Soundtrack song of the week.
John Mayer's very lovely Heartbreak Warfare
10/16/2010
09/26/2010
12/19/2009
Why Rage Against The X-Factor?
The fight for the Christmas number one this year has somehow been turned into something interesting. It's unfortunate, but it's become a phenomenon of sorts - it's not about music, but then, the Christmas number one hasn't been for a good few years, hence the point and importance of this event.
We're faced with two very different tracks from very different artists fighting for the top spot. Joe McElderry, the winner of the musically challenged weekend spoiling entertainment series The X-Factor, vs. Rage Against The Machine's Killing In The Name. A track from their debut album released 17 years ago.
The reason this isn't a battle of music is because nobody's buying because of the song. The Rage Against The Machine track is involved because of a Facebook & other social media propagated (and now mainstream media via. tabloid news & the NME) campaign to stand up against the X-Factor.
The X-Factor song is there following the end of the series - this is why the song's freshly prepared and pre-selected to be one that'll immediately ring a bell, having already been released this year by Miley Cyrus. This saves time in terms of having to produce a worthy song for the contestant, or even have to promote the song to get it into the public consciousness - the work has already been done by the American star many months ago - all that had to be done now was to throw Joe's voice on instead.
If the song was the key element, than why hasn't it succeeded already with Miley Cyrus? Or does Joe McElderry pull off more emotion and add a lot more to the song? (That's rhetorical, believe me - it's a dreary standard cover just as Alexandra Burke's take on the John Cale styled version of Cohen's Hallelujah was last year).
The campaign to stand up against the X-Factor is brilliant. The fact it's using a song that would never do this well otherwise is what makes it very smart also - it's success replicates the punk ethic of anarchism to combat the sterile conformity that the X-Factor feeds on. The X-Factor has spent weeks turning an uninteresting individual into someone to be pulled to the top of the chart simply as a 'vote' for their preferred individual, as part of the twisted PR machine that Simon Cowell manages with some delusion that it's good for music, when it's only good for his music company. It's not about music, but about a television show.
Last year, the leading anti-X-Factor campaign was to try and get Jeff Buckley's track to succeed over Alexandra Burke's - the failure there was despite Jeff's being a far better version, it still relied on the song to succeed - the rebellious response in that instance was to buy neither - whereas using an artist such as Rage Against The Machine has brought the rebellion properly into the mix, and become a serious contender to take the Christmas Number One.
It won't stop the X-Factor, but in the history books it'll be there and clear that one Christmas, the music loving public stood up against one of the biggest evils of the industry in the last ten years - and when it pops up on quizzes, Guinness Music guides and VH-1 christmas number one countdowns in the future we can all smile and remember we were a part of that.
For just 0.29p, you can help!
12/10/2009
07/25/2009
The Third Driver
Felipe Massa's horrific yet simple accident is about to set the 'motorsport is dangerous' motto into overdrive. A week after the unfortunate death of Henry Surtee's, in an eerily similar incident (although in his case, it wasn't a spring that entered the cockpit, it was a complete wheel!) - it's going to get looked at, and some action will be taken.
However, what's in my mind is the age old lost opportunity for the last minute superstar here. In other championships, Indycar or NASCAR for example, 'for the sake of the sponsors', some random visitor in a race suit holding a racing licence would get shaved, suited, thrown in front of iRacing for a bit - taught his sponsors names and thrown out there to start from the back (and invariably retire it in a couple of laps).
In F1, we used to have that too.
We don't now. Why?
Firstly, now that qualifying's over, there is no time for any new driver to get acquianted with the car. With no Sunday morning warm up to even try out the driver to see if he's got a chance of snatching 18th, there's too much risk involved.
The longevity of the car's another issue. With engines and gearboxes having to last so long, there's actually a detrimental benefit to Massa's drivers championship challenge (what little's left of it, with Red Bull & Brawn with an invisible grasp on it) - to have some new driver wreck the machinery in his first go.
The only benefit to Ferrari would be to deep end race test an almost ready driver. In the case of Ferrari though, they don't have any. Massa was already their last dip into the barely race ready pool of drivers - a rare tactic from the scarley squad, who generally let other big teams develop the talent, and then lure them across with the really cool company car and wads of $$$. So basically, Ferrari don't have a driver in waiting who isn't already starting in the race, surprisingly from pole position with a feather-weight entry.
The last 'quick get your suit on drives' appear to be honourarily owned by Anthony Davidson (BAR Honda) and/or Ricardo Zonta (Toyota - if you count a DNS, as it was that infamous US Grand Prix) in 2005.
I guess it's just one of those things we've lost with the way the rules are - but something I'd quite like back if we can.
07/12/2009
Transform this...
Okay, Michael Bay - bad bad bad...
I heard Michael had grumbled about the lack of promotion by Paramount in awards ceremonies etc. for this movie - who cares...if it's a good movie, it'll sell itself.
I heard Megan Fox complained their was too much action and not enough dialogue - and heard Michael's rather dismissive response about her afterwards - I initially disagreed with both of them, Transformers is an action movie, it shouldn't have a mass of dialogue - but Bay's comments that he knows how to make movies is a little bit ambitious - the only 'very good' classification I'd give to any of his movies is The Island, which funnily enough hasn't performed commercially as well as many of his others - but hey, when is a good film necessarily a commercial one?
Anyway, I now sway to Megan. Though there's too much human dialogue (when were people the point of Transformers!?) there's just no robot dialogue whatsoever. The only characters who get any amount of development are 'The Twins' and I read they're already slammed for being racist stereotypes.
What is The Fallen? Where did that come from? Is he really only named for the pathetic double meaning that could be interpreted?
The Decepticon's are barely named let alone speak in this movie. Everything that was nearly there in the first movie was just left for dead in the production of this trash.
Then - there's the good old question of product placement. Lara Croft 2 saw Angelina running around with every piece of Panasonic technology under the sun, and that was the first marker in my mind that some movies will be ruined by this.
Transformers just about got away with it. There were way too many GM vehicles, but at least there was a slight redress with Barricade, the top Decepticon car being a Saleen/Ford Mustang.
Now - way over the top. All the Constructicons were GM vehicles, we introduce Sideswipe (why just Sideswipe!?) and instead of a Lamborghini (Countach in the old days, a Murcielago would be perfect now) - he turns up as Corvette Stingray 'concept' (how good a disguise is a concept anyway?).
Then there's the 'twins' - initially both transform into HALF A VAN each! (wtf? - do they fight over which half of the horse they want to be?) - they then adjust themselves to transform into another pair or urban street concept vehicles from Chevrolet.
The plot is ever thinner than the first movie, yet manages to be 20 minutes longer. The effects are good, but that's about it. Urgh, avoid. I'm happy for the Transformers franchise to finish now, I'll wait for someone to make it into a TV series again.
I heard Michael had grumbled about the lack of promotion by Paramount in awards ceremonies etc. for this movie - who cares...if it's a good movie, it'll sell itself.
I heard Megan Fox complained their was too much action and not enough dialogue - and heard Michael's rather dismissive response about her afterwards - I initially disagreed with both of them, Transformers is an action movie, it shouldn't have a mass of dialogue - but Bay's comments that he knows how to make movies is a little bit ambitious - the only 'very good' classification I'd give to any of his movies is The Island, which funnily enough hasn't performed commercially as well as many of his others - but hey, when is a good film necessarily a commercial one?
Anyway, I now sway to Megan. Though there's too much human dialogue (when were people the point of Transformers!?) there's just no robot dialogue whatsoever. The only characters who get any amount of development are 'The Twins' and I read they're already slammed for being racist stereotypes.
What is The Fallen? Where did that come from? Is he really only named for the pathetic double meaning that could be interpreted?
The Decepticon's are barely named let alone speak in this movie. Everything that was nearly there in the first movie was just left for dead in the production of this trash.
Then - there's the good old question of product placement. Lara Croft 2 saw Angelina running around with every piece of Panasonic technology under the sun, and that was the first marker in my mind that some movies will be ruined by this.
Transformers just about got away with it. There were way too many GM vehicles, but at least there was a slight redress with Barricade, the top Decepticon car being a Saleen/Ford Mustang.
Now - way over the top. All the Constructicons were GM vehicles, we introduce Sideswipe (why just Sideswipe!?) and instead of a Lamborghini (Countach in the old days, a Murcielago would be perfect now) - he turns up as Corvette Stingray 'concept' (how good a disguise is a concept anyway?).
Then there's the 'twins' - initially both transform into HALF A VAN each! (wtf? - do they fight over which half of the horse they want to be?) - they then adjust themselves to transform into another pair or urban street concept vehicles from Chevrolet.
The plot is ever thinner than the first movie, yet manages to be 20 minutes longer. The effects are good, but that's about it. Urgh, avoid. I'm happy for the Transformers franchise to finish now, I'll wait for someone to make it into a TV series again.
06/24/2009
06/10/2009
Le Mans 2009
I'm getting set for my first Le Mans!
06/06/2009
Next Generation Touring Car
The British Touring Car Championship has put together a daring set of regulations for new cars to be introduced in 2011 and over a two year period phased in to be the specification that all cars should be running to. The threat being that if you're still running an old car, it will made to be not competitive by extra weight carried etc. - the exact same threat which was levied should anyone still be running the past set of regulation cars now.
First of all, we know that tactic worked. Within a very short time frame, the BTC-specification cars which were introduced in 2001, were very quickly replaced with S2000 (World Touring Car) class cars. This year, the only exception is Martin Johnson's almost ancient Astra Coupé, which is predominantly the last placed car anyway.
These new regulations have apparently been approved and agreed with all of the teams (that's one in your eye, Mr. Max Mosley) - but there's a strong point of debate as to why these rules exist.
The first benefit, is that a new build car will be substantially cheaper than building a brand new S2000 specification car, due to standardised parts etc. Still the key question remains, who will be building these cars?
In these harsh times, with motor manufacturers folding or selling up - the budget and commitment just isn't there for manufacturers at the moment. In 2010, for the first time in it's history, the BTCC will become a full independant championship with not one manufacturer paying for their cars to be on the grid - after stalwart's Vauxhall's withdrawal.
There are a number of teams currently competing, who certainly have the infrastructure to build new cars. Team Dynamics, who became the first independant team to take the overall championship in 2005 with a self developed Honda Integra built to BTC (2001) regulations - and now run a S2000 specification Civic - again, their build.
West Surrey Racing - currently under the Team RAC banner - whom presently field a pair of BMW 320si's (who've not had a BMW factory entry in the BTCC since 1995), had originally developed the MG-ZS for the BTCC in 2001.
Triple Eight, currently running a self built S2000 specification Vauxhall Vectra (with Vauxhall backing) - and of course the Astra before it to BTC rules - and Arena has just turned up with it's own Ford Focus.
Is that enough to field a full grid? No.Does it matter. Not really, as the S2000 cars (and presumably even the existing BTC cars will still be permitted for a good few years).
The rules will also introduce turbo charged petrol engines - diesel's will be banned (no problem here, the only diesel is the ailing BMW 120d run by Team AFM), and more controversially, rear wheel drive - which means no one will be developing BMW's for the championship.
A key reason for this move is to jump the gun on the WTCC. The FIA is currently debating new regulations for the WTCC, and it's clear from the squabbles already taking place, that this spat will more than likely see some of the very few manufacturers in the World Championship leave due to the ongoing row over diesel/petrol, RWD/FWD and car weighting schemes.
So what kind of cars will we see? Well, the plan seems to be to get the cars back to saloon car shapes, as seen during the BTCC golden era of the mid-late 90's. This is a logical point to acheive this. At the moment, Britain is in love with the hatchback, and no manufacturer is likely to want to try and promote anything but one - but since their won't be any, it's down to the independant's to put forward whichever car they want to run.
Undoubtedly, some will try and seek out some manufacturer assistance. Arena and Team Dynamics are known for grabbing manufacturer assistance with their development and budgets behind the scenes. Failing that, teams will run the most logical car for the championship. Dynamic's proved before with the Integra, that sometimes the non-obvious car can be extremely competitive.
From the UK car market, possibles:
- Alfa Romeo 159
- Audi A4
- Chevrolet Cruze
- Chrysler Sebring
- Citroen C5
- Dodge Avenger
- Ford Mondeo
- Honda Civic Hybrid
- Honda Accord
- Hyundai Sonata
- Kia Magentis
- Mazda 3 Saloon
- Mazda 6
- Mitsubishi Lancer
- Peugeot 407
- Renault Mégane
- Renault Laguna
- SEAT Exeo
- Skoda Octavia
- Subaru Legacy
- Toyota Avensis
- Vauxhall Insignia
- Volkswagen Passat
- Volvo S40
Looking back to adoption of mass rule changes in the past. In 2001 - Super Touring was kicked out and the new BTC-specification rules came in, just before the European Touring Car Championship came up with the similar but slightly different S2000.
In that year, Vauxhall was the only manufacturer to stay on from the year before, with Peugeot rejoining run by VLR - and an independant Alfa Romeo 147 car driven by Dave Pinkney - and that was it! Peugeot came with three cars (which dropped to two from the next race) - and Vauxhall had four cars and went on to win 25 of 26 races that season. We can A. Be thankful Vauxhall are out from next year, and B. That these rules won't be enforced in one hit, and that S2000 cars can continue for a number of years.
In 2004, TOCA allowed in S2000 cars, which saw some uncompetitive Honda Civic's and BMW's turn up, as well as RML's attack with a pair of SEAT Toledo's for Rob Huff and Jason Plato. This system of allowing the cars in and equalizing performance until the championship was ready to switch to S2000 entirely worked far better, and is the same approach here.
With WTCC rules in turmoil, and no centralised thinking - mainly due to interference from manufacurers, who'd obviously have their own views on what the rules should be - since the BTCC is now devoid of these, though in someways that's a disadvantage - in many others, it's being used as a benefit to try and move the BTCC to a rather new and different world than it was when Honda, Vauxhall & SEAT fought for the titles.
Recent Comments