Saturday, 14 February 2009
Sunday, 8 February 2009
The Frogs Interpret Casablanca
I'm pleased with this one, it's my favourite of the lot. Unfortunately, YouTube won't accept it unless I change the audio on it (very annoying), so it's on Facebook until I figure something else out.
Friday, 9 January 2009
Leon Jackson - Creative
Poor kid. He was written off before he even had a chance - if this had been his first single, I think people would've paid more attention to him.
Anyways, just a quick note to talk about how awesome this song is as I have nothing to bitch about today.
Monday, 22 December 2008
Another (Frog) Video
The Frogs on the Christmas #1 2008
Have you ever been in the middle of something, realise that you're spending far too much time on it, but feel there's no going back? I'm pleased with the final result, but with a topical video directed at a small audience, I'm not convinced it'll get much recognition!
Friday, 19 December 2008
Thursday, 11 December 2008
Music Snobbery
Isn't it weird that people always claim that a mainstream version of something a little less well known simply murders the original? How very odd that a later version with much more funding is always classed as a brutal slaughtering. Do they do it on purpose?
I am talking about music, films, and other such media that attempt to remake or cover the original. I appreciate that it's always important to hold the original with some regard, but why on earth do people have this overwhelming need to slip into the conversation that they saw/heard the original before the arrival of the revised edition?
"The Japanese one was better."
"It's not as good as the book is" (Don't get me started on this one)
"They MURDERED that song."
Notice how, when someone covers an already famous song, people are less inclined to express sentences of this nature? Furthermore, it seems to work the other way round; "Yes, X is a great song, but I've heard this acoustic version by a band you've never heard of and it's SO much better." What do you want, a frigging medal?
I found the American version of "The Ring" scarier, and I think Leona's version of "Run" is better than Snow Patrol's. What are you going to do about it?
I am talking about music, films, and other such media that attempt to remake or cover the original. I appreciate that it's always important to hold the original with some regard, but why on earth do people have this overwhelming need to slip into the conversation that they saw/heard the original before the arrival of the revised edition?
"The Japanese one was better."
"It's not as good as the book is" (Don't get me started on this one)
"They MURDERED that song."
Notice how, when someone covers an already famous song, people are less inclined to express sentences of this nature? Furthermore, it seems to work the other way round; "Yes, X is a great song, but I've heard this acoustic version by a band you've never heard of and it's SO much better." What do you want, a frigging medal?
I found the American version of "The Ring" scarier, and I think Leona's version of "Run" is better than Snow Patrol's. What are you going to do about it?
Thursday, 6 November 2008
More Bullshit: "What's the Point in Animal X?"
Take this scenario. You and your friends are having a picnic in the summer. Suddenly a wasp is buzzing around and lands on one of your shitty plastic glasses. Everyone over-reacts, and chances are that some idiot mutters, "Why do we have wasps? They serve no purpose."
Where do I start?
Firstly, the speaker is implying that every other creature in the world plays some sort of distinct role. I am never sure whether they mean that this is for the sake of human beings or for the interests of the earth itself. Either way, unless you're a religious person of sorts, this is an entirely illogical statement. According to the theory of evolution, or more specifically that of natural selection, heritable traits that are useful for survival become more common in a given population. In other words, any species that has survived has done so based solely on its own interests.
Secondly, it's this egotistical nature in human beings that I cannot stand. The world does not revolve around us. According to the timeline covering the whole of Time Itself, we would take up less than a millimetre. And even if this was the case, I doubt that Time Itself would give a shit that it has unleashed a species that occasionally gives people a little "ouchy."
THIRDLY, there are massive worldwide fucking charities dedicated to saving animals that serve little purpose beyond the fact that they look very nice... (cough, pandas, cough). There is nothing beyond this factor that separates animals of this sort from the little beasts... worms... wasps... slugs... flies... etc. I find myself with huge amounts of empathy for bigger and "cuter" animals, but is it just me that notices how absurd it is to reserve our respect only for the superficially nice species?
Fourthly, I'd like to conclude by saying that wasps serve, a million fucking times over, the purpose of humans. Oh wait, that would put the figure into negative numbers.
Where do I start?
Firstly, the speaker is implying that every other creature in the world plays some sort of distinct role. I am never sure whether they mean that this is for the sake of human beings or for the interests of the earth itself. Either way, unless you're a religious person of sorts, this is an entirely illogical statement. According to the theory of evolution, or more specifically that of natural selection, heritable traits that are useful for survival become more common in a given population. In other words, any species that has survived has done so based solely on its own interests.
Secondly, it's this egotistical nature in human beings that I cannot stand. The world does not revolve around us. According to the timeline covering the whole of Time Itself, we would take up less than a millimetre. And even if this was the case, I doubt that Time Itself would give a shit that it has unleashed a species that occasionally gives people a little "ouchy."
THIRDLY, there are massive worldwide fucking charities dedicated to saving animals that serve little purpose beyond the fact that they look very nice... (cough, pandas, cough). There is nothing beyond this factor that separates animals of this sort from the little beasts... worms... wasps... slugs... flies... etc. I find myself with huge amounts of empathy for bigger and "cuter" animals, but is it just me that notices how absurd it is to reserve our respect only for the superficially nice species?
Fourthly, I'd like to conclude by saying that wasps serve, a million fucking times over, the purpose of humans. Oh wait, that would put the figure into negative numbers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
