Just a short message to say that the blog will not be updated from this site any more. Unfortunately the cost of using TypePad has eventually outwayed the benefits of using it, and therefore I will cease membership and search for a new provider.
The site will be back, though I do not know exactly when or where, but I will return to let you all know.
Thank you for reading, and hopefully you will continue to do so when I return.
In the mean time, the site will remain online for you to read, but as I stopped paying TypePad, they've given me this rubbish site design instead, so I apologise for the way it looks - I didn't design it.
There are many reasons to love YouTube. Videos like this for example:
But there are so many reasons to hate it. This is not necessarily a comprehensive or exhaustive list, but its all the things that really bug me.
1. VEVO
So you find out that there is a video by your favourite artist being premiered on YouTube, and it's one you've been waiting for for ages. They premiered the song, and its absolutely amazing and you have to see the video rightnoworyouwillgocarnivalfreakcrazyandattackpeopleinsupermarketswithsticks.
Then you go to YouTube and see one of two things:
or
Well, fuck you VEVO and you're ridiculous marketing strategies. We live in a global society these days and the internet has no political borders or geographical barriers. We WANT to watch your videos, so why not let us? It makes no sense. It's like if a telemarketer calls you up to tell you about an amazing offer they have for you, but then says "but I can't give you the offer because you don't qualify for it". Fuck off.
2. Usage Control.
You watched a really good/funny video and you want to share it on your blog with everyone, so you write a post talking about it and what you liked about it, and then embed the video and publish. Then you view the post to make sure it all looks right, and then you are presented with this:
Well, fuck you YouTube. Why do you provide the code and links to embed videos to then present my readers with this message? What difference does it make if people watch the video on YouTube or embedded on my site where they found it? How about you let me keep my 10 regular readers on my site and you eat shit? You get enough web traffic without having to leech off me thanks. Greedy fucks.
3. YouTube mobile.
In the wonderful world of mobile technology, we are blessed to be able to do almost everything on the move. Smart phones are clever little things. You have the internet in the palm of your hands and can do everything you need to do on the internet without needing a desktop or laptop computer anymore. ALMOST:
This annoying little image means that you can't watch this particular video on a mobile. Why the hell not? What difference does it make watching it on a mobile instead of a desktop? Why bother sharing your video at all if you are going to stop me watching it where and when I want to watch it. If you can provide a decent enough reason for this, then I would love to hear it, YouTube.
A fierce debate between myself and a few friends has raged for a couple of weeks about Willow Smith. It's not one that will be settled easily either. So I'm expecting that this post is going to stoke those fires once again.
On one side of the debate, is the fact that 9 year old Willow Smith shouldn't be singing songs about whipping her hair, gettin' her swag on (a word that is being used too much recently, thank you Cheryl Cole/Cher Lloyd), and shakin' haters off. She should be skipping about like a 9 year old does, singing nursery rhymes, playing on swings and slides, and climbing trees.
On the other side of the debate is taking the situation for it's merits. Willow is an extraordinarily talented 9 year old, who not only can sing well, she can dance well too. Though the video and single are largely the results of a team of talented creatives at Jay-Z's label, Roc Nation.
Ethical and philosophical debates aside, the song is extremely catchy and has an infectiously danceable beat, worthy of Rihanna. At times, however, it can be repetitive but I think the repetitive elements actually add to the charm of the song.
Add a colourful, and visually stunning video to the mix and you have yourself a winner:
I love Diana Vickers. She has managed to create a really genuine aura about her music and image. Though she is the product of a TV Talent show, she managed to put together an album using credible producers and songwriters (Guy Sigsworth, Ellie Goulding, Andy Chatterley, Nerina Pallot, Cass Lowe) and create an image of a slightly kooky singer/songwriter (she even has her name on the writing credits of 9 out of the 13 tracks on the initial release of Songs From The Tainted Cherry Tree). The visuals match as well, from the artwork of her album and singles, to the Boy Who Murdered Love video with it's cartoony bits.
It's all very well done, and importantly believable.
One thing that has always been a slight issue for her however, is diction and annunciation. I remember seeing a video on YouTube a couple of years ago when she was on The X Factor where someone had written their own subtitles over the performance because you can't really understand what she was singing. And it's been done again.
Diana performed her new single, My Wicked Heart, on The X Factor at the weekend (before Katy Perry wailed her way through Firework without hitting a note) and though I love the song (it's utterly brilliant), It's not exactly easy to understand the lyrics. See for yourself:
The video above also draws attention to the recent allegations that the melody for the chorus has been stolen from a Red Hot Chilli Peppers song. It may be a bit similar, but I hardly think anyone is going to be stupid enough to do that intentionally. Certainly not if they don't want to be sued.
The video for the song itself is actually quite good. It follows this theme of pastel colours, quirkiness, and lip-ness that the others did. Yep. Lip-ness. Basically, Diana's lips are amazing. And feature as a separate entity in her videos. Check them in Once and The Boy Who Murdered Love too.
My Wicked Heart is available to download now, and due for physical release on 1 November 2010 (why the 2 week difference? I have no idea. Makes no sense).
This is the chart on iTunes as of today at 3:30pm.
Highlighted is a cover version of Rihanna's latest single Only Girl (In The World) by a terrible tribute act (with an even more terrible name), currently placed at No.52. (EDIT: Song now climbed to No.50. Also, listen to the other edits. The vocals are 2 bars ahead of the backing track. Shoddy work...).
It provides an intersting insight into today's market, and also highlights how far behind the labels are in keeping up with it.
The reason they are behind is because they still maintain this strange release schedule whereby they premier a single weeks before its release. In some cases it can be as long as 8 weeks. An example of what I am talking about:
Kylie Minogue's first single from her latest album Aphrodite, All The Lovers. A 30 second clip was premiered on her website on April 20th 2010. The full track was premiered in full on BBC Radio 1, inexplicably, 3 1/2 weeks later on May 14th 2010. A full CD quality rip leaked online on May 16th 2010 and had a full 4 weeks to proliferate around the internet before the single received it's official release on June 11th 2010. At the end of week 25 on the Official Uk Top 40 Charts, Kylie placed a modest No.4 on downloads alone, followed by a move to No. 6 the following week, and then following the physical release, peaked at No.3, then falling to No.9.
What happened here then? Basically, the sales that Kylie needed to get to No.1 were lost in the 4 weeks between the single leaking online and becoming available to download. Some would opine that people who download illegally would do so regardless of whether the song was legitimately available or not, and others would suggest that even though some people download illegally, they then purchase the song when it becomes available. The answer is unclear. What is clear, is that the sales fell short and Kylie lost out on a No.1 single.
Rihanna follows a similar pattern here, but what is interesting is that people are downloading a mediocre cover version instead of waiting for the real thing. This is the key observation to make: People want things instantly. They WANT IT RIGHT NOW! There is no real reason (that I can see as an observer) that the single cannot be released right away. It was premiered online in full on 7 September 2010, and there then follows a staggered global release schedule starting on 10 September 2010 across Europe, Canada and the US, and ending (oddly enough) on 25 October 2010 in the UK (the world's 3rd largest music market). Again, as the single was officially released from the 10 September 2010, it was already on the internet by then, meaning that some of the biggest markets were losing sales at least 6 weeks before their official release.
I have no doubt that the song will be a No.1 hit for Rihanna in the UK, however I think that a more efficient approach and strategy could be taken to releases in future. The market is changing in the way that consumers purchase music, so the way that the music is sold should change with it. I certainly find it odd that an obscure tribute band should be allowed to cover and release a version of a song that hasn't even been officially released yet. Surely the original artist should get first dibs? At least to protect the integrity of the song...
The song itself is absolutely massive. It is big in every way. Thumping beats, basslines, and leads, accompanied by strong vocals in the chorus. It is incredibly catchy and an easy crowd pleaser. Which means it isn't particularly original, nor is it ground-breaking. It appears as a product of the current electro-pop production line, pressed from the same mould used by the likes of Usher, Taio Cruz, and Flo Rida.
The video received it's premier last week, and follows the same styling as the artwork has. There's lots of colour grading and treatment to maintain a theme, but the video doesn't really relate to the song or music. The closest it gets is Rihanna dancing around in a big field on her own, which is a pretty weak interpretation. Nevertheless, I have no doubts about the success this song will enjoy.
The song is taken from Rihanna's album Loud which is due for release on 15 November 2010 in the UK. Only Girl (In the World) is available to download from 25 October 2010.
Recent Comments