Pink Floyd - 'P•U•L•S•E'

Pink Floyd are one of my favourite bands of all time. Some may say they are boring, or that their music may be pretentious and self-indulgent, but I vehemently argue that the Roger Waters-led line-up produced some of the best music to ever be recorded, packaged and released. 'Animals', 'Wish You Were Here' and 'The Dark Side of the Moon' are frequently mentioned on critics' 'best-of' lists, as is their conceptual rock opera 'The Wall'.

So imagine my disappointment after watching their performance video, 'P•U•L•S•E'.

The concert was taped at Earls Court in London on October 20th 1994, almost a decade after Waters' departure from the band, now led by David Gilmour. The band play the expected numbers such as 'Shine on You Crazy Diamond', 'Wish You Were Here', 'Another Brick in the Wall' during the two-and-a-half hour set, but it is not the music that is the problem here.


The band look as though they are going through the motions. They look akin to workers on a production line, simply turning knobs and pushing buttons until quittin' time. Of course, the musicianship is impressive and Gilmour's virtuosity is certainly showcased during the performance, though it's just not that interesting to watch. It's also painful to see the band play material from newer albums 'The Division Bell' and 'A Momentary Lapse of Reason' as the audience seem just as disinterested as the performers. The audience fail to get over this forty-five minute act even as the band jump into a full play-through of 'Dark Side', before closing the set with 'Comfortably Numb' and 'Run Like Hell'. There is clearly no connection established between the band and its fans.


Though the performance is lacklustre, the concert's visuals are unbelievable. Blinding lights and lasers shoot out from every inch of the stage, with spell-binding images and animations bursting from the backdrop. The stage itself completely steals the show here as I found myself baying for more wide distant shots, rather than close-ups on the band-members playing. The effects are compelling and extravagant, with the show climaxing with a huge mirror-covered disco ball descending above the audience and opening up like some kind of spaceship.


Though the visuals are amazing and, at times, awe-inspiring the band do little to compete for the audience's attention. It seems as though they could be replaced with a stereo system and half the crowd wouldn't even bat an eyelid, which does bring the performance down greatly. You could almost get the same effect playing the accompanying CD through Winamp with a maximised visualiser.


At least it might keep your interest for longer.

Midlife Crisis

I believe I am definitely having a midlife crisis.
Which is a shame seeing as though I'm only twenty-one.
Nevermind.

I still enjoy watching wrestling from 2001, playing GoldenEye and listening to the Pokémon theme song.

Seth MacFarlane to remake 'The Flintstones'

 

"Yabba dabba do, Seth MacFarlane will finally achieve his dream! The mastermind behind Family Guy will reboot the classic animated series The Flintstones for Fox.

Fox execs made the announcement at the network’s presentation today in New York. The show will go in production this fall for a 2013 launch. “One of the first things I ever drew was Fred Flintstone,” MacFarlane told advertisers. As for his re-imagination, he said the show has to keep up with the times but some things will remain familiar for old fans. “The characters will look the same but the only thing that will change is the stories,” he said. “What’s the [prehistoric] version of an iPod?”

Dan Palladino (Gilmore Girls) and Kara Vallow (Family Guy) will also serve as exec producers."

I'm sorry, what? Who's bright idea was it to green-light this? I understand that MacFarlane has produced one of the most talked-about television shows (never mind cartoons) of this generation and I realise that fans of his previous work are going to eat this up, but why? Is there that little creativity flowing that original series get cancelled for remakes? 

Recently, Fox have discontinued 'Human Target' and 'Lie to Me'. Two programmes which I had heard great things about. Not to mention the fact that 'The Sarah Connor Chronicles' failed to be renewed after two seasons despite the encouragement of fans. Yes, that was two years but the pain's still there, dammit!


I understand that shows get cancelled all the time. Some of my favourites from recent years, including 'Heroes' and 'Scrubs', have been axed with the former not even earning a finale episode, despite featuring a linear narrative. Fuck you, NBC. 'Scrubs' was later picked up by ABC, producing what is known as 'Scrubs: Med School'. This season was just terrible, leaving ABC to finally take the show out into the back garden and put a bullet between its eyes. Shit, 'Family Guy' was cancelled twice before it became such a hit.

Where was I? Oh, yes, 'The Flintstones'.


If MacFarlane and the writers stay true to the original sixties Hanna-Barbera format and just literally give the show a touch-up, I will be fine with that. However, I do not see that being the case. I can imagine it now: "Wilma, this is worse than the time I first saw a dinosaur!" *cut to flashback segway featuring Joan Rivers* (Get it? 'Cause she's like a million years old? Okay, it's not perfect but I literally pulled that out of my ass.)


With the quality of MacFarlane's works being as they are now, it's hard to get excited about this. 'Family Guy' hasn't been great since about 2008, though I did enjoy the 'Laugh It Up, Fuzzball' 'Star Wars' homage trilogy. Let's just hope that this is not another quick cash-grab by Fox/MacFarlane like the abortion that is 'The Cleveland Show'.

Nice one Blogger

Isn't it typical that as soon as I start getting back into this blog nonsense, the whole system goes down? As an added bonus, the posts I had done since 2010 were deleted and my old template was restored. Double-yoo tee eff right? Strangely, the posts have now been restored though some images were removed. Also a couple of the posts from last year have been pushed to the top of the list somehow. Anyway, just a rant. Still managed to get three views today though for some godforsaken reason.

Annoyances

Okay, so it's only 10:30am and already I am quite annoyed. Having been awake for roughly two hours, that could be a new record for me. I have decided to compile a list of things which have already caused my blood to boil to an alarming temperature.

1) Being awake at such an early time
2) A poor milk to Shreddies ratio
3) Ridiculous amateur political views on Facebook, e.g. "They fuked this country ryt up!"
4) Reading about Guru from GangStarr dying
5) Last.fm being down
6) The sun being so bright that I have to wear shades in the front room
7) No rice pudding in the cupboard
8) The 'Y' button on my keyboard is sticking
9) Burning my finger on a cigarette
10) Lack of creative flow resulting in me making a list

Rolling Stone Magazine Lists

Anyone who has the slightest interest in modern music has surely heard of The Rolling Stone. Once a respectable publication, the last few years have not been kind to the writers of the New York based journal.

Now, I'm not saying that the magazine was ever that good (writing off Led Zeppelin during their most active years is surely journalistic suicide?), quite the opposite in fact, but it was the release of the magazine's self-proclaimed '500 Greatest Albums of All Time List' which caught my eye.

Okay, you could argue that the list is simply opinion. Numerous critics/'industry experts' were surveyed for the article and thousands of man hours were put into compiling it. However, that doesn't stop it from being a complete pile of horse shit.

The list is noticably balanced towards to early years of the spectrum with over three-hundred of the albums being released during the 50s, 60s and 70s. The entire top ten is consisted of 60s and 70s efforts, four of which belonging to The Beatles.

Yes, The Beatles were fucking good, but by numbering the list entries rather than not, the publishers create somewhat of a bias towards earlier rock and roll music. Only thirteen of the list's entries are from the 2000s, including two Eminem albums and that fucking "Rock Steady"... 'thing'... by No Doubt. I realise that the list was created in late 2003 which somewhat explains the neglection, but still.

Speaking of neglection, there are quite a few glaring absences. No Tool, no Boston, no Rush, no Dead Kennedys, no Megadeth, no Yes, no Queen, no Cult, no Genesis, no King Crimson... in fact, no progressive artists at all. Sure, there are a few mentions of Pink Floyd (no "Animals"?) but one would assume this is simply lip service. I mean, any sort of 'top ten' list without Pink Floyd would be laughable.

However, there are a few nice surprises on the list. Captain Beefheart, Wu-Tang Clan and AC/DC are all (briefly) recognised. It's just hard to take the article seriously.

I mean, listing five Bowie albums and "Changesonebowie", a compilation made up almost entirely of singles off the mentioned albums? It's just laziness.