This week Noel Gallagher released the first single from his eagerly anticipated new album entitled 'High Flying Birds'. The single itself is his first real solo release and is called 'The Death Of You And Me'.
With brother Liam's recent attempts to follow up Oasis with a less than emphatic album, consisting of the remaining members of the band conspicuously named Beady Eye, featuring what could easily be conceived as cast offs from past albums still fresh in people's minds, it was interesting to see what Noel had to offer. The song itself isn't that far off an Oasis number, but you can hardly expect anything else seeing as Noel was the chief songwriter, however their seems a breath of fresh air about the song after the tired and somewhat lacklustre last Oasis release. Though this isn't saying must, as their last album was up there with their worst.
The song itself slightly echoes 'The Importance Of Being Idle' with it's simple lyrics, rhyming and higher pitch tones, which he uses too good effect. However an a nod towards that tune is all it is. The video is rather different from what we're used to seeing from Noel and maybe shows an attempt to move away from what we expect from in.
Overall Noel is still very much in his comfort zone but it seems he is refreshed and heading in a slightly different direction. If the album mirror's this song then expect a satisfying album that fans will enjoy without converting too many others. Whilst Beady Eye seem to be trying to hard, Noel seems relaxed. Which shows in this release.
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
All Star Premier League Team
I don't normally like Twitter hashtags. They generally evolve around taking a band, or a film, or just a phrase and inserting a word to form a very weak pun. A recent example would be taking a phrase with the word 'fuck' in, and replacing it with 'duck'. I used to revel in this, but no longer find them that amusing.
However, one was formed today around the idea of taking the best players from the Premier League era, 1992 onwards, and creating a team. So I picked my team, and thought I'd explain my choices.
Goalkeeper - Peter Schmeichel
I always struggle to comment on Peter Schmeichel, as I started following football around 1998, which was his penultimate year at Manchester United. However from what I did see, and what I have subsequently seen, he seems the best shot stopper, along with constantly comfortable on crosses and corners, and always prepared to the put his body on the line. I can't imagine Schmeichel, if playing today, would be asking for all the free kick modern keepers do, and going down at every opportunity. Their was only one rival really for this position at that is David Seaman, but on consistency, Schmeichel beats him.
Right back - Lee Dixon
Not a lot of competition here. Dixon was solid at the back, and more than capable going forward to provide crosses. Many people would go for Gary Neville, but as unbiased as I'm trying to be, as a Liverpool supporter, I couldn't bring myself to put him in.
Centre back - Tony Adams
Natural leader, captained Arsenal to numerous trophies, would have captained England more if it wasn't for personal problems. Is there anyone who wouldn't have him in their all star eleven? Ironically, the exact sort of player Arsenal need now. No competition, his inclusion is a no brainer.
Centre back - Sami Hyypia
Held in high regard by Liverpool supporters, and imagine he will stand the test of time too. Never blessed with great pace but you never really noticed due to his strong defensive ability. Also chipped in with his share of goals.
Left back - Denis Irwin
A full back who was so accomplished I'm still not sure what his preferred foot was. Great defensively, and great going forward, playing of 350 games for Manchester United in the clubs most successful period speaks volume. Ashley Cole may be a bigger name but an all round better player? Not so sure.
Right Wing - David Beckham
In his prime, the best crosser of a ball in world football. His accuracy was second to none and whilst lacking pace, made up for it with his natural on the ball talent. Some may say Cristiano Ronaldo was better but I don't see him as a winger.
Centre Midfield - Steven Gerrard
Powerful, can hold, can go forward, can pick out a pass, can score a goal, can drag a team from defeat to victory seemingly by himself. Need I say more. People will say Paul Scholes but I genuinely don't think Paul Scholes can change a game like Steven Gerrard. Although to be fair, playing for such a successful team, in such a successful era, he has rarely needed to.
Left Wing - Ryan Giggs
The archetypal winger. Possesses all the attributes needed, and has almost perfected everyone of them. No competition in this era, and maybe ever.
Striker - Eric Cantona
The flair player needed in every team. Had incredible natural talent, spotted passes no one else could. The only shame is his career didn't last longer. Will always be regarded as one of the greatest at Old Trafford.
Striker - Dennis Bergkamp
Possibly my favourite player in the Premier League era never to have played for Liverpool. His control and touch of the ball was second to none. It was between him and Thierry Henry for this spot. Henry had the superior goal scoring record and is the only player I've seen to score one-on-ones like there was no keeper. Bergkamp edges it though due to all round ability, and his lack of handballs in important World Cup qualifying games.
Striker - Gianfranco Zola
To imagine he's marginally taller than me and his goalscoring record is great, along with flair that added to a Chelsea squad massively during a period heavily influenced with foreign players. His footwork was unbelievable and could find his way out of any situation.
That is my team. Obviously it is massively open to debate with personal choices but these are what I feel to be the best and most talented players I have seen in the Premier League era.
However, one was formed today around the idea of taking the best players from the Premier League era, 1992 onwards, and creating a team. So I picked my team, and thought I'd explain my choices.
Goalkeeper - Peter Schmeichel
I always struggle to comment on Peter Schmeichel, as I started following football around 1998, which was his penultimate year at Manchester United. However from what I did see, and what I have subsequently seen, he seems the best shot stopper, along with constantly comfortable on crosses and corners, and always prepared to the put his body on the line. I can't imagine Schmeichel, if playing today, would be asking for all the free kick modern keepers do, and going down at every opportunity. Their was only one rival really for this position at that is David Seaman, but on consistency, Schmeichel beats him.
Right back - Lee Dixon
Not a lot of competition here. Dixon was solid at the back, and more than capable going forward to provide crosses. Many people would go for Gary Neville, but as unbiased as I'm trying to be, as a Liverpool supporter, I couldn't bring myself to put him in.
Centre back - Tony Adams
Natural leader, captained Arsenal to numerous trophies, would have captained England more if it wasn't for personal problems. Is there anyone who wouldn't have him in their all star eleven? Ironically, the exact sort of player Arsenal need now. No competition, his inclusion is a no brainer.
Centre back - Sami Hyypia
Held in high regard by Liverpool supporters, and imagine he will stand the test of time too. Never blessed with great pace but you never really noticed due to his strong defensive ability. Also chipped in with his share of goals.
Left back - Denis Irwin
A full back who was so accomplished I'm still not sure what his preferred foot was. Great defensively, and great going forward, playing of 350 games for Manchester United in the clubs most successful period speaks volume. Ashley Cole may be a bigger name but an all round better player? Not so sure.
Right Wing - David Beckham
In his prime, the best crosser of a ball in world football. His accuracy was second to none and whilst lacking pace, made up for it with his natural on the ball talent. Some may say Cristiano Ronaldo was better but I don't see him as a winger.
Centre Midfield - Steven Gerrard
Powerful, can hold, can go forward, can pick out a pass, can score a goal, can drag a team from defeat to victory seemingly by himself. Need I say more. People will say Paul Scholes but I genuinely don't think Paul Scholes can change a game like Steven Gerrard. Although to be fair, playing for such a successful team, in such a successful era, he has rarely needed to.
Left Wing - Ryan Giggs
The archetypal winger. Possesses all the attributes needed, and has almost perfected everyone of them. No competition in this era, and maybe ever.
Striker - Eric Cantona
The flair player needed in every team. Had incredible natural talent, spotted passes no one else could. The only shame is his career didn't last longer. Will always be regarded as one of the greatest at Old Trafford.
Striker - Dennis Bergkamp
Possibly my favourite player in the Premier League era never to have played for Liverpool. His control and touch of the ball was second to none. It was between him and Thierry Henry for this spot. Henry had the superior goal scoring record and is the only player I've seen to score one-on-ones like there was no keeper. Bergkamp edges it though due to all round ability, and his lack of handballs in important World Cup qualifying games.
Striker - Gianfranco Zola
To imagine he's marginally taller than me and his goalscoring record is great, along with flair that added to a Chelsea squad massively during a period heavily influenced with foreign players. His footwork was unbelievable and could find his way out of any situation.
That is my team. Obviously it is massively open to debate with personal choices but these are what I feel to be the best and most talented players I have seen in the Premier League era.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
The End of the News of The World, And I Don't Feel Fine.
Watching Newsnight on a Friday would usually lead me to feel that my life may not be going in the right direction. Whilst this may be the case, I found myself enthralled in a debate that seems to have engaged almost everyone. And by everyone I mean people on Twitter, as I generally don't converse with members of the public face to face about politics, the ownership of BSkyB, and how Rupert Murdoch is trying to gain a strangle hold over the media, it usual goes as far as "keep the change mate ".
I don't usual take an interest in major news stories but this has developed over time to the extent where I can't help but have an opinion. When the original news broke that many celebrities phones had been hacked, I felt a bit aggrieved and sorry for them. Whilst I know a number of so called "celebrities" love the gaze of the media and enjoy headlines whether embarrassing or not, I couldn't help but think this is privacy breach of the highest, and as Steve Coogan strongly puts it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkeSJLgzG8k), some celebrities aren't looking for headlines, and don't care for some poxy newspaper filling column inches with trivial drivel. All they care for is their privacy, and they don't deserve their private conversations to be heard by anyone, let alone the News of The World journalists and then filtered through to the general public.
I just shook my head, and thought "is this what it's come to for newspapers to gain headlines". Walked off and thought that was the end of it. However this sickening story suddenly became not just a matter of privacy and headlines, but one of attitude and most importantly morals. Yes, as a journalist you want an impressive news scoop. Yes, you want people reading your paper, and yes, you want stories before other papers. But at what stage do newspaper journalist and basic human morals collide. How can you possibly make any case for hacking the phone of a lost child, listening to the voicemails, then deleting them, given the parents false hope, so you can receive more information. How can an employee of the News of The World feels they have the right do this, as a human being, let alone as a journalist. It's as Coogan puts it, morally bankrupt. You must have no morals to do this.
I'm not saying all News of The World journalist are corrupt, as I'm sure ninety-nine percent are innocent, and whether you agree with the regular content of their work, you cannot argue that this is fairly irrelevant with what the higher powers of the company have been engaging in. I, for one, have never read the News of The World, but if like other tabloids then I'm sure it was full of celebrity nothingness. Where relationships, drug uses, and clothes rule all, like some real life nonsensical unentertaining Eastenders.
In following this news coverage I found another story about Paul McMullan, featured in the video link above. He tells how, after the death of her father and famous actor Denholm Elliot, daughter Jennifer Elliot's life went drastically downhill. He persuade interest in it, writing articles about how she's turned to drug use and prostitution. She eventually killed herself.
In Paul McMullan's own words, he 'totally humiliated and destroyed her' leading to the suicide. All in the pursuit of filling an inch or two in a newspaper. This is yet another example of the volatile and vile lengths that some journalists will go to, just to get a headline. It not only says a lot about the newspaper, but of the evolving media as a whole. The people behind all of this, the former editor Rebekah Wade, and global tycoon Rupert Murdoch, may very well find a way to wriggle out of this and hope it all blows over, which if they do will be a crime against humanity. It is clear that they only care about themselves by the fact they trademarked 'thes*nonsunday.com/.co.uk' over a week ago, knowing fully well that if they have to close down they can simply repackage the same crap just under a different name. And don't get me started on The S*n.
On a positive note however, it has amazed me how strong an influence a social network such as Twitter can have over such a sensitive and national issue. On hearing the news, people in their masses campaigned to advertisers to stop appearing in the News of The World, and withdraw funding. This, without a shadow of a doubt was a major reason behind the closure, all thanks to the public, and one hundred and forty characters. A few years ago if Rupert Murdoch wanted to take control of BSkyB he would only have the government to contend with, now, due to Twitter and it's knack of bringing people together, he now has the public.
I don't usual take an interest in major news stories but this has developed over time to the extent where I can't help but have an opinion. When the original news broke that many celebrities phones had been hacked, I felt a bit aggrieved and sorry for them. Whilst I know a number of so called "celebrities" love the gaze of the media and enjoy headlines whether embarrassing or not, I couldn't help but think this is privacy breach of the highest, and as Steve Coogan strongly puts it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkeSJLgzG8k), some celebrities aren't looking for headlines, and don't care for some poxy newspaper filling column inches with trivial drivel. All they care for is their privacy, and they don't deserve their private conversations to be heard by anyone, let alone the News of The World journalists and then filtered through to the general public.
I just shook my head, and thought "is this what it's come to for newspapers to gain headlines". Walked off and thought that was the end of it. However this sickening story suddenly became not just a matter of privacy and headlines, but one of attitude and most importantly morals. Yes, as a journalist you want an impressive news scoop. Yes, you want people reading your paper, and yes, you want stories before other papers. But at what stage do newspaper journalist and basic human morals collide. How can you possibly make any case for hacking the phone of a lost child, listening to the voicemails, then deleting them, given the parents false hope, so you can receive more information. How can an employee of the News of The World feels they have the right do this, as a human being, let alone as a journalist. It's as Coogan puts it, morally bankrupt. You must have no morals to do this.
I'm not saying all News of The World journalist are corrupt, as I'm sure ninety-nine percent are innocent, and whether you agree with the regular content of their work, you cannot argue that this is fairly irrelevant with what the higher powers of the company have been engaging in. I, for one, have never read the News of The World, but if like other tabloids then I'm sure it was full of celebrity nothingness. Where relationships, drug uses, and clothes rule all, like some real life nonsensical unentertaining Eastenders.
In following this news coverage I found another story about Paul McMullan, featured in the video link above. He tells how, after the death of her father and famous actor Denholm Elliot, daughter Jennifer Elliot's life went drastically downhill. He persuade interest in it, writing articles about how she's turned to drug use and prostitution. She eventually killed herself.
In Paul McMullan's own words, he 'totally humiliated and destroyed her' leading to the suicide. All in the pursuit of filling an inch or two in a newspaper. This is yet another example of the volatile and vile lengths that some journalists will go to, just to get a headline. It not only says a lot about the newspaper, but of the evolving media as a whole. The people behind all of this, the former editor Rebekah Wade, and global tycoon Rupert Murdoch, may very well find a way to wriggle out of this and hope it all blows over, which if they do will be a crime against humanity. It is clear that they only care about themselves by the fact they trademarked 'thes*nonsunday.com/.co.uk' over a week ago, knowing fully well that if they have to close down they can simply repackage the same crap just under a different name. And don't get me started on The S*n.
On a positive note however, it has amazed me how strong an influence a social network such as Twitter can have over such a sensitive and national issue. On hearing the news, people in their masses campaigned to advertisers to stop appearing in the News of The World, and withdraw funding. This, without a shadow of a doubt was a major reason behind the closure, all thanks to the public, and one hundred and forty characters. A few years ago if Rupert Murdoch wanted to take control of BSkyB he would only have the government to contend with, now, due to Twitter and it's knack of bringing people together, he now has the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)