch Today?" thread, actually. I don't love it, but I think it's a good film (i.e. it gets a "1" on my 0-1 rating scale). Mostly, I don't buy the idea that it's relentlessly bleak. A lot of the presentation of the Leto-Connelly relationship at the outset is actually quite optimistic. Their love seems heartfelt and genuine and there's no suggestion that the two, despite their obvious personal weaknesses, are in any way insincere in their motives for being together. The "three seasons" construct seems quite explicitly to build the characters up (in the hedonistic "summer" vignette) before knocking them down. That seems like a fairly common device for a "tragic" (in the broad sense) story. The fly in that particular ointment is that no-one could possibly believe that Burstyn's situation is ever anything other than hopeless. But there you go. The hopeless endings are admittedly almost exploitative in their unrelentingly negative emotionality. But I'm not sure how that could be avoided (other than just being toned down, which would be fair enough). If you go in the other direction, then you face an equal problem with the potential for glorification and/or "all's well that ends well"-ism. It's kind of hard to separate the characters (and so give some of them "happy" endings whilst others are left in the midst of their dark nights of the soul) because their fates are so entwined. As for the "'Reefer Madness' for the emo generation" (I like that enough from the other thread to re-use it -- piss off...) elements: there are some of those. Aaronofsky clearly believes that he's the only person ever to have considered that things that -- get this -- we use every day and take for granted and accept the social use of are DRUGS!!!! Holy shit, guys!!!! But I think you can accept that as tolerable if you view that aspect as more a general comment upon the social pervasiveness of pleasure-culture onanism rather than as an abortive foray into commentary regarding drugs culture specifically. More generally, I think that the film just about avoids a tone of haughty moralism by giving every character a chance to be portrayed in a sympathetic light: Burstyn is a victim of circumstances beyond her control, in particular, and Leto and Connelly have the aforementioned "love's young dream stuff" going on. Wayans' character feels totally underdeveloped, squeezed-in and unsatisfyingly-resolved, though. It's almost a comment upon his superfluity that, whilst the other characters are left in an insane asylum / with only one arm / as a drugged-up whore, he just goes to jail for a bit. There are some pretty serious problems with the film, but I think that between its bursts of optimism (and the work that does for the ensuing pathos), the genuine creativity involved with Burstyn's character (not to mention the great performance which props it up) and the narrow aversion of a blandly censorious register, it does just about O.K.. As for things that have disappointed me: "Lost in Translation" is just abject, style-over-substance shit. I have no idea what anyone would see in "The Godfather" or "Goodfellas" -- both are just sleazy, exploitative criminals shooting each other. "Brazil" is gormless satire that does something Orwell did quite well much much much more worse. I really have no idea what people see in that film. "The Seventh Seal" is one of the weakest Bergman films I've ever seen: it has some striking visuals, but raises basically the same themes and issues as "Wild Strawberries" but in a much more drawn-out fashion. I don't think it's as visually appealing as, say, "Persona" in any case. "Amelie" is for those annoying middle-brow kooky bitches who go frollicking in no-frollicking zones. "Schindler's List" is a long stream of boredom that I couldn't even make it half-way through. I don't think anyone actually enjoys it. The only people who really, really like "A Clockwork Orange" are ugly pricks with a vicious macho side and unrealised dreams of nihilism. "Fight Club" is like reading a Nietschze synopsis -- but I think people are turning against that film now anyway. So there you go.

I've had a fuckload of time to watch various films recently. I started off by giving Cries and Whispers another bash -- didn't think much of it on the first go round. It's still far from my favourite Bergman, but I enjoyed the cinematography (all the crimson saturation and whatnot). Ingrid Thulin is really good as Karin; she's the most interesting character, I think. Although Liv Ullman's coquettishly manipulative butter-wouldn't-melt Maria is pretty awesome too. And Liv Ullman is always nice. The ending is incredibly touching. There's still some stuff that I don't "get": Ullman's husband calmly investigating his tubes with a sword in the drawing room mostly. And I've probably missed some of the significance of Karin shoving a piece of broken glass up her chuff, but it's still a fantastic visual -- particularly the mildly disapproving "oh Jesus, Karin, I can't take you anywhere anymore" expression with which her husband meets the sight of his wife reaching down below and smearing blood from her lips onto her lips. Yum. Yeah, it's pretty good. I re-watched Alfred Hitchcock Presents Alfred Hitchcock's 'Rope'... an Alfred Hitchcock hitchcock a few days ago. It's still lush and lovely and pleasingly naturalistic and good fun. But I'd never noticed how embarrasingly awful Jimmy Stewart's closing "actually, murdering people is bad, yeh?" speech is. "YOU'RE gunna DIEEEEEE! YOU'RE gunna DIEEEEEE!" The sudden and ill-explained transformation of the character really doesn't work well. And are we supposed to sympathise with him? He just comes off like a loony cretin who contrives a vaguely "bohemian" personality for himself via vague references to the overthrow of conventional morality, but is stunned back into orthodoxy at the first sign that someone might take him seriously. The nork. The relationship between the two murderers is really subtly-controlled and well-developed, though -- two very good performances there. Obviously on a "that bloke who's in 'Rope' and 'Strangers on a Train'" kick, I watched Strangers on a Train next. It's a good, suspensful thriller. The Bruno character is marvellous, and probably would've seemed moreso in 1950 when I guess the "kooky but dangerous villain" character had more cache. Fantastically surreal ending that seems nevertheless understated due to being a logical progression. There are just some slightly dead bits, I think. And I hate it when films have to balance exciting noire-y action with a predictable "love interest" angle between two straight-laced dullards (cf. "North by Northwest", if I remember correctly, and the rightly not-talked-about-much-anymore "Foreign Correspondent"). I would've gone through more Hitchcock, but my laptop is being a pig in re: "Rear Window". I remember really liking Silver Streak when I first saw it (about five years ago now I guess). This time... not so much. Wilder-Pryor is always too genial to actually dislike, but there aren't many laughs in this and the thriller elements are fairly stock. (See above about mechanical "love interest" elements also). Ned Beatty puts in a decent performance, so there's that. And the Wilder blacking-up bathroom scene is INCREDIBLE. This was the last (possibly only) time that a "look, it's a white guy doin' shit that you'd expect black person to do -- that is amusingly incongruous -- YOU LIKE IT!!!!!" scene has worked really well. So take notes all comedians who have done basically the same thing in the intervening thirty-three years. I have also incorporated "Yoo lookin' sharp... I'm FEELIN' sharp!" into my everyday lexis. The thing that's awesome about the scene is that there's no sense that the purpose is to say "hee hee... how SHOCKING" and get all worked up about the writer's (non-existent) taboo-breaking $ki11z. It's just a man being funny. If Gervais directed this, then the black attendant who walks in at the end would stand there with an "oooh, it's a bit awkwaaaaaard" face for about ten minutes. Guh. The film is not much good though, as mentioned. Finally got around to Requiem for a Dream. And hey it's pretty good. I had worries about it being slightly "'Reefer Madness' for the emo generation"-ish. And there are elements of that. I've read an interview with Aaronofsky in which he talks about how he's exploring "like, how even beer and cigarettes and that... IS DRUGS! Does this blow your mind?????????" That comes through in parts of the film in a not-at-all-subtle sort of way. And that isn't helped by the fact that all of the characters end up in the worst possible position. But I'm not sure what the alternatives are, really. You're left with a conclusion that seems almost exploitative in its unchecked negative emotionality. But at the other end of the scale lies unwarranted optimism and/or glorification. So it's a tough ho to row. Aaaand... the Connelly-Leto relationship is presented in a way that is quite refreshing: their love seems real, sincere and heartfelt (until it breaks under the strain of addiction, obviously). There's no sense that Leto is "using" Connelly for her wealth or that either of them is unfaithful. Their love is pretty :3 for two heroin addicts in places, and I like that. All the characters get opportunities to show themselves in a sympathetic light. There is some of "the satires" (about "the televisions") also. It's probably no worse than something wot Steve Punt might do. Yeh, I like this... EL TOPO IS WEEYUD FILM!!!! Still not entirely sure what to make of this. There's a relentlessness to its violent aspects which grates, and just a general pervasive feeling of untempered and ugly masculinity. It's retroactively been claimed as an "acid Western", which I guess means that it's... subverting... genre... tropes? I dunno, there's still a Leone-with-cripples feel to the first part, and I'm not exactly sure how "subversive" that is. There are some fantastic visuals, but that's kind of hard to avoid when you're filming in those sorts of locations. I probably need to read-up on this one more; but I experienced long periods of non-pluss-ment between the parts when I thought "oh, that's a pretty cool idea." It's probably so obvious to criticise Gerry for being dull and pointless that it's not a comment worth making. But those were my main thoughts. There are some nice shots of various scenery -- but all that means is that this would've been better as a compilation of stock footage related to the Utah flats. I didn't really like van Sant before seeing this, and it hasn't really done anything to change my mind. On the other hand, I really love what I've seen from Gaspar Noé, and I'd been saving Irréversible for a while. Slightly disappointed. The long rape scene didn't do much to hold my attention. The seemingly unending "talking about orgasms" scene was inexplicable. The "gritty bowels of France" thing made a nice backdrop for "I Stand Alone", but when you cleave away the fantastic narrator character that is present in the latter, you're basically just looking a transexual prostitute's flaccid knob. Roger Ebert makes a good argument that the inverse chronology forces the viewer immediately to question and oppose the act of vengeance which "begins" the story, and to regard the "closing" scenes of characterisation with a more speculative (non-pornographic) sense of pathos. I can buy that. The problem was that I knew the basic outline of the plot before going in. This is really a film that you need to see i) in a cinema (for rape appreciation) and ii) unawares. I failed both criteria, and I think that hurt my viewing. On a positive note, the weird sound mix in the opening half-hour is excellent, and would probably be even better in a cinema. Moving from the raping and beating of a man's wife to the mere kidnapping of his lover, I went for The Vanishing (1988 Dutch/French version thereof) next. This is a really nice film. It doesn't try to re-invent the wheel in the way that Irréversible does, but its experiments with non-linearity still add to what is at times a pretty conventional film. The relationship between the lovers is very nicely created, and makes the whole thing pretty emo. I find that a lot of films which ask us to care about the estrangement of a pair of lovers fail because the love seems tokenistic and arbitrary in the first place: we have no reason to believe that these people genuinely care about each other, and so no reason to feel sadness at their being parted. Neither "The Vanishing" nor "Irreversible" has that problem, which is good (those saucy Europeans, eh?). The villain here is just about enough of a creative departure to be interesting. It's a very picturesque film in places also. The ending gives a genuinely weird and affecting aftertaste to the story. It didn't quite live up to the hype that it has received in various places -- it was a lot more "normal" and sparse than I'd expected. It's still a good film; but it's of the "after dark on ITV" rather than the red triangle variety. I'd forgotten how good films are. They're really good. I have Wim Wenders' "Paris, Texas" up next (I wanted "The Goalkeeper's Fear of the Penalty Kick", but the internet was fresh out), and then "Audition" (wee-woo-wee-woo-spooky-noise). And "Welcome to the Dollhouse" is in progress. And I have an unwatched Haneke boxset when I'm ready. And I can always mix in some Hitchcock.

Bellamy! That was the other one from that era I was trying to think of. The trifecta of annoying little Celtic pricks. And I was a Blackburn fan during the S.A.S. years, so those two are fine by me... EDIT: Oh, man, I miss those days. Ian Pearce being considered one of England's premier young full backs, Henning Berg seeming vaguely exotic amongst his co-defenders, the S.A.S. banging in the goals at every League game (except for the one I went up to see), the incorrigible wing wonders of Jason Wilcox and Stuart Ripley. Graeme Fenton just sitting on the bench waiting to take his place amongst the greats once he developed... Ahhhh...

He is a prick, though. One of those little, scrappy annoying tossers. Remember when Blackburn had Dickov and Savage on the same team? Two real winners...

I'm not going to click that spoiler tab; but I'm guessing that it disproves my theory. I think what it actually is is that the Eduardo incident happened when I was at University, and I only read the odd 'Morning Star' up here. Whereas in my yoof, any leg-breakings, foot-removals and other assorted lovelies would be all over the next morning's Mirror as I tucked into my toast.

Hahaha. (Although, wouldn't this be better coming from someone who hasn't caved and done a list? There's blood on your hands, YI!!!!!!)

"a debut live album that isn't a live album" Hmmm... I WONDER what THIS could be????? I'll be following, Skummy -- I trust your musical opinions and, even if I'm not exactly likely to go tracking down all fifty albums as a result of the recommendations, your writing about music is always worth reading and will no doubt continue to uncover stuff I've never even head of, let alone heard.

Oh fucking hell, the David Busst injury. I wondered if anyone would mention that. Yucky. Gary Charles' 180 degree rotating foot was another unpleasant moment I remember from that period. Haven't seen the Eduardo leg-break... papers seem to be getting better at not sticking massive photos of these incidents on their back pages.

Yeah, Foo Fighters are boring as fuck. And RHCP have just been releasing the same two singles alternately forever: the 'funky'/'danceable' one and then the 'anthemic'/'ballad-y' one. Horrid.

I think people think 'Imagine' is genuinely profound. Or at least evidence that he was a 'serious' musician with 'convictions'. When actually, it's just shit.

If by New Order, you mean 'John Barnes rapping', I fully agree. Apart from the obvious stuff, I'm not too familiar with N.O. -- more due to disinterest than dislike. Someday, maybe.

I love, love, love political music -- I was going to start a thread about this but the O.P. ran to like almost 5,000 words and no-way anyone would've responded -- but I kind of agree with this. You're a political band -- your politics are in your music; music is the form you have chosen to express your politics. Getting in a public speaker or whatever almost makes it seem as though music is somehow a flawed vessel for politics to travel in -- not 'serious' enough, presumably, so someone has to read a speech out. Propaghandi apparently used to do a lot of shows that would consist mostly of... well... 'lectures', I suppose. I can't imagine what effect that would have other than annoying people who agree anyway but came for the music, and really pissing off and possibly changing the views (in a negative way) of people who are less bothered. A problem I have with building contrarian opinions is that a lot of bands that I dislike who are considered great (mostly Radiohead and Joy Division I'm thinking of here) are just so incredibly dull that I can't bring myself to investigate more of their stuff. So a fan will always be able to say, "ah, but you need to hear this bootleg recorded on a dictaphone fourteen years before they had a record deal to *really* appreciate what they're doing". And I can't argue with the general point that I don't know enough of their stuff. Which is annoying, because I'm sure it's probably shit.

'Isn't Anything' is better than 'Loveless'. Controversial only amongst people who are already reasonably big MBV fans, I suppose. And people do sometimes argue for the supremacy of 'Isn't Anything', but usually in a 'this is just my opinion heh ymmv not sure really' sort of way. I think you can prefer IA in a BOMBASTIC fashion. For a start, the things that are great about the album. 'Soft as Snow But Warm Inside' features one of the best vocal performances of Shields' life. The fragility and tenderness on the delivery of "can I touch you theeeeeeere?" pretty much sums up what's great about the song: it's a gorgeous portrayal of lovely, but slightly awkward, sex. And it also features a nice little bass run in the opening from Ms. Goodge, whose work basically consisted of providing root-notes buried so deep in the mix she might as well has been in a different studio by the time we got to 'Loveless'. There are two fantastic, dreamy set-pieces for Shields' gliding guitar work and Butcher's silkily ethereal vocals in 'No More Sorry' and 'Several Girls Galore', the latter of which is a pretty good lyrical effort from a band not known for their achievements in that area. 'You Never Should' is pretty much the last attempt by the band to show-off the rephrasing of post-punk/indie-pop which is evident in quite a bit of their earlier work ('You Made Me Realise', 'Drive it All Over Me', 'Thorn', 'Lovelee Sweet Darlene'). Another solid lyrical effort, nice backing vox from Butcher (just 'oohs' and 'aaahs', but any Bilinda is to be savoured). 'Nothing Much Left to Lose' follows similarly in this vein. 'Sueisfine' and '(When You Wake) You're Still in a Dream' are some of MBV's chunkier works: big proud riffs, with O'Ciosog battering his snares nicely to provide a foundation for the former. It should also be noted that O'Ciosog actually gets some decent play as a writer on I.A.: contributing to both of those tracks as well as 'Soft as Snow'. 'Loveless' has much more of a 'Wacky World of Kevin Shields' feel, with him providing seven of the ten 'proper' tracks (discounting the thirty-five seconds of Colm-penned noise that is 'Touched'). Anyway, the best-known song on 'Isn't Anything' is probably 'Feed Me With Your Kiss', and though it's probably not the best on the album artistically, it's very, very strong. The neat, wavy, YMMR-esque riff acts as a wall behind which Butcher and Shields provide the nearest thing to a duet they ever achieved: Shield's whiny drawl pushing against against the unusually subsumed yelping of Butcher, who nevertheless remains some kind of Jewish angel figure, and a woman I have intractable dreams about. So, add in stuff like 'Cupid Come' and that, and this is a really, really, terrific album: it kicked the 80s down a flight of stairs and drew in the 90s (this second 'achievement', it turned out later, was a mistake...) If you liked I.A. track 'All I Need', chances are you'll REALLY like 'Loveless' which decides that it needs ten minutes worth, in the form of 'Sometimes' and 'To Here Knows When'. The latter is perhaps the best realisation of MBV's taste for drawn-out drawls of noise under which a fellow or lady makes a sort of sighing noise, admittedly. The feelings that songs represent a do-over of missed opportunities is also present within the actual album itself, though. 'Soon' is undoubtedly one of MBV's best tracks all time periods considered, but was there any need to thrown in 'I Only Said', which is basically the same format but with a slightly less joyful sample and vocals that might be identical for all I can tell? 'Loomer's nice, but I can't imagine the sort of one-off man mental who would hear 'Several Girls Galore' and then be exposed to 'Loomer' and think "this is more like it!!!!!". I still love 'Loveless': 'Only Shallow' is up there with MBV's best; one of Butcher's best vocal performances and lyrics. The fact that it's also the song that makes maybe the most (certainly best) use of O'Ciosog's drum-work is probably not a coincidence. 'Loveless' reflects a more perfect realisation of what people probably think of as 'the My Bloody Valentine sound': loud, distorted guitars and overlayed samples with everything else buried (forget the vocals, since they don't change appreciably between albums). But luscious snare-hitting (and to a lesser extent, a little bit of bass) were also parts of the MBV sound that get forgotten about. Yeah, 'Come in Alone' is gorgeous and anthemic and features one of the best 'build-to-chorus'es in the band's history. 'When You Sleep' is the other great Shields vocal performance (ACHES with longing it does), and contains another great bunch of lyrics. (Hey, you know what, maybe Butcher and Shields were actually just good lyricists. Is that contrarian?) And 'Blown a Wish' is something genuinely different: a crazy attempt at some kind of MBV-pop that shows Mrs. Butcher's capability to do more than just hiding behind her hair and strumming a nice chord. Both great albums, and it pains me to say anything bad about 'Loveless' which is one of my favourite records. 'Isn't Anything' is a touch more versatile, though, retaining references to the post-punk and indie-pop which informed earlier MBV works. It's not that I 'can't appreciate' the bent-up miniamlism; like I've said, 'To Here Knows When' is one of my favourite songs on the second album (also another Butcher composition... hmm...). I just like their ability to suddenly corkscrew out of minimalism and do something that kicks asses, like 'Feed Me With Your Kiss' or, even better, 'You Made Me Realise'. Because, after all, pound for pound, the 'You Made Me Realise' E.P. is better than either and also happens to be the best E.P. of all time...

George Harrison had the best post-Beatles career of the four. John Lennon produced nought but po-faced, plodding dirge-rock; McCartney just got very, very boring (this part isn't actually controversial); Ringo is Ringo (this part is a tautology). Harrison wasn't incredible or anything like that, but he has an inconsistent body of work that's at least more fitfully entertaining than Lencartney. Stiff Little Fingers deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as The Clash and The Sex Pistols as regards late 70s British punk. By taking the basic musical framework laid down by the Clash and Pistols and using it as a conduit for Northern Irish experience, SLF offered something that (for one album at least) was genuinely exciting and unique, rather than merely imitative of the bands that had come before them. Also, by moving punk explicitly away from the vaguely/insincerely pro-violence imagery of the Clash ("sten-guns in Knightsbridge"; 'Guns of Brixton'), SLF avoided one of the cringeable traps that punk had fallen into to that point. If you buy the 'not legitimate' argument in relation to the Clash (or at least Strummer), then you can't fault SLF on that score: as Catholics in Belfast during the 70s, they had plenty to feel aggrieved about. I'd like to go one contrarian step further, actually, and say that they were better than the Clash, but I can't quite do it. The Clash were better for longer (four good albums to SLF's one or two), and were more diverse musically. Compare 'White Man in Hammersmith Palais', 'Revolution Rock' and the cover of 'Police and Thieves' to SLF's cover of 'Johnny'. I don't dislike the latter song, but it should be quite clear who the more musically able band were. Musical ability isn't everything, though. Not by a massive chalky shot. Nirvana were great, and still are. It's kind of de rigeur now to take shots at Nirvana for one of four reasons: i) they've 'aged badly' ii) un-melodic music, iii) Cobain was a twat / the lyrics and images are just generally deserving of eye-rolls; iiiv) their legacy is in large part due to Cobain's suicide and subsequent vigorous media fawning. i) is just meaningless. ii) is true in large part, but misses the point -- they're supposed to be a balls-out rock band trading in simple, catchy riffs. No matter how much they're overplayed these days, how can you not like the intro riffs of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' or 'Come as You Are'? Or, if popularity turns you off, the riff and bass-line to 'Even in His Youth' are tremendous. Songs like 'Something in the Way', 'Dumb' and 'Pennyroyal Tea' show their diversity: they could slow things down and meander too. Cobain was a very good vocalist, who could sound viciously raw when needed (see the end of 'Lounge Act') without ever coming across as forced or simply sounding unpleasant to thine ears. iii) has some truth to it: how can anyone hear "never met a wise man / if so it's a woman" or watch Cobain taking the piss out of his audience for clapping (those appreciative FUCKS!!!!!) without feeling a bit ill? But to cast Cobain as someone who was acting in bad-faith, or 'sold' depression/alienation/whatever seems to go way too far to me. His life both before and during Nirvana was genuinely troubled, and the end to his life should be evidence that he wasn't someone who intended on trading in youthful ire and then mellowing-out as needed later on. He had his traumas -- sure he basked in them a bit, and took up wankery positions in songs, but he was yong and pissed-off. Who'd like to cast the first stone? Most of his lyrics also have a subtle quality to them which means that, even if you can't relate to him personally, they can easily be re-interpreted to fit your life. I know that 'Pennyroyal Tea' is about heroin addiction, but, for me, "sit and drink pennyroyal tea / steal the life that's inside of me" speaks a lot about boredom, restlessness and inefficacy. And whilst I might not be attending the sort of parties and places that Kurt frequented (never seen anyone "load up on guns" as far as I can remember), "bring your friends / it's fun to lose and to pretend / she's over-bored / self-assured / oh no, I know a dirty word" is a perfectly nice story of dejected evenings spent in dismal company. iv). Yeah, the media has pimped the fuck out of Cobain since his death in a way that is in large part attributable to its nature and circumstances. But none of them give a sincere fuck about him: 'The Times' give away free Cobain CDs to suggest that they're down with the youth, but to prevent them from having to decide for themselves what's worthy of praise (for we all know Nirvana are 'classic' and 'iconic'). But the media talks shit about everything, and to react to them by declaring that Nirvana and Cobain were actually entirely without merit musically and in the public eye solely due to Cobain repainting his greenhouse with his grey matter is disingenuous. Coming later: 'Isn't Anything' is better than 'Loveless'; Grant Hart is better than Bob Mould.

Yeah, I can't help but wonder what the point of continuing with this is, unless it's just to formally wrap everything up and investigate the actual workings of the Tevez deal. At this point, it's obvious there will be no automatic promotion/relegation, and I would think even a points reduction is unlikely as the thing drags on. Shouldn't an investigation have taken place at the time of the transfer, though? I remember thinking that it'll sounded dodgy as fuck when the first story broke. Really, really shady and not like anything else I'd heard about up to that point. Considering the future impact the deal could have had (could still have, I suppose) for rulings on player ownership, it seems like something worth looking into. And wasn't Mascherano involved in basically the same deal? Hahaha: sure this must've happened already.

Right. Finally got the demo of this cunt last week and have played a few matches now. I took on Arsenal, due to my belief that demos work best if you play as big club for the maximum of freedom (you can actually buy players; play in both Europe and domestically etc etc). My system basically involves a flat back four, with Toure and Gallas as the centre backs, Clichy and Sanga as the full backs playing with some license to get forward. I signed Senna to play just in front of the defense; playing neat passes through the midfield channels and going back to help out the centre halves when required. Fabregas will then play in a central midfield role with freedom to do pretty much as he likes, acting as the main playmaker, receiving the ball from Senna and then looking to play more creative balls to the forwards. The front line consists of van Persie and Walcott on the wings, and Nasri/Rosicky behind Adebayor as the lone striker. I chose this system as I didn't want to play 4-4-2 (dull), but wanted to keep Fabregas in his preferred role as an MC (so a diamond was out of the question). There are some problems with this, however. Van Persie and Walcott on the wings may not be ideal: Walcott's crossing skills are weak, and against tough defenses he might find it hard to cut inside and develop moves. Van Persie doesn't have that problem so much, tough I can't help but feel that placing him out wide wastes his ability as a finisher. I also have the problem of massive fucking injuries. I mean, I'm talking about Fabregas, but he hasn't played a game yet. He, Rosicky, Eduardo and Diaby all start the game injured, and Toure (five months) and Van Persie (one month) have both picked up injuries in friendlies that will cause them to miss time. As far as the transfer market goes, I've signed Senna as mentioned (~£8million), Lautaro Acosta (£6million) and Francesco Bolzoni (six-month loan; no wage contribution). I still have a good amount of money (about £10million). I was considering getting a keeper, but all of those available are too expensive to justify the marginal upgrade they'd provide over Almunia. Now, with Toure out (and also, incidentally, wanting to leave), I'm faced with a decision about whether to buy a long-term replacement at centre half to guard against his departure and Gallas' decline, to purchase a short-term option for shorter money to provide cover for Toure over the first half of the season, or to just let Silvestre and Djourou muddle through as required. I'll do some scouting before I make a choice. On the way out (other than maybe Toure), Eboue is becoming expendable due to the presence of Sagna, and he has enough value that it might be worth dumping him in January and spending some of the money on a cheaper replacement, placing the rest of the profit into storage. As for actual results so far... well, it's a transitional period. We beat Barnet (away) 1-0 thanks to deflected Carlos Vela thunderbolt and then a team so minor I can't even remember their name (also away) thanks to an Adebayor goal after a fantastic Van Persie through ball and a close-range header from Nasri. More recently, we scrapped through a visit to Nor'n giants Linfield 3-2, coming from behind and getting goals from prospect Jay Emmanuel-Thomas, Clichy and Nasri. The game is nice. I didn't play the last version much, due to lack of time more than anything. The 3-D match is a nice addition, although at present it is very reminiscent of the 2-D engine + a vertical plane. Haven't really noticed the 'complete rewrite' of the transfer system, but maybe I need to make more deals before judging. More of the same, basically, with a few welcome bells and whistles here and there. I'm more inclined to buy this year due to not playing much last time, but I haven't made a definite decision.