Is the government really beating the bullies?

This for me is a quite disturbing advert. I can’t help but think that it is marginally pointless as well.

If you hadn’t guessed already, it is a government run advertising scheme to try and stamp out violence in teenage relationships. Yet I can already see a few major issues with the whole campaign.

For starters, realistically, if you were being subjected to such violence would this initiative really make even the most remote difference to your situation? If you hadn’t already flagged up that there were issues in your relationship or hadn’t reported them, is this advert really going to open your eyes to what is happening?

Now this isn’t for me to say not too try, but I think that adverts such as this only really work on more finely pinpointed topics. For example, I recently watched one of the adverts on checking your fire alarm. Not the sort of thing that would have normally been at the forefront of my thinking, but after seeing a short advert I thought ‘why not?’ and checked mine. Equally, there was a major crack down on Chlamydia recently. Not something aimed at all of the public, but through a combination of adverts and NHS awareness I know of people who went and got tested (who normally wouldn’t have) and as a result they got themselves sorted.

Yet I can’t see this falling into the same category. Much like the ‘look both ways’ campaign a few years back, I feel that the government are just pointing out the obvious by saying that victims of domestic violence should report it. Sure they’ll argue that their highlighting the issue and showing that there is a problem, but in my mind such an advert will prove to be trivial in the long run.

If they had been tougher on the subject and say introduced harsher laws onto the area, then the campaign may have had a greater success rate as it would show that there is a seriousness required when clamping down on the subject. However, they are merely shedding light and ‘raising awareness’. It’s not like people are all of a sudden going to come out in their masses, screaming to the high heavens about their ordeal and then applying for Jeremy Kyle to acquire repentance and rehabilitation.

All of these points are not where my main grievance lies however. My primary issue with these adverts is the double standards shown by the TV standards agency in allowing this advert to be broadcast at all hours. It first came to my attention when watching prime time family TV on Saturday night, only to find this advert in the break. Sure it’s aimed at teens, so they have to account for that, but there is no way that such domestic violence would normally be broadcast pre-watershed. After all young kids may be watching. Infact most likely will be watching.

Might sound like very little worry in the grand scheme of things, but let me bring to your attention something called Bandura’s bobo doll experiment (simply illustrated here);

(For anyone who skipped the watching of the above video, Bandura’s theory was essentially that children do as they see)

Now sceptics of what I’ve said would argue that the advert is condemning the behaviour on show, so surely it would be teaching a good lesson to the children watching? But really, aside from the 2 seconds of illustrative condemning words at the end of the advert it just looks like a couple of mid-teens participating in violent and malevolent behaviour.

Overall I feel that in the long run this campaign could prove to more harm than good. I can see that the government is trying to tackle as many social ‘problems’ as it can, but I feel it would be better off targeting more pressing issues with greater strength and authority and then focussing on changing the minor aspects of society. For me, this campaign is unlikely to change the dynamic of teenage relationships (which for the record I don’t believe are anywhere near violent enough to justify such a campaign in the first place) and as such is a waste of time and much needed resources.

Tiger for Hollywood?

Team Tiger, take a bow.

This was a master-class in false and pre-prepared apologies.

An intimate room full of close friends, a composed but solemn Tiger Woods and a script, sorry and apology, that covered everything from the affair, to golf, to sponsors, to friends – this 12minute show had it all. Infact, such was its depth that I was left wondering if it wasn’t the 2009 entry to a future autobiography entitled ‘Tiger – Woodn’t you like to know where it went wrong?’

Yet despite putting all the ingredients together, this showing lacked any real substance. In broadcasting this showing to the masses, I really do think team Tiger underestimated the fact that the public may have more than a combined 4 brain cells between them, such was the blasé nature of what was on show.

Upon the apologies completion, I couldn’t help but think that it was reminiscent of a poorly written murder mystery. You know, the kind where you watch for 10 weeks despite knowing who the killer was after the first 30 seconds. Furthermore, in Tigers continuous apologies I felt that he had even begun to adopt traits from the George Bush US presidency reign. It wouldn’t surprise me if the next time we see him in public, the first words uttered are ‘To all my fellow Americans...’

All in all the apology was an encapsulation of exactly what Tigers sponsors wanted the world to hear. I personally feel that had Tiger written it himself it may have lacked the articulacy on show, but would have adopted a far more authentic feel. That said, who am I to say who wrote it. After all, Tiger fooled the world for years on end with his family orientated, clean cut public image. So in theory, after a few months out of the public eye in ‘therapy’ (or possibly the Michigan school of acting) I don’t think anyone can be 100% sure as to whether any of Tigers future actions are his own or not...

Next up for Tiger? Well after conquering the hearts of the world with these apologies, I hear he fancies some contemporary dance to express his sorrow?

Brits 2010

After unexpectedly getting the chance to see the Brits (as I was travelling to Loftus Road to watch Watford vs QPR – only to have it called off upon arriving at the stadium), I was greeted with both treats and trials.

If we excuse the international categories that were as good as foregone conclusions and had succumbed to gaga mania

International female – Lady (irony in that itself) Gaga

International male – Jay Z

International album – Lady Gaga ‘The Fame’

International breakthrough artist – Lady Gaga

Then we actually had a very exciting set of awards on offer throughout the show. Combined with the fact that it was the 30th anniversary of the award ceremony, it is little surprise that the show was littered with an assortment of treats.

However, let me begin on a negative. Peter Kay. One of the UK’s best loved comedians and taking on the solo effort of hosting the show, I can’t help but feel Kay buckled under the pressure. At times I felt he was like a hedgehog caught in the headlights, and delivered a series of gags with little of the enthusiasm that normally delights his audiences. That said, anything was an improvement on the Horne, Cordon and Kylie fiasco of the year before, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too harsh.

On to a more positive note – the voters appear to have gotten the majority of the awards pretty spot on. Kasabian winning the best British band award is a long overdue representation of just how successful the band are (and set to be even bigger if rumours of some major festival headlining in the summer are to be believed). Ellie Goulding picking up the critics’ choice is a fair shout. Whilst Marina and the Diamonds have made a slightly bigger impact on the chart with the first song on her new album, I feel Goulding is still a deserved winner.

With regards to the two awards surrounding the ’30 years of Brits’ I also feel there were rightful winners. Oasis picking up best album is an award that few will disagree with (despite the bands recent....drama), and the Spice Girls winning best performance was a rightful award in what was a very very tough category. With the band being a truly authentic and hugely successful British phenomenon, the performance was a reflection of what the band encompassed.

My own personal distain came with the presentation of Best British female and Single of the Year. Lily Allen may have been a consistent performer, but has she really had a better year than Florence, Leona or even Pixie Lott? Questionable. Elsewhere the Best Single going to ‘Beat Again’ by JLS shows the weakness of the musical year that 2009 bought with regards to the singles chart. That said, JLS were in my view deserved recipients of the Best British Newcomer as they look like the first boy band to provide a genuinely credible attempt at reforming the traditional ‘N Sync’ style boy band of the 90’s – something that the music market is missing considerably.

My favourite aspect of this year’s Brits however was the collaboration of Dizzee Rascal and Florence and the Machine. Whoever thought this one up deserves a medal. The mix of Dirty Cash and You’ve got the love was one for the Brit vault and will be remembered for years to come. As a result Dizzee picked up the Best British Male (something I was unsure that would happen, but I believe is completely deserved) and even more impressively Florence picked up the Best British Album for ‘Lungs LP’. Both are refreshingly unbiased, as they are both unique artists who in previous years may have been overlooked.

Finally, Robbie Williams winning the Outstanding Contribution to Music. Anyone with any doubts that he deserved it clearly didn’t see his performance to close the show. Sharp, charming, entertaining – a performance that encompassed all of Robbie’s best traits in a selection of old and new songs that were worked seamlessly into each other. In my view, it was a master class in anybody who wants to leave a lasting legacy; it’s not all about the music, it’s about the performance just as much.

Side note - Anyone else notice the blandness in Cheryl Coles voice, yet still feel compelled to keep watching? What a woman...

To love it, or not too love it. That is the question..

Valentine’s Day.

One of the most harshly contested days of the year. Come 14th February every year you have singletons complaining, men worrying and (well in my opinion anyway) women just sitting back ready to enjoy it. Widely believed to be the marketing world’s greatest creation (closely rivalled by Halloween), Valentines is unavoidable. With shops bombarding us with cards and every media publication under the sun advertising the best gift for your loved one, it is hard not to get roped in.

Believed to hold the central premise of showing your love and affection to your partner, there is little escape for those people in a relationship. Neglect and you will be on the receiving end of a world of pain from your partner, take it too seriously and look like a love-struck psycho.

But really, in the grand scheme of things, what is the point?

Why should on this one day of the year, couples declare extra, unreserved love for each other?

I for one am pretty unsure and believe we would all be better off without it.

That said, this blog is particularly short because I’m off to spend the rest of the day with my girlfriend, so I can’t express too great a distain for the day!

Make a date with saturday night TV

Saturday night TV has been for some time a matter of great contention. Home to some of the finest shows that broadcasting has to offer, it is the pinnacle of the weeks TV. Which is why it is with a great degree of uncertainty that I looked at the listing and seeing new TV dating show ‘Take me out’. A show where the premise is simple – 30 women, 1 man, and the man then gives it his all to win a date... Sounds familiar to a certain older prime time TV dating show, once home to the great Cilla Black doesn’t it? And so, it is with understandable scepticism but an innate intrigue that I first set my eyes on the show 5/6 weeks ago.

Now let me tell you, it is a show that is repetitive, cheap and cringing – but strangely brilliant.

Admittedly, I wouldn’t recommend watching when looking for some real brain taxing stuff, but as far as light hearted and simple entertainment goes, this show has struck a gold mine. A family friendly dating show, that is both funny and has you screaming at the TV. From the moment where the man comes down the lift, to the crunch time when he has to pick his date, you find yourself interacting unintentionally with the show. A chorus of ‘he’s gunna pick her’ or ‘deary me, what a tragic bloke’ often echo around my houses living room mid-show.

Yet the true brilliance of the show lies solely in the hands of comedian/host Paddy McGuinness. A man most notably famed for his role in Phoenix Nights and Max and Paddys Road To Nowhere – his comic assertion on Take Me Out is one not to be missed. Siding predominantly with the men, and inadvertently mocking both the contestant and the women at any given opportunity, Paddy dictates the direction of the show and moves it along with effortless yet catchy phrases such as ‘no likey, no lighty’ that have become ever present in the show.

The other masterstroke is the lack of attention paid on the dates themselves. Despite an equal proportion of new contestants and dates shown, the previous week’s dates are swept along with swift efficiency. Combined with the show sending the dates to local restaurant ‘Fernando’s’ as opposed to the lavish holidays often associated with Blind date a few years back, show that the producers aren’t trying to replicate the structure of the show. It instead shows an indication that they know it’s low-brow, cheap and will have shed loads of critics – but by going through with it regardless the show’s producers are essentially sticking two fingers up at anyone who believes every show has to be of a high end intellectual nature.

So, with great surprise, this is me giving my upmost seal of approval to Take Me Out. A show full of catch phrases, dim-witted contestants and budget dates – quite literally the epitome of the phrase ‘guilty pleasure’.

Whilst some will clearly be sceptics to the show and what I’ve said, my retort is simple. In the words of Paddy McGuinness himself

If you don’t enjoy the show then

“No Likey, No Lighty”

Sorry state of affairs...

Upon picking up today’s papers, I was again greeted by the familiar sight of new scandal revolving around celebrity love wrongdoing. Unsurprisingly, the latest to have committed wrongdoing is love-rat veteran Ashley Cole. His latest crime? Sending naked pictures of himself to a model – claims Ashley has swiftly moved to discredit....well....ish.

On the back of his affair with a local hairdresser last year, Ashley claims the latest set of photos were taken whilst goofing around at an England training camp, not deleted and ‘somehow’ found their way to the model. A solid defence I’m sure you’ll agree.

However these latest sets of allegations are only a drop in the ocean compared to what the past few months has presented us with. Tiger Woods, John Terry, Vernon Kay and even rumours of Brad Pitt have all circulated with great regularity. Seemingly these celebrity men are more intent on the conquests of young beautiful women as opposed to their highly successful careers. Admittedly, I would argue that a large number of the facts strewn across the pages of the daily papers are either severely twisted or distorted to a sizeable extent. But in my eyes, such accusations must have a layer or truth. Either that or the papers will be coughing up hefty sums of money for publishing fabricated stories.

It is my belief that these men partake in such wayward actions not solely because of their high profiles though. The current UK divorce rate is 1 in 2 marriages. This suggests that there is already a wealth of mischievous behaviour taking place among both men and women. As a result, it must be equally considered then that such behaviour would be equally common place among those living the high life?

Admittedly, they are in the public eye and role models for many people all around the world. And as a result, I would hope that they would be smart enough to not participate in such activities - conducting themselves as appropriate and amicable role models. But the truth unfortunately is that because of their high profiles, these people are targeted more than any others. Whilst some of the population inadvertently find themselves having affairs, these elite set of people are the targets of unparalleled numbers of people throwing themselves at them. Whether it be through affection for the person themselves, or just to make a quick few quid, it is irrelevant. These celebrity icons are only people just the same as the rest of us, and as a result a number (and it is only a very small minority) are unable to keep their emotions under wraps and their trousers around their waists – thus leading to the scandals we read about on a daily basis.

The media being the keen and unrelenting vulture that it is, has detected these indignant deeds and in doing so has struck a gold mine for their publications. By acquiring enough information to make such affairs public, they are able to shame and disgrace the perpetrators. This then allows them to clock up page after page of dubious claims, knowing that the readers will adopt what they say as truth. And now, having drummed up such an interest in the personal conquests of these men, it can be considered highly likely that we will not be seeing the end of such stories and speculation anytime soon.

For me, it is a sad sight to see these people plastered all over the front pages each and every day. Not just because I’d like to read about some actual news. But because these individuals are meant to be the most creatively / athletically talented people our world has to offer. I feel that they should know their responsibilities as such and be able to adhere to them. After all, it all comes with the job. But instead, I can see no end ever in sight. There will always be those celebrities who will do the naughty naughty with an attractive young model or the sorts. And equally there will always be an unhealthy thirst for such stories. Such is the unfortunate state of our celebrity obsessed society.

The one where Friends changed homes..

I was and am thoroughly dejected at the news that Channel 4 and E4 are to stop airing Friends from 2011. After 15 years, 236 episodes, Friends will finally cease to be a fixture in the E4 constant repeats calendar. The show has become a mainstay in the daily schedule of many, with the show itself still proving to be relevant, entertaining and as endearing as it ever was. C4 however, disagree. They believe the show which still pulls in 400,000 viewers per episode will be better spent on the scrap heap. Their reasoning behind ridding the show is that they feel the airtime can be better spent with new UK and USA based sitcoms and dramas.

At 11am / 5 or 6pm?

Really?

I can’t see myself sitting down with either a throbbing hangover or after a hard day of work wanting to watch a nice light hearted re-run of Boston Legal or the sorts.

I’m afraid that I feel C4 have taken two steps backward with this move and the uproar that has surrounded the decision is tribute to this. I concur as much as anyone that new shows should be welcomed and given an equal chance, but when one of the best loved shows of the past 20 years is still pulling in such viewing figures it makes little sense to ditch it. The only logic I can see in the move is that C4 have some sure fire shows in the pipeline that they are confident that will draw in higher ratings; if this is the case then touché to the masterminds at the channel – but do they really think they can launch a new hit TV show at the times Friends occupies in the listings? Debatable.

However, Fear not Friends fans. Comedy Central has had the good sense to seize the opportunity and have acquired the rights to the show for the next four years. So Friends will be joining the Scrubs, Two and a half men and South Park line up for years to come.

Yet this is where my problem lies.

Friends isn’t a show that should be surrounded by such contemporary comedies. Friends was the last great sitcom and acted as a reminder of the times when Friday night TV was worth watching. In a line up that included the likes of Will and Grace and Frasier, it was the star attraction in a pool of high quality (pre-reality TV) comedies and should be treated as comedy royalty. The love between Ross and Rachel, the friendship of Joey and Chandler, Phoebe’s quirkiness or Monica’s obsessive nature – all were effortless and even now offer a great insight into the social dynamics of people’s lives. It provided the kind of easy but enjoyable viewing that few shows are able to do, and did so without feeling dated. But now, seemingly on its last legs, Friends is being made to abandon its roots and seek pastures new...

And so come 2011, when C4 show the final scenes of the show and the group decides to go grab one last coffee. Only for Chandler to utter those near immortal words ‘Sure! Where?’ Will we then see Friends change homes from C4 to Comedy Central. But much like Chandlers irony about finding a new coffee shop, it is with great scepticism that I feel Friends is changing channels. Because in my eyes, C4 is to Friends, what Central Perk coffee shop was to the cast – a secure and welcoming residence, where the roots of the show’s success stem from. And now as a result of the move, it is resigned to live out its final days on a satellite TV channel, as opposed to its terrestrial roots.

It really is the end of an era.

Cheryl - Because your worth it...

If this isn’t a lesson in how to not take yourself seriously, I genuinely don’t know what is. Above is the YouTube video of estate agent Gareth Mason, with his spoof (and in my view better) version of Cheryl Coles ‘Fight for this love’.

Of course it is only one man’s light hearted take on her song. But it does hold a degree of irony given that alot of people think Cheryl copped out by releasing a song with the vocal difficulty of your average nursery rhyme. Also I’m worried for her; first Ashley does the naughty with that hairdresser, rumours of a certain sausage roll being more popular than her on Facebook and now this. It’ll be interesting to see how she reacts...

It’s ok though. Should Cheryl now fall on the slippery slope of decline, she can rest assured; she’s welcome at the Stevenson residence any day.

Cleveland Strikes Gold..

At first glance, you’d be forgiven for being more than dubious about a show that is a spin off from a mid-importance Family Guy character. Equally, you’d be more than entitled for a double glance at the TV listings after seeing the entire cast of Family Guy in the opening few minutes of the pilot episode. However, as I watched on and found out, The Cleveland Show is actually one of the most surprisingly honest and funny TV animations I have seen in recent times.

The show centres on Cleveland Brown. Cleveland is a man down on his luck after losing his divorce settlement and only gaining custody of his son Cleveland Junior; but maintains the happy go lucky nature that saw him as one of the unsung heroes of Family Guy (a factor they immediately make fun of in the opening scenes, with both Peter and Stewie poking fun at Cleveland being something of a peripheral character). The pilot show excellently sets the scene however, within 30 minutes Cleveland has set his sights on moving to California, but ends up in his home town of Stoolbend, Virginia. Whilst in Stoolbend he immediately gains the attentions of his childhood sweetheart Donna Tubbs. Donna is the local schools secretary and has two children of her own – unruly Roberta Tubbs and a five year old afro bearing son Rallo Tubbs. To save on the minor details, (and as I’m sure many would gather within minutes of watching the show), they end up married by the end of the first show, leaving a household with two parents and three children – an elder teenager, a young chubby teen and a smart-aleck 5 year old. Spot any similarities there?

Admittedly you may meet that revelation with some scepticism granted that it is essentially Family Guy the second. You’d be even harder pressed after hearing that everything from the format, to Cleveland being part of a group of 4 best friends drinking at the local pub to there being a anthropomorphic (talking) bear, are all straight out of the ‘Family Guy Guide To Comedy’. However, this is first unsurprising granted the entire same writing and creation crew are behind the show. And secondly, and more importantly, the show is an absolute gem of low brow, easy viewing, and stereotype bearing comedy brilliance.

Cleveland has been exposed as a character of great hilarity, whilst Cleveland Junior offers an innocence and simplicity that is hard not to endear. Donna and Roberta both have their parts to play, and are integral to constructing the family format of the show. The star of the show (much with Family Guys Stewie) is five year old Rollo Tubbs. If you’re able to get past his already comic appearance, it soon becomes apparent that there is a wealth of untouched humour that will be dished out by the shed load throughout the show. Add Cleveland’s new buddies Holt, redneck Lester and Tim the bear, and you have yourself a cast that can provide a platform for areas of social comedy that have remained previously untouched.

I as much as anyone was expecting a drab and dull set of repetitive episodes, and in a sense they are repetitive as they recreate Family Guy – however, creator Seth MacFarlane appears to have learnt on the early mistakes of Family Guy. The Cleveland Show offers a slightly more structured approach than Family Guy, with not every other second being an off the wall and unrelated gag. Sure critics will slate the show for its relations to Family Guy, but give the show a season or two and if it carries on in its current vein of form it will have lost all associations to the show and be able to fully stand on its own two feet.

All in all the show offers a well polished and entertaining animated treat. Its comedy is derived from simple humour and cultural stereotypes a plenty. But this is something that should be welcomed due to its obvious light heartedness, rather than frowned upon. I for one will certainly be a keen viewer...

(The Cleveland Show – E4 10.30pm every Monday. Every episode also available online at www.channel4.com/programmes/the-cleveland-show/4od )

Why the young want to be mum..

Teenage pregnancy. A term that cannot be escaped from. Bantered around on a daily basis by the wealth of media available to us, as well as anyone who feels they own a moral compass. However, it is also a term that paints a picture of excessively over the top connotations. It is a term that stems ideas of drunken, drug fuelled teenage sex binges – the likes of which only seen on an X rated channel or an episode of E4s skins. Condemned by anyone outside their teenage years and refuted by anyone it is applied to; it is undoubtedly a subject of much contention.

It is first important to pinpoint that the phrase ‘teenage pregnancy’ only first came to prominence in the past decade. Whilst it was of course used prior to this, it was only after intensified media coverage toward youth culture and a wish to look at their deplorable behaviour that it was used to figurehead stories on the subject of youths becoming pregnant (the term youth generally refering to under-16s). As a result of this, it soon gained a negative tag toward it. I believe that by doing so, the media (and eventually the public) used the term as a means of condemning the behaviour of the young. After all, you don’t hear of people writing stories on ‘the unacceptable actions of people in their mid-twenties getting knocked up’.

It is with that, that teenagers became under great scrutiny. Despite their best efforts to show that they were actually upstanding citizens, all areas of their lives were subsequently pushed into the public spotlight by a population of people who had been teenagers themselves. A population of people who were fully aware of the pressures of being young. A population who will undoubtedly remember the awkwardness that comes with the discussion of any means of sex outside their own generational bracket (beautifully illustrated by Jay in The Inbetweeners when speaking to his dad in the unforgettable ‘Caravan Club’ episode). Yet still, the media and elderly persisted in their quest to eradicate such unscrupulous teenage behaviour. Attaching negative attitudes to all areas of their social lives, feeling they knew best, and seeing this as the best means of pressuring teens into stopping. This, I believe, is where they went wrong.

By casting a keen eye onto the behaviour of the young, the media has helped relax social attitudes toward speaking about previously awkward topics such as sex. Had it been 20 years ago, to hear of a family openly talking about sex would have been an unheard of concept. This is where the change has taken place. With it now being something that is openly discussed by all, it has attained a new set of values toward it. Those people who first pressed it into the public eye will say that it has helped encourage families to educate the young about their sexual escapades. But surely this can’t be the case, seeing as teenage pregnancy is at an all time high in the UK?

I would argue that for all the talk of underage being down to ill-fated role models, liberal television and a decline in social values – the real foundation of the rise in underage sex and teenage pregnancy is that of the media. Teenagers now are the same as they have ever been. Inadvertently sexually curious – but where previously they were unaware of what was available to them, they are now not just aware, but feel that they are ‘educated’. As a result we have a wealth of statistics including 300 under 13 girls become pregnant every year and 23 under 15s are expecting every day.

Again society will blame youths themselves. But I can’t help but believe that if they fully articulated the facts they would see that they themselves are the real source of the problem?

I would clarify that I’m not saying all us under-20 something’s are angelic beings. Nor am I actually saying that all youths are unprepared parents – far from it infact. But I fear that such continued negative coverage of youths will result in a complete collapse in social values – which will only lead to worse and worse statistics being publicised.

It’s near unthinkable that even half the people that read this will agree with what I’ve had to say. But I hope that by having read this far you’ll see a degree of truth in what’s been written. Until this situation is rectified however, things will only get worse before they get better...

Ice Ice Baby...

The UK music singles chart has long been the most coveted spot for any recording artist. It has been seen as a sign that an act has made it to the top of the pile and cements the artists place in chart history. All of the top artists to have ever graced the recorded single have occupied a whole host of top 10 positions. However, it has long since been debated that its credibility as the peak of music has slightly declined, with many now opting to set their sights on the album chart.

At the time of writing, 1,120 singles have topped the UK music chart. They range from The Beatles to Bob the builder. Yet whilst many of these songs will long live on in our memory, it is the musicians themselves that seek the immortality of idolisation. Many a musician has occupied a one hit wonder and done well off the back of it, but really, can anybody say they truly love somebody like Chesney Hawkes after ‘I am the one and only’? – I think you’d be lying to yourself if you said yes.

On the other hand, there are minor exceptions to the rule. Artist Rick Astley has acquired unparalleled fame off his song ‘Never gonna give you up’. Yet even then, his adoration is nothing more than a fleeting love of the internet craze ‘rick rolling’

(if you don’t know what this is, I highly recommend following this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling).

It is on the back of this that I believe the shift in the approach by musicians has taken place. Whilst the singles chart is obviously still of great importance and offers a strong platform on which to offer your music; I believe it is the album chart where the strength now lies. If we were to look through the catalogue of those people who have topped the album chart as opposed to the single chart, we would see a list of illustrious musical royalty. Of course some slip through the net, but in my eyes, if they can do it in the album chart, then props to them.

Equally, I feel the album chart offers a far more even playing field. Whilst the singles chart is often dominated by merely the genres of music that are commercially viable, the album chart offers musicians from all walks of music the opportunity to reach the heady heights of British music. Diversity is actively encouraged in the album chart, with last week’s top three albums coming from Paolo Nutini, Alicia Keys and Florence and the Machine. Three massively different artists, but artists all the same that offer a wide range of entertaining and well developed tracks. If we were to instead look at the singles chart, the top three would read; Owl City – Fireflys, Glee Cast – Don’t stop believing and Iyaz – Replay. Are any of them likely to remain in your head in a month or twos time? I guess only you can answer that...

This is not an attempt on my part to slander those who have topped the singles chart, nor is it a call for such artists to stop. It is just in my eyes important to distinguish between the good and the great. And I feel it is those who release album after album that are truly remembered on the merit of their music. After all, singles don’t fill arenas, albums do.

Disagree? I’m sure some do.

If so, I draw your attention to today’s chart. X Factor twin-duo John and Edward (or Jedward to those in the know) are set to chart with ‘Under pressure; ice ice baby’. A song they performed and acquired much attention from in their time on the ITV show. It is however, to me, the perfect case study to illustrate my point. To begin with, it is Vanilla Ice’s biggest song in his fleeting career anyway. However, the ‘Jedward twist’ is meant to provide originality. Furthermore, some very dubious vocals that I can only gather are heavily edited to the same extent as the arctic monkeys (sorry, saw them once, very disappointed and still harbouring harsh feelings), leave me feeling that this song will be resigned to the scrap bin in a mere matter of weeks. That is however, after they chart in the top 10 today.

Now, can it really be said that Jedward deserve to occupy the same spots held by some of the greatest musicians of all time? Equally, can we now deem them ‘sound recording artists’? Because given the significance of the UK singles chart, that is exactly what they should be.

However, to agree with those two statements would be ludicrous. And as such, I feel that the album chart should hold a greater level of importance to the general public. After all, it is the singles chart that holds the majority of the limelight, yet it is the album chart that generates by far the greatest revenue.

I do compensate that this is all more of a want than a need though. And as such, I feel all I can do is wish Jedward the best of luck today and hope that they never re-appear.

After all, there’s only so much we can all take..

(Admittedly I have neglected to even delve into the financial side behind records or the threat of internet piracy – but I fear if I had you would have long since chosen to stop reading, so best I save that for a rainy day!)

The end of reality?

Perhaps a moderately overdramatic title, but I bet it made you look. I am infact referring to Reality TV. A genre of TV that has single handily overhauled prime time TV. Ten years ago, shows with the inclusion of ‘ordinary’ (and I use the term in a non-famous sense; not in the sense that they are all there in the head) people were very few and far between. However, a night without a reality TV show is now as rare as an episode of Top Gear where Clarkson doesn’t poke fun at Richard Hammond’s height.

There is good reason to this however. With a near endless catalogue of formats that reality TV can inhabit, there is much scope for producers to continually put different shows on the production line. Combined with the fact that they are predominantly low budget and that the shows makers can often use everyday people/fleeting celebrities as the contestants, it has been seen as a winning formula.

Shows such as The X Factor, Britain’s Got Talent, Who wants to be a millionaire and I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here have all been overwhelming successes. Successions of talented, lovable or amusing people have created TV gold. They have been the creators of iconic moments that are unlikely to be forgotten anytime soon. Names such as Leona Lewis or Susan Boyle conjure up thoughts of when they performed and grew before our eyes. As the viewing public we grew attached, each holding onto the ideal that in some tiny, small way, we were as integral to their successes as the judges or shows themselves! Equally I challenge anybody to mention I’m A Celebrity and their first thought not immediately taking them to the fish eye or Kangaroo testicle eating bush tucker trial.

Yet it is when you delve deeper into the ocean of washed up reality shows that you can see the unfortunate truth that it is a genre that has been exploited to the point of no return. Nationally commissioned shows such as Farmer Wants A Wife (2008), Boot Camp (2001) and The Littlest Groom (2004) have all graced our screens... and disappeared equally as swiftly as they arrived. I fear that whilst such shows won’t be remembered, they are all a contribution to the greater truth behind the Reality TV genre – that it is low brow, depleted and predominantly poor.

This is an admission that pains me to admit, as I more so than most am an avid follower of a large quantity of reality shows. But I feel it can’t be argued that the golden age of Reality TV has passed. Aside from Britain’s Got Talent, I can’t think of a single reality show that is held in the same esteem by a reality indulgent nation as it once was. Shows such as I’m a Celebrity and Big Brother are visual presentations of what I’m saying as truth. The past couple of series of I’m a Celebrity have been drab and average. Not since the Katie and Peter series has it been at its peak (a bold admission given my detestation of the pair).

An even starker showing is that of Big Brother. Once the flagship reality show, it was adored by millions and able to turn even the most irritating individual into an overnight superstar. It was even more than just a TV show; it was a culturally imprinted ideology. It was a reflection of all walks of life. As captivating as it was shocking, revelations within the house had direct effects on the social values of the real world. All from a little house in Elstree. Yet, much like reality genre itself, time soon caught up on Big Brother. Its ratings began to dwindle and it was announced last year that the forthcoming summer’s house will be the last - something that did not come as a shock to the viewing public given a sequence of sub-standard series.

However in a great show of almost defiance and in an attempt to show ‘yes we’re going, but we will be missed’; the series of Celebrity Big Brother just gone provided one last hoorah for in my opinion not just Big Brother, but also the Reality genre as a whole. It showed that when it gets it right, it is unbeatable TV. Vinnie Jones, Stephen Baldwin and Sisqo were just a few of the contestants that created the sceptical. Yet it was the eventual winner Alex Reid that encapsulated the central ideal of the past decade’s worth of Reality TV in his mere matter of weeks in the house. A thick, normal but harmless guy endeared himself to the public and in doing so placed himself in the Big Brother Hall of fame.

Unfortunately, it is clear to all that this was infact a one off last showing of a depleted genre. It is clear to all that the truly great reality shows of the past decade are reaching their sell by date. Sceptics will argue ‘well the X factor still does incredible’ – maybe so, but when Rage against the Machine beat the most watched show in the UK’s winner to the Christmas #1 spot you see the true scope of the X Factors current (and hollow) success.

Finally tonight’s prime time TV show... ‘So you think you can dance?’

Enjoyable? Maybe so.

Likely to live on in your memory come tomorrow morning? I very much doubt it...

So here’s to you reality TV, your stay on our screens has been a fun one, but in the words of a certain Davina McCall –

You have been evicted.

England captaincy one Bridge too far?

As England boss Fabio Capello prepares for emergency talks with England and Chelsea captain John Terry, I can gauge a nation on tenterhooks as to the outcome. Regardless of what is announced come Friday evening, there will be serious implications for the England football team, John Terry himself and perhaps equally as worrying, the extent to which sportsmen can push their luck and live their frivolous lifestyle.

With today’s meeting, we will learn alot about both John Terry’s moral integrity and the extent of Fabio Capello’s no tolerance regime. It has to be considered that Capello is a man who has been married to his childhood sweetheart for the past 40years. It also has to be considered that in his very first press conference, he said “no one player is untouchable”. Yet you have to wonder what speaks greater volumes; Capello’s morals, or his burning desire to win the World Cup.

As the story behind the affair has grown momentum it has almost ascertained the persona of a footballing trial. With Capello as the judge, Terry the offender, Bridge the victim and an entire nation making up the world’s largest hypothetical courtroom. However, with any old Tom, Dick or Harry ready to give his 2 cents worth (and rightly they should) – they should first ask themselves if they care more about Terry having it off with Wayne Bridge’s missus, or if they should let it be resigned to the privacy of closed doors and instead focus their energy’s supporting their nations build up to the most winnable World Cup since 66’.

Albeit, the incident itself is a terrible one, and any compassionate person will sympathise dearly with Wayne Bridge. But this is no ordinary affair, with no ordinary people and just on the brink of football’s elite competition. And so it is with that, that we can divide the two types of people who will read what’s been said;

1) Those people who look at the front of the newspaper first

2) Those people who head straight for the back pages

Those falling under the first category will undoubtedly take the moral high ground and say he should be stripped of his captaincy, wages and his man-hood. He should be taken in a group with himself, Tiger Woods and any other promiscuous male to have ever lived, and be condemned to a life of pain and suffering.

Yet it is not these people I now wish to appeal to.

The later of you, those who enjoy nothing more than the back pages headlines, with a strong cup of tea and a bit of Sky Sports News to start the day, will have a more subjective approach. We will understand Terry’s wrongdoings, but would concede not just him retaining the armband, but also our right leg, in order to finally win the world cup. We realise that the continued condemnation of his actions will only harm our World Cup hopes. We understand regardless of his footballing ability, that this is a man who is straight out of the Stuart Pearce factory of hard nuts. This is a man who would walk through the Terry Butcher blooded head-bandage every game if it meant victory. This is a man who’s first (and now only) priority is rectifying himself to all with his performances on the field.

Can you honestly say with 4months to go, that Stevie Gerrard, Wayne Rooney or Rio Ferdinand could step up to the plate in time to lead us to victory? I’d be very dubious...

As Ian Wright said earlier in the week, you can slate a person/teammate as much as you want off the field, but when you cross the white line, victory is the one and only objective. And if that means being led by someone you don’t like, or relying on him to do his job on the field, then that’s the way it has to be. And it is on this basis, that I hold the supreme hope (and belief) that today, for the first time, Mr.Capello will roll up his sleeves, bite his moral tongue and tell Terry that he is going to lead us to World Cup glory.

Because, you can bet your life, captain or otherwise, a 90th minute World Cup Final winning goal from John Terry come July 11th and all will be forgiven...

Side-note: Quote of the day by an absolute mile: Portsmouth Boss and ‘exotic massage’ enthusiast Avram Grant’s wife saying – “My man needs his massage. He works so hard each day that he deserves his massage from two women, not one.”

How JT wishes his wife was so understanding...

Oh Katie Price..

On this, blog number one, it almost seems fitting that I get to immediately express my distain for Glamour model Katie Price aka Jordan.

If we exclude her list of previous suitors (including Dwight Yorke, Dane Bowers and Gareth Gates to name a few) and her love of living a life that I can only describe as a concoction of Kerry Katona and Paris Hilton’s finest traits, I am still able to condemn her on a nearly unparalleled number of fronts. This is the woman who over the past decade has been on countless reality TV shows, went for the 2005 British Eurovision entry and even ran as a candidate in the 2001 Stretford and Urmston election under the slogan ‘For a bigger and betta future’ (‘betta’ not being a typo) with her main canditory promise being free boob jobs for all – a 1.8% of the vote followed...a record high for her popularity in my books.

Yet it is not even with this realm of profile enhancing moves that infuriate me the most about Katie. It is her reluctance to realise the immoral extent of her actions. Not only does she dive head first into anything that may lead to her face being on the front of the papers, but she does so with no account for the consequences. She is a selfish and wealth driven excuse for a woman, and whilst this may seem a harsh account of my views, I say we review the following three case studies before discrediting my thoughts.

Case study 1 (and a relatively brief one) – ‘The Wag period’.

Dwight Yorke. Man United footballer and at the peak of his playing career. A brief fling with Jordan, a football career on the drop and a child to boot... Dwight soon did a runner. (Unsurprisingly as Katie expressed her wish to broadcast the birth over the internet – a plea that was soon dropped at the threat of legal actions; or ‘personal wishes’ as Price later stated.)

Case study 2 – ‘I used to be a celebrity, Get me back on the TV’

Prime time ITV, a washed up hunky solo singer and a glamour model – it was almost meant to be? As the nation watched attentively, the two soon hooked up and later married. Their profiles soon grew and were even dubbed ‘The working persons Posh and Becks’. In true Pricey style, not one to miss out on a cash opportunity, the two soon had a well publicised ITV2 show that followed the lives of the pair as they tackled married life. All hunky dory you may think? Oh how wrong you’d be...

Two children and three years later, the most publicised and drawn out divorce of the decade took place. With the media drumming up a ‘Team Katie or Team Pete’ not a day went by without a new (and completely trivial) revelation popping up. Credit to Peter, whilst not one to shy away from an undignified money making opportunity himself, he stayed strong and was only complimentary about the ordeal – Katie was not. TV, Twitter or the papers, you could not help but see her slander Peter. Whilst she vigorously denied all allegations of wrongdoing, her track record and a number of extremely dubious photos do suggest she’s not quite the angel certain sections of the public might think.

A divorce soon followed, with Pete becoming well loved and Katie deservedly dropping back into Z-list obscurity.

Case study 3 – ‘It’s ok, we get to share each others clothes’

The main reason this blog is written. Alex Reid. Roxanne. Rocky. The Reidinator.

Katie’s latest conquest, a mixed martial arts, cross dressing, dim-wit from absolute obscurity, little over a month after the Andre divorce. Despite being almost crucified by the media for his cross dressing, Reid stayed by Katie’s side, even flying out to Australia to propose live on I’m a celebrity get me out of here (A move that was swiftly knocked on the head after Katie’s dismissal of marriage live on TV). Even still, Reid stuck by her side.

However, in an unexpected turn of events Alex Reid’s recent appearance on Celebrity Big Brother proved not only to be a move straight out of Pricey’s ‘How to grab some extra cash’ guidebook – but also turned out to be a masterstroke. Sent in to have a tear up with Katie’s ex Dane Bowers and British Icon Vinnie Jones, it seemed an almost dead cert he would be provoked into sticking the nail in his already near shut coffin. However, an adored unintelligence not seen since Jade Goody saw Reid win over all who watched him. Described by Vinnie Jones as ‘a loveable prat’ – Reid grabbed the nation’s heart and won arguably the best CBB in years.

Tragically, Reid has now gone and un-done all his hard work. A little under a week after leaving the CBB house, Price and Reid yesterday flew out to Las Vegas and got married. If newspaper reports are to be believe they then spent the hours after the ceremony in a $1000 per hour strip club. A club where Katie would feel equally at home on the stage, as she would do a paying customer.

It would seem Price saw the latest in the long line of opportunities to cash in on not only hers, but her boy-toys newly found fame. I can only wish Alex Reid the best of luck and hope that when Katie eventually moves on, he is able to actually have enough of a profile left to have a decent crack at whatever he wishes to do.


As for Mrs Price-Andre-Reid-Terry-Woods (I can only speculate on the last few, but would you bet against me?) – I/we can only watch on with mutual contempt in the hope that she (like many before her) eventually cocks it up enough that she sorts herself out.

Side-note: As The Sun points out today: ‘Alex Reid’s middle name is Aristides. The first Aristides was a Greek Statesman from the fifth century BC dubbed The Just. He despised Gold-Diggers and thought everyone should serve without wanting money or glory.’
Irony at its absolute best.