2000-2009: WORST DECADE OF MUSIC EVER!
By Barry Dutter
Quick – name the best rock album of the past ten years. Can’t do it, can you? How about the best new band? Best song?
The fact is, it can’t be done, because 2000-2009 comprise the worst decade of rock music, EVER!
The best new band of the past decade was arguably the Killers, a group which has released some catchy tunes, but their best work pales in comparison to groups such as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones.
The most memorable songs of the past 10 years are Coldplay’s “Viva La Vida,” “Rehab” by Amy Winehouse, and “I Kissed a Girl” by Katy Perry. “Viva La Vida,” was apparently plagiarized from two other songs by Joe Satriani and Cat Stevens. “Rehab” and “I Kissed a Girl” were mostly novelty songs. As talented as she is, Amy Winehouse was basically a one-hit wonder, and while Katy Perry seems poised to become the It Girl for the next few years, based on the reaction to her subsequent songs, it seems “I Kissed a Girl” was a fluke. None of her other songs has had the same mass appeal.
A quick stroll through rock history recalls the British Invasion and Woodstock music of the 60s, Super-Groups like Kansas, Yes and Boston and the birth of Heavy Metal in the 70s, the rise Rap and New Wave in the 80s, and the birth of Hip-hop and Grunge in the 90s. Compared to those epochal events, the 00’s lack a musical identity.
It seems there was no great innovation. Some might point to Emo, but I would argue there is nothing new in Emo. Singers being overly dramatic and emotional? They’ve been doing that since Elvis checked into the Heartbreak Hotel and announced he was so lonesome that he could die. .
Most people would be hard-pressed to find something good to say about the music of the past 10 years.
But surely the 00s were better than the 1950s, some would argue. Those songs from the fifties were very simplistic and some of them, like “Splish Splash,” or “Yakkety Yak,” were downright silly.
That may be, but those 1950s tunes, as nonsensical as they sometimes were, hold up better than just about anything released in the past decade. And the 1950s saw the birth of Doo-Wop, and you’ve got to respect that.
Some people might say that an old fogie like myself just can’t appreciate what the young kids are into today. But I would argue I have always loved good music at any age, and I would gladly appreciate a great new album if someone would just release one.
What about older acts from the 80s and 90s, one might ask. Surely there are some classic rockers still doing great work today. Well, the two best groups from the past that are still relevant today are U2 and Green Day, and I would say that neither band has released anything in the past decade that was as good as their earlier work.
True U2 fans would say the band has not released any great songs since the 80s, and even Green Day fans must admit that the work they’ve done in the 00s was not as good as the edgier work they did in the 90s.
These days when I turn on the radio, I mostly listen to classic songs from the 70s and 80s. I still try to find new music to enjoy, but I usually find myself heading back to the familiar stuff I grew up with.
When I was a kid, I used to go to record conventions, where people would buy & sell old vinyl albums. There would always be an old guy at these shows who would play nothing but Big Band music from the 1930s. I figured he hadn’t listened to any new music since the thirties. I kind of felt sorry for that old guy. It always seemed to me that that guy was frozen in time.
Now I find myself in a similar opposition. I can’t imagine myself listening to anything other than classic songs from the 70s and 80s from this point forward.
But that’s ok.
It’s traditional for every new generation to bash current music and praise the older tunes from long ago.
The words that Bob Seger sang in 1979 have never been truer than they are today: “Today’s music ain’t got the same soul. I like that old time rock and roll.”
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
MY MOVIE REVIEW: ORPHAN
I like a good horror movie, and ORPHAN is a pretty good up until the end, when, like in most horror movies, the killer becomes an indestructible terminator.
This movie has been touted as having a shocking twist in it. Since the movie is about an evil young girl who is adopted by an unsuspecting family, I figured there were only 2 or three possible "twists" the movie could have.
1) The little girl turns out to be an alien
2) The little girl turns out to be a ghost
3) The little girl turns out to be...something else.
Since the movie did not seem to have any supernatural elements to it (based on the trailer), I figured it had to be "something else." If you think about the premise for about 2 seconds, you should be able to figure out what the "something else" is.
This movie has been touted as having a shocking twist in it. Since the movie is about an evil young girl who is adopted by an unsuspecting family, I figured there were only 2 or three possible "twists" the movie could have.
1) The little girl turns out to be an alien
2) The little girl turns out to be a ghost
3) The little girl turns out to be...something else.
Since the movie did not seem to have any supernatural elements to it (based on the trailer), I figured it had to be "something else." If you think about the premise for about 2 seconds, you should be able to figure out what the "something else" is.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
MY REVIEW OF THE ARTIE LANGE SHOW (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE HOWARD STERN SHOW)
The Howard Stern Show has settled into a disturbing pattern of late, where Howard talks less and less, and Artie Lange talks more and more. Worst of all, Howard’s memory is so bad that he keeps asking Artie to repeat the same stories he has told before. And Artie loves talking so much, he is happy to oblige.
Here is the rundown of how a typical show goes these days:
1) The show starts with Howard trying to figure out how many more days are left on his contract.
2) Howard asks Artie how his weekend went. This allows Artie to go on for 20-minutes talking about his stand-up gigs/book signings/encounters with Whack Packers.
3) Time for Artie to tell one of his long showbiz stories, usually one he has told many times before, like the time Don Rickles called him a baby gorilla.
4) A pretty girl comes in. Artie calls her “the hottest girl we’ve ever had in here” and offers her money for sex. Again.
5) Time for Artie to do his patented Godfather impression for the 300th time
6) Howard asks Artie to tell the story of the time he wore a pig costume and got busted for cocaine possession, thus killing another 20 minutes of radio
7) Forgetting that he has told it before, Howard asks Artie to re-tell the story of the time his dad fell off the roof. Another 30 minutes gone.
8) A guest comes in. Artie winds up getting in a huge fight with the guest. Again, the segment becomes all about Artie, who claims that by attacking the guests, he is "doing his job."
9) A caller calls in with a question that has nothing to do with Artie. Somehow Artie manages to crowbar in another showbiz story, this one about either MAD TV or the Norm Show. Howard, realizing he won’t have to talk for another 20 minutes, kicks back and lets Artie do his thing.
10) It’s time for Robin’s news!
Total time Howard talks: About 15 minutes.
Total time Artie talks: About 3 hours and 45 minutes.
Oh, and after the show is over, Artie stops in for a visit to the WRAP-UP SHOW, which is supposed to be a recap and behind-the-scenes look at the Stern Show... but instead often winds up being a recap and behind-the-scenes look at Artie's drinking stories and yes, still more tedious showbiz tales. You know, it's possible that Artie is not as interesting as he thinks he is.
At this point, Howard might as well walk away from Sirius now. It looks to me like he has already retired.
Here is the rundown of how a typical show goes these days:
1) The show starts with Howard trying to figure out how many more days are left on his contract.
2) Howard asks Artie how his weekend went. This allows Artie to go on for 20-minutes talking about his stand-up gigs/book signings/encounters with Whack Packers.
3) Time for Artie to tell one of his long showbiz stories, usually one he has told many times before, like the time Don Rickles called him a baby gorilla.
4) A pretty girl comes in. Artie calls her “the hottest girl we’ve ever had in here” and offers her money for sex. Again.
5) Time for Artie to do his patented Godfather impression for the 300th time
6) Howard asks Artie to tell the story of the time he wore a pig costume and got busted for cocaine possession, thus killing another 20 minutes of radio
7) Forgetting that he has told it before, Howard asks Artie to re-tell the story of the time his dad fell off the roof. Another 30 minutes gone.
8) A guest comes in. Artie winds up getting in a huge fight with the guest. Again, the segment becomes all about Artie, who claims that by attacking the guests, he is "doing his job."
9) A caller calls in with a question that has nothing to do with Artie. Somehow Artie manages to crowbar in another showbiz story, this one about either MAD TV or the Norm Show. Howard, realizing he won’t have to talk for another 20 minutes, kicks back and lets Artie do his thing.
10) It’s time for Robin’s news!
Total time Howard talks: About 15 minutes.
Total time Artie talks: About 3 hours and 45 minutes.
Oh, and after the show is over, Artie stops in for a visit to the WRAP-UP SHOW, which is supposed to be a recap and behind-the-scenes look at the Stern Show... but instead often winds up being a recap and behind-the-scenes look at Artie's drinking stories and yes, still more tedious showbiz tales. You know, it's possible that Artie is not as interesting as he thinks he is.
At this point, Howard might as well walk away from Sirius now. It looks to me like he has already retired.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
A NERD’S GUIDE TO WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE NEW STAR TREK MOVIE
(SPOILER: DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE!)
First off, let me state that overall, I found the new STAR TREK movie to be enjoyable. It is fast-paced with lots of action, easily the best ST movie since THE WRATH OF KHAN.
Now, let’s get what’s wrong with this picture. Basically, the plot is a mess. Any time you do a time-travel story, you open yourself up to all kinds of contradictions and inconsistencies (I’m talking to you, Terminator movies!), but this movie has so many, it seems to violate the Prime Directives of the Movie-Making Federation!
The basic plot, as it is written, makes no sense. The Romulan homeworld is facing imminent destruction from a star that is going supernova. The greatest minds of the Federation figure out a way to try to prevent this from happening. Mr. Spock is sent to try to save Romulus. But he does not arrive in time. Romulus is destroyed. In the ensuing explosion, Spock’s tiny ship and a huge Romulan warship are tossed through time. The Romulan ship, led by an angry guy named Nero, emerges first from the timestream, not sure of where – or when -- they are.
Nero vows to find Spock and destroy him, blaming Spock for the destruction of his homeworld. The Romulans encounter a Federation vessel and they destroy it. The Romulans learn that they have traveled over 120 years back in time, to a period before their homeworld was destroyed.
Now, do the Romulans decide to pay a visit to their homeworld and try to save or at the very least evacuate their planet before it is destroyed? No. Instead, they vow to destroy all the planets in the Federation, since after all, it was clearly the fault of those Federation eggheads that a random star went supernova and fried Romulus. In other words, the Romulans are trying to get revenge for something that has not even happened yet and will not happen for another 120 years!
Now, here’s where the story really falls apart: after destroying that first Federation vessel, the Romulans vow to sit and wait for Spock to arrive. Spock is still trapped in the timestream, and he finally arrives –25 years later!
In other words, the villains of the piece sit and wait and do absolutely NOTHING for 25 years while they wait for Spock to arrive! These have got to be the most patient villains ever. And to add even more holes to the plot, the Federation makes no attempt during that 25 years to confront them. You would think they might want to investigate the destruction of one of their vessels, but no, they just ignore the problem for 25 years!
This is just sloppy plotting. Basically, the writers of the movie needed there to be a 25-year gap in the story to allow baby Jim Kirk to grow up to become James T. Kirk so he could fight the guy who killed his dad.
When Spock finally does arrive, what do the Romulans do? They exile him to an alien ice planet, so that he will have a good view of the destruction of his own homeworld, Vulcan. The scene where Spock is exiled to the iceworld is not even shown in the movie. The writers apparently deemed it not important enough to show. Kind of a major plot point, don’t you think? Methinks me smells deleted scenes here…
While on Iceworld, Spock comes across the now grown-up James Kirk, who has also been exiled there after being kicked off the Enterprise.
Wait a second. So Jim Kirk and Spock both wind up on the same planet? Isn’t that the stretch of a lifetime, to say the very least? Out of all the billions of planets in the universe, these two guys end up on the same planet, purely by chance?
When the plot to a movie hinges on a coincidence so colossal, it would make a Tribble’s head spin, you know a script has problems. All I can think is that the future Spock somehow did a long-distance mind-meld with the younger Spock and planted the idea in his head that he should send Kirk down to the iceworld.
That, at least, would have made some kind of sense. Despite the flaws in the plotting, the movie manages to be entertaining overall.
Other comments:
-The opening scene, where Kirk is born on the day his father dies, is hokey but effective. But wait a minute – this movie takes place before the Federation allowed wives and families of crewmembers aboard starships, so Kirk’s mom should not have been aboard giving birth. That seemed really out of place.
I realize they were trying to set up an epic story where Kirk is born on the day his dad dies, but it seemed kind of contrived. Like everything else in this movie, it works if you do not think too much about it. Just sit back and enjoy and try not to think too hard or the whole movie falls apart.
-Oh, and the attempts at broad humor, where Kirk is injected with drugs that cause bizarre side effects, did not work for me at all. I like subtle humor in STAR TREK, but this was too over the top. Next time, save the wacky humor for GALAXY QUEST.
-The new Uhura is breathtakingly beautiful. She should have had a much bigger part. When Kirk & Spock go to beam down for the climactic battle, I was really hoping Uhura would go with them so we could see her in high-kicking, mini-skirted action!
-How come all the ads for this movie try to make it seem like Kirk has a sex scene with Uhura? In the commercials, we see Kirk and Uhura exchange looks, then we see Uhura undressing, then we see silhouettes of two bodies writhing in bed. If you watch the movie, you know that Uhura does not have any sex scenes, and even if she did, in the new continuity, it would not be with Kirk.
-The Jim Kirk in this movie is not a very good hand-to-hand fighter. He spends most of his fight scenes getting choked by the bad guys, and then hanging over ledges, trying not to fall. I was hoping we would see Jim Kirk’s signature move from the old TV series, the dropkick. Alas, it was not to be. Maybe in the sequel…
-Wynona Ryder was an inspired casting choice as Spock’s mom. I always thought she looked kind of alien, with eyes far bigger than most humans.
-Overall I like the new cast, with one exception: they kind of blew it with Chekov. Chekov did not appear in the first season of Star Trek. He was brought in later, as a Davy Jones lookalike, to appeal to fans of the Monkees and the Beatles. In the new movie, Chekov did not have the Davy Jones haircut, so that was disappointing. I really wanted to see that!
-Overall I liked the movie, despite my quibbles about the story. I absolutely would like to see more stories featuring this new crew. But they need a better villain. The villains in this one were serviceable, but they could have been a lot more menacing. Maybe we will see Khan in the sequel?
First off, let me state that overall, I found the new STAR TREK movie to be enjoyable. It is fast-paced with lots of action, easily the best ST movie since THE WRATH OF KHAN.
Now, let’s get what’s wrong with this picture. Basically, the plot is a mess. Any time you do a time-travel story, you open yourself up to all kinds of contradictions and inconsistencies (I’m talking to you, Terminator movies!), but this movie has so many, it seems to violate the Prime Directives of the Movie-Making Federation!
The basic plot, as it is written, makes no sense. The Romulan homeworld is facing imminent destruction from a star that is going supernova. The greatest minds of the Federation figure out a way to try to prevent this from happening. Mr. Spock is sent to try to save Romulus. But he does not arrive in time. Romulus is destroyed. In the ensuing explosion, Spock’s tiny ship and a huge Romulan warship are tossed through time. The Romulan ship, led by an angry guy named Nero, emerges first from the timestream, not sure of where – or when -- they are.
Nero vows to find Spock and destroy him, blaming Spock for the destruction of his homeworld. The Romulans encounter a Federation vessel and they destroy it. The Romulans learn that they have traveled over 120 years back in time, to a period before their homeworld was destroyed.
Now, do the Romulans decide to pay a visit to their homeworld and try to save or at the very least evacuate their planet before it is destroyed? No. Instead, they vow to destroy all the planets in the Federation, since after all, it was clearly the fault of those Federation eggheads that a random star went supernova and fried Romulus. In other words, the Romulans are trying to get revenge for something that has not even happened yet and will not happen for another 120 years!
Now, here’s where the story really falls apart: after destroying that first Federation vessel, the Romulans vow to sit and wait for Spock to arrive. Spock is still trapped in the timestream, and he finally arrives –25 years later!
In other words, the villains of the piece sit and wait and do absolutely NOTHING for 25 years while they wait for Spock to arrive! These have got to be the most patient villains ever. And to add even more holes to the plot, the Federation makes no attempt during that 25 years to confront them. You would think they might want to investigate the destruction of one of their vessels, but no, they just ignore the problem for 25 years!
This is just sloppy plotting. Basically, the writers of the movie needed there to be a 25-year gap in the story to allow baby Jim Kirk to grow up to become James T. Kirk so he could fight the guy who killed his dad.
When Spock finally does arrive, what do the Romulans do? They exile him to an alien ice planet, so that he will have a good view of the destruction of his own homeworld, Vulcan. The scene where Spock is exiled to the iceworld is not even shown in the movie. The writers apparently deemed it not important enough to show. Kind of a major plot point, don’t you think? Methinks me smells deleted scenes here…
While on Iceworld, Spock comes across the now grown-up James Kirk, who has also been exiled there after being kicked off the Enterprise.
Wait a second. So Jim Kirk and Spock both wind up on the same planet? Isn’t that the stretch of a lifetime, to say the very least? Out of all the billions of planets in the universe, these two guys end up on the same planet, purely by chance?
When the plot to a movie hinges on a coincidence so colossal, it would make a Tribble’s head spin, you know a script has problems. All I can think is that the future Spock somehow did a long-distance mind-meld with the younger Spock and planted the idea in his head that he should send Kirk down to the iceworld.
That, at least, would have made some kind of sense. Despite the flaws in the plotting, the movie manages to be entertaining overall.
Other comments:
-The opening scene, where Kirk is born on the day his father dies, is hokey but effective. But wait a minute – this movie takes place before the Federation allowed wives and families of crewmembers aboard starships, so Kirk’s mom should not have been aboard giving birth. That seemed really out of place.
I realize they were trying to set up an epic story where Kirk is born on the day his dad dies, but it seemed kind of contrived. Like everything else in this movie, it works if you do not think too much about it. Just sit back and enjoy and try not to think too hard or the whole movie falls apart.
-Oh, and the attempts at broad humor, where Kirk is injected with drugs that cause bizarre side effects, did not work for me at all. I like subtle humor in STAR TREK, but this was too over the top. Next time, save the wacky humor for GALAXY QUEST.
-The new Uhura is breathtakingly beautiful. She should have had a much bigger part. When Kirk & Spock go to beam down for the climactic battle, I was really hoping Uhura would go with them so we could see her in high-kicking, mini-skirted action!
-How come all the ads for this movie try to make it seem like Kirk has a sex scene with Uhura? In the commercials, we see Kirk and Uhura exchange looks, then we see Uhura undressing, then we see silhouettes of two bodies writhing in bed. If you watch the movie, you know that Uhura does not have any sex scenes, and even if she did, in the new continuity, it would not be with Kirk.
-The Jim Kirk in this movie is not a very good hand-to-hand fighter. He spends most of his fight scenes getting choked by the bad guys, and then hanging over ledges, trying not to fall. I was hoping we would see Jim Kirk’s signature move from the old TV series, the dropkick. Alas, it was not to be. Maybe in the sequel…
-Wynona Ryder was an inspired casting choice as Spock’s mom. I always thought she looked kind of alien, with eyes far bigger than most humans.
-Overall I like the new cast, with one exception: they kind of blew it with Chekov. Chekov did not appear in the first season of Star Trek. He was brought in later, as a Davy Jones lookalike, to appeal to fans of the Monkees and the Beatles. In the new movie, Chekov did not have the Davy Jones haircut, so that was disappointing. I really wanted to see that!
-Overall I liked the movie, despite my quibbles about the story. I absolutely would like to see more stories featuring this new crew. But they need a better villain. The villains in this one were serviceable, but they could have been a lot more menacing. Maybe we will see Khan in the sequel?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)