So...I Wrote a Poem About Unrequited Love

I cannot monopolise your feelings

Or cameo in your dreams

I’ll never sit with you and talk freely

Between coffee and Arnott’s Creams.

Because you don’t know the private struggle:

The thoughts that flail about

In the mind of the unloved man

Who stares blankly into space

And forgets as best as he can.

There’s always that craving;

That lust for supple skin

There is no desire as intense

No feeling that is akin.

I need that recognition;

Tell me that I matter.

Create a second groove in my couch

Before my self-esteem falls to tatters.

You’ll never know the feeling

Of wanting what you can’t get.

Kiss me now:

Hard;

With passion;

Because it’s better to try

Than to regret.

Ten Obscure Films That You Must See

The following is a list of ten films that were not made for mainstream audiences, but should be seen by more people. They were most likely granted a limited release, and probably appeal to particular niches of society. The majority of these are independent or art house films. They are in no particular order.


1. IN THE COMPANY OF MEN (1997)
Directed by: Neil LaBute
Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Matt Malloy and Stacy Edwards
U.S. box office gross: $2,804,473





Here is a wicked film that toys with your emotions. The premise is that two misogynists (Eckhart and Malloy) devise a plan whereby they will seduce a lonely female co-worker only to shatter her feelings by breaking up with her. Things get interesting when one of men develops feelings for the woman. The two leads show impeccable comic timing, and Stacy Edwards is easy to empathise with as the vulnerable prey of Eckhart and Malloy.


2. SUBURBIA (1996)
Directed by: Richard Linklater
Starring: Giovanni Ribisi, Steve Zahn and Jayce Bartok
U.S. box office gross: $656,747





Based on a play by Eric Bogosian, the film's premise is simple: a group of slackers philosophically converse on the corner of a convenience store whilst waiting for their friend who has 'made it' as a rock star to arrive. I use the term 'philosophically' loosely; they talk about a whole range of things, but it's generally pretty powerful stuff. And not all of their discussion takes place on that corner; they move around the neighbourhood, but that corner is their second home, where most of the discussion takes place. The rock star friend doesn't arrive at the film's conclusion, instead he and his publicist join the slackers fairly early in the film. This is very positive for the film, as his inclusion shakes things up.

The convenience store is run by a Pakistani couple who frequently challenge the slackers about their lives. "Don't you have lives to live? Why choose this particular corner? Don't you realise that you are wasting your lives? Get off my property! You are all drunken and stupid!" Those aren't the exact lines spoken, but you get the drift. The film touches on issues such as consumerism, racism, freedom of expression, fame, the monotony of life, the effects of drugs and alcoholism. Yes, the film basically consists of plenty of talk, but that's what makes the film as excellent as it is. The characters are so real, and it's likely that you will empathise with at least one of them. The film is so tragic, in that it shows us the dark side of life, but isn't that what we need to see as an audience, in an era where Hollywood seems to sugarcoat their films with happy endings? You see, the reality is that not everything in life will go your way, that some people just 'exist', and make nothing of their lives, that there are people who are more well-off than you. 'SubUrbia' opens our eyes to the harsh brutality that transpires everyday in our world, that we may not be aware of. 


3. BAD BOY BUBBY (1993)
Directed by: Rolf de Heer
Starring: Nicholas Hope, Claire Benito and Ralph Cotterill
Australian box office gross: $808,789





A twisted character study of a 35 year-old man who is confined to his home by his overly protective mother. One day he escapes and sets out on a perilous adventure. The outside world is one big dangerous labyrinth for Bubby. He is not aware of regular social conventions, and he is mentally retarded. Nicholas Hope's portrayal as Bubby is one of the most intriguing performances I have ever seen. It's a brave role to embody, and he did it justice. One of the great Australian films, and not for the casual film viewer: this one's a real thought-provoker. 


4. ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW (2005)
Directed by: Miranda July
Starring: John Hawkes, Miranda July and Miles Thompson
U.S. box office gross: $3,885,134





I often call Miranda July my favourite hipster, a term which she would undoubtedly detest. But there's this innate quirkiness to her that makes her films so sweet. The characters in this film are so strongly developed, and they are quite diverse. Only July would make one of the focal characters a shoe salesman. What I noticed about this film is how quiet it is. It's quite a relaxing watch. You don't have to keep up with plot twists or fast-paced action, because there is none to be seen. You can just sit back and watch lives unfold before your eyes. Was speechless during the credits; ending was intensely beautiful.

5. THE SQUID AND THE WHALE (2005)
Directed by: Noah Baumbach
Starring: Owen Kline, Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney
U.S. box office gross: $7,372,734




Semi-autobiographical story based on the experiences of director Baumbach and his brother coping with their parents' divorce in the 1980s Brooklyn. This film isn't sugar-coated. Baumbach makes use of a bleak colour palette to symbolise the feeling of isolation. All of the performances are genuine and heartfelt. I particularly liked Jeff Daniels' performance, as he broke out of his typical role as a rubber-faced funny man and took on a much weightier character. Jesse Eisenberg is also marvellous here, and it's likely that this is the role that laid the platform for his stardom. 


6. DEAD END (2003)
Directed by: Jean-Baptiste Andrea and Fabrice Canepa
Starring: Ray Wise, Lin Shaye and Mick Cain
U.K. box office gross: £106,801





Claustrophobic horror that plays on our most intense fear: the unknown. This film only needs a few characters and one main setting to make it work. I praise it most for its originality; I've seen very few horror films that are as inventive as this one. Is partially let down by the ending, in my opinion, but still very much worth seeing. 


7. GHOST WORLD (2001)
Directed by: Terry Zwigoff
Starring: Steve Buscemi, Thora Birch and Scarlett Johansson
U.S. box office gross: $6,217,849





If 'Hipster' was a film genre, this would be its most acclaimed feature. But do not fear! This film doesn't try to be pretentious. It knows that its lead characters are eccentric, and uses this as the source of many jokes. Can remember laughing to the point of tears while watching this - the wit is razor-sharp. Birch shows facets of her performance as Jane Burnham in American Beauty, but here she is allowed to inject more of herself into the film. Steve Buscemi never disappoints, but here he was especially effective playing Seymour. I often tell people that I empathise with Seymour more than any other character in the history of film. He is just so vulnerable here, and I ached for him on numerous occasions in the film.

8. HARD CANDY (2005)
Directed by: David Slade
Starring: Patrick Wilson, Ellen Page and Sandra Oh
U.S. box office gross: $1,024,640 




I cannot believe that Ellen Page was only 17 or 18 during the filming of Hard Candy. The film is dialogue-heavy, and not only does she remember her lines, but she delivers them with conviction. Page plays a 14 year-old who lures a 32 year-old man into baring his darkest confessions to her after suspecting that he is a paedophile. The film is extremely graphic and is difficult to watch at times. Page becomes so absorbed in her role that I actually grew afraid of her, despite her natural innocence. Page and Wilson virtually carry the whole film, which isn't surprising since there are only five cast members listed in the film's credits. A gripping film that will etch itself in your mind.


9. THE WEATHER MAN (2005)
Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Hope Davis and Nicholas Hoult
U.S. box office gross: $12,482,775






I've watched this film a few times. It's one of those films that improves with repeat viewings. The colour palette is even bleaker here than in The Squid and the Whale, helped immensely by the fact that it's always snowing, raining or overcast. Dave Spritz (Nicolas Cage) is an enigmatic character. Throughout the film, he tries to prove himself as both a family man and a businessman, but luck never seems to come his way. People launch fast food at him as they pass him in the street (a hilarious running gag). He is divorced from his wife and is jealous of her new boyfriend. Michael Caine's performance is pitch-perfect. He play's Cage's father and delivers his lines with cold apathy, which is more effective than it sounds. There are brief moments of sunshine in this film, and they feel rewarding, too. The film manages to be touching without being overly sentimental. Oh, and who said Nicolas Cage can't act?


10. CATFISH (2010)
Directed by: Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman
Starring: Melody C. Roscher, Ariel Schulman and Yaniv Schulman
U.S. box office gross: $3,237,343





Documentary about a man who is filmed by his brother and friend as he develops a friendship with a girl over Facebook. I will not delve into the plot too much, because the less you know, the more rewarding the film is. I enjoyed how the film dealt with the theme of obsession; of a preoccupation holding your life hostage. The film's ending will either shock you or bore you, but either way, you most likely won't see it coming. It just HAPPENS, as though it is nothing out of the ordinary. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the documentary. That is, if it is even a documentary, or merely a staged documentary. You can leave that up to yourself, although I'd like to think it's real. 


   

Why Twitter is a Better Place Than Facebook

In this post, I will compare what are arguably the two most popular social networking websites on the Internet: Twitter and Facebook. In doing so, I aim to persuade you that the Twitter environment is a far more peaceful place than the Facebook environment. This post is not about Facebook's layout inefficiencies, or how it seems to barrage us with constant changes while Twitter remains consistent. This post is about the people who use each social network. In saying that, let me clarify that I will not be naming or shaming anyone in this post (although some deserve to be).

First of all, allow me to share my thoughts on the social functions of each website. I feel that Facebook is the social network you should stick to if you are solely concerned with fostering and perpetuating social relationships with people you already know. That is, you should 'friend' schoolmates, work colleagues, actual friends and acquaintances. Facebook is not the place to add random people just because they arouse your libido. It comes off as creepy and it can make things awkward. Facebook's emphasis on knowing people you connect with is entrenched in their terminology. For example, people you are connected with are known as 'friends', implying you should be on friendly terms with these people; that you would recognise them if you saw them in the street. You can 'poke' people on Facebook, as a way of letting them know you're there (or as a softcore method of flirtation; take your pick). Now, you wouldn't poke a random stranger in real life, would you? Maybe some of you would, but that's none of my business. The point is, Facebook is concerned with strengthening community ties. I see it as a small world inside a much larger world - a microcosm, if you will. Facebook has 'walls' and 'photo albums' - terms which evoke homely connotations. Clearly, this is a social network for people who know each other.

Twitter is a completely different beast. Unlike Facebook, you can 'follow' someone without even gaining their permission. Of course, if you choose to, you can tweak your privacy settings so that people must be approved before they can follow you. The majority of profiles, though, can be accessed and followed with the click of a button. Let me get this straight: you should NOT be on Twitter if you aren't willing to meet new people. If you want to stay inside your own shell, stick to Facebook. Twitter is all about global interaction. When I think of Twitter, McLuhan's theory of the Global Village springs to mind. This medium allows the rapid movement of information from all corners of the globe. The great thing about Twitter is that there really is a profile for everyone. If you wish, you don't even have to follow people, per se. You can follow companies, or numerous bizarre profiles such as 'Dogs Doing Things'. Most people are at first attracted to Twitter because of all the celebrities. I mean, it's like Hollywood, but in Internet form. But after making an account, you'll soon discover that only a small minority of celebrities will actually respond to your tweets. That's understandable, considering the copious amount of tweets they must receive in a day, let alone an hour. Once you come to terms with this shattered dream, you begin to realise that "Hey, there are actually some genuine people on this thing." This is the best part of Twitter. Making connections with everyday people that you don't even know. It's boring if you just follow your friends or celebrities. You already know the former, and you probably won't get any response from the latter. By following regular, everyday people, you start to create your own 'Twitter family'. And no, I don't think I'm hyperbolising. Some of the connections you make will really enrich your life, and it will sometimes feel like you've known your Twitter followers all your life.

Now, why is Twitter superior to Facebook? Of course, I will be drawing on personal experience throughout this paragraph, and I realise that not everyone's experiences will be the same as mine. Seeing as I am 18 years of age, the majority of my Facebook friends are people who I went to school with. I graduated with most of them, but there are also some who graduated before me, and some who are yet to graduate. Judging by this age demographic, I don't expect my homepage to be flooded with serious material that is intellectually-stimulating, nor do I expect a high level of maturity. Am I being too harsh on you, fellow Facebookers? Nah, I don't think I am, because those low expectations of mine have been met one too many times! Seriously, why do so many of you have to be immature, insolent assholes? I am aware that I post frequently, and I am aware that most of you couldn't give a shit about the majority of links I post. That's fair enough. I can't expect all of you to share my tastes in music, reading material, and the like. I am also aware that my status updates probably bore the crap out of you. Sure, I come up with the occasional status update which garners five or more 'likes', but the majority are ignored. I actually don't mind too much that my status updates are ignored, but it *does* annoy me when I see someone post a cheesy quote about love or faith that they ATTEMPT TO PASS OFF AS THEIR OWN, and they get over ten 'likes' for it. Or, even worse, status updates that hark back to the days of Bebo, such as "'Like' and I'll rate you out of 10" or "Who's up?" (asked late at night to see who's awake). Oh, and then there are those people who post nothing but disgusting rap lyrics for every status update. Of course, those status updates attract AT LEAST five 'likes'. Let's not forget those people who toss around words such as 'faggot' as though no one reading their post will be offended. Last night in fact, I read one of the most disgusting status updates I've ever seen, laden with blatant homophobia. I won't repeat it here, but if you follow me on Twitter, you'll know what it was. Another thing that annoys me about Facebook are those people who 'like' any comment that contradicts me. I call them 'lurkers'. For example, I'll post a joke as a status update, and some idiot will respond that the joke is crap (HEY BUDDY, DON'T LIKE MY JOKES? CLICK 'UNFRIEND'), and THEN, a 'lurker' will come along and 'like' the comment that says my joke is crap, but they won't offer any of their own insights. Oh, and how can I forget, THE SPELLING, GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION!? Look, you don't have to have the linguistic poise of Shakespeare, but please, if you can't string a sentence together or can't tell the different between 'their', 'there' and 'they're', OR 'your' and 'you're' OR 'it's' and 'its', then READ A FUCKING BOOK and then come back to grace me with your online presence. Anyway, I'm going to end this paragraph because I'm getting way too snarky and I'm going to make you all hate me (if you don't already). But yeah, the essence is: BE POLITE TO EACH OTHER AND CARRY YOURSELF WITH DECENCY AND DIGNITY. And if you don't like what I post, you can always click 'unfriend'. I'm not stopping you! Now you're all thinking "Dude, why don't YOU unfriend US if you don't like what WE post?" Well, starting tonight, if you post something disgusting, and I feel that having you cut from my life will not be of detriment to me, I will unfriend you.

*Deep breath* Now! Twitter is a much friendlier place than Facebook, on so many levels. If you tweet that you're having a bad day, people will actually attempt to comfort you. They will ask if you need to talk. They will give you virtual hugs. To be fair, I occasionally see that on Facebook as well, although it often takes the cheapened form of "inbox me, babe." The other day, I was having difficulty with a cryptic crossword, so I expressed over Twitter that I needed some help. That tweet was retweeted a few times, and it didn't take long for the help to come flooding in. If I had expressed over Facebook that I needed help with a cryptic crossword, the status update would most likely go ignored, or I may have been met with something like "lol ur gay who does crosswords". I attribute my rediscovered desire for leisure reading to Twitter. People in the Twittersphere post the most insightful and fascinating reading material! Hey Facebookers, ever wonder where I find all the links that I post on Facebook? Yep, you guessed it - from Twitter. A lot of intellectual conversation takes place on Twitter. And it's not only 'intellectual' because of the topics discussed, but also because the people know how to deal with each other. There is very little rudeness on the site, but when there is, you can just block the people giving you strife.

Time to wrap this up. This post wasn't written to persuade Facebookers to migrate to Twitter. As most Tweeps (Twitter peeps) have expressed "We don't want you here." But seriously, if you genuinely feel that you might enjoy Twitter, you can give it a go. Maybe it will change you for the better. Just don't carry over those ugly Facebook habits.

Regards,
Steven

How to Win Friends and Influence People

Earlier this week, I finished reading a self-help book called How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. I read it after hearing the title mentioned in the film Diner (which is recommended), and then looked it up on Wikipedia. I had never read a self-help book before, but I thought that I could do with some tips on how to get people to like me. I know that I'm not widely hated, but I am aware that many people on Facebook (maybe even YOU) find me annoying, and that I have difficulty making friends. What's remarkable is that the principles espoused in the book are still relevant in contemporary times, despite the fact that the book was first published in 1936. Carnegie uses examples to explain each principle, and the tone of the book shifts between instructional and humorous. This blog entry will merely summarise each of the chapters from the book, and thus provide a checklist of sorts that will inform you how to "win friends and influence people." Apply these principles and people WILL like you more than they already do. In short, Carnegie's book teaches people how not to be an asshole. Oh, and it has sold 15 million copies worldwide, in case you were wondering.  

Twelve Things This Book Will Do For You

1. Get you out of a mental rut, give you new thoughts, new visions, new ambitions.
2. Enable you to make friends quickly and easily.
3. Increase your popularity.
4. Help you to win people to your way of thinking.
5. Increase your influence, your prestige, your ability to get things done.
6. Enable you to win new clients, new customers.
7. Increase your earning power.
8. Make you a better salesman, a better executive.
9. Help you to handle complaints, avoid arguments, keep your human contacts smooth and pleasant.
10. Make you a better speaker, a more entertaining conversationalist.
11. Make the principles of psychology easy for you to apply in your daily contacts.
12. Help you to arouse enthusiasm among your associates.

Fundamental Techniques in Handling People

1. Don't criticize, condemn, or complain.
2. Give honest and sincere appreciation.
3. Arouse in the other person an eager want.

Six Ways to Make People Like You

1. Become genuinely interested in other people.
2. Smile.
3. Remember that a person's name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language.
4. Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
5. Talk in terms of the other person's interest.
6. Make the other person feel important – and do it sincerely.

Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking

1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
2. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say "You're Wrong."
3. If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
4. Begin in a friendly way.
5. Start with questions to which the other person will answer yes.
6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
7. Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.
8. Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
9. Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.
10. Appeal to the nobler motives.
11. Dramatise your ideas.
12. Throw down a challenge.

Be a Leader: How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment

1. Begin with praise and honest appreciation.
2. Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly.
3. Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person.
4. Ask questions instead of giving direct orders.
5. Let the other person save face.
6. Praise every improvement.
7. Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to.
8. Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct.
9. Make the other person happy about doing what you suggest.

Seven Rules For Making Your Home Life Happier

1. Don't nag.
2. Don't try to make your partner over.
3. Don't criticize.
4. Give honest appreciation.
5. Pay little attentions.
6. Be courteous.
7. Read a good book on the sexual side of marriage.

 

 

 

Things That Make Life Worth Living

Woody Allen's Manhattan is a gorgeous film. Shot in black and white, it captures the beauty of New York City in a way that colour could not. Allen plays Isaac Davis, a twice-divorced 42-year-old comedy writer who temporarily dates a 17 year-old girl called Tracy, before deciding that he would be better suited to someone closer to his age. Towards the end of the film, when Isaac's relationship with the older woman has failed, he realises that he enjoyed Tracy's company all along. This realisation comes to Isaac in the form of an epiphany, almost. He is lying on his couch, voicing the things that make his life worth living into a tape recorder. The final thing he says is "Tracy's face", before he races out of his apartment building and reaches Tracy moments before she leaves for London. Allen's "What makes life worth living?" scene has stuck with me ever since I saw Manhattan, a bit over a year ago.



I thought I'd have a go at my own monologue (in the style of Allen's), about the things that make my life worth living. Here goes:

Alright. Why is life worth living? That's a very good question. Uh...well...there are certain things I guess that make it worthwhile. Uh...like what? Okay. Um...for me? I would say Neil Finn, to name one thing. And Oscar Wilde, and that sense of urban alienation captured in Edward Hopper paintings. Nighthawks is a personal favourite. The thrill of almost being caught masturbating. Extra cheese on pizza, naturally. Shaun Micallef. Stephen Fry. Uh...the plastic bag scene in American Beauty. That whole film, actually. Making eye contact with attractive strangers on a train, especially when they reciprocate for a few seconds. Michael Hutchence-era INXS, for sure. The Simpsons before it jumped the shark. Uh...the karaoke scene in Lost in Translation, and the fact that no-one knows what Bob whispered in Charlotte's ear at the end of that film. The Internet - that's a major one. Oh, and I mustn't forget animals. Especially pets. And High Fidelity by Nick Hornby - my favourite novel. And Woody Allen, especially his monologues and characterisation of self-referential neurotic protagonists.

Sympathy for Children: An Outmoded Concept?

Last Saturday, my cousin and I headed out to Parramatta Stadium to watch our beloved Eels take on Manly. The Eels lost (as expected), but that wasn't the only thing that sent us home a bit aggravated. My cousin, who is 25, entered one of those 'catch-the-ball' competitions that takes place at halftime. The competition works like this: a guy launches a few balls high in the air, and each competitor takes turns in trying to catch the ball. It works out like a spelling bee - you are eliminated once you make an error (in this case: not catching the ball). Well...that's how it SHOULD work out. You see, there were three other competitors lining up against my cousin - two adults and one child. I'm guessing the child was aged between ten and twelve, give or take one year.

In the first round, my cousin caught his ball, as did one other competitor (one of the adults). Despite this, the two people who failed to catch the ball were given second chances. It soon got out of control, and I lost track of how many times various people had caught or dropped the ball. All I know is that my cousin caught every single ball that was kicked. He even beat the other three in a race to catch the ball (which was dubbed 'the final round'). This was the point where the competition runners, comedians Tahir and Rob Shehadie, should have ended the competition and declared my cousin the winner. However, they informed the competitors (and the crowd) that there would be one more round! The final round would be contested between my cousin and the child. The kick from Rob Shehadie went up. It was a fairly shocking kick, and neither competitor had a chance of taking it on the full. Despite this, my cousin was chasing the ball along the ground, and was just about to grab it until it was kicked away from him by Tahir. Can you guess where the ball ended up? Yep, you guessed it! In the kid's arms. The kid was declared the winner of a Parramatta Eels jersey which could be signed by a player of his choosing.   

My cousin later revealed to me that Tahir and Rob even admitted that they would let the kid win, that "that's just how it works." Well, my cousin was fuming. And so was I. My cousin has supported Parramatta for his whole life. He bleeds blue and gold. He attends practically every home game - not just for the first-grade clash, but for the Toyota Cup match as well. He even made sure that his engagement would not take place on the day of an Eels game. And what does he get in return? He gets robbed of victory by two guys who think it's 'cute' to let the kid win. "Oh, he's only a kid." TOUGH FUCKING LUCK! When my cousin entered this competition, it was stipulated what he had to do to win. I'm sure the kid was fully aware of the rules, too. It really doesn't matter what the prize at stake was. It's a matter of principle. My cousin did what he was told to do, expecting to receive what was promised to him, but was hard done by in the end. How is this fair? Why don't they just open the competition to kids only if they're solely interested in pleasing the younger fans? Or, if they really had to, they could have given my cousin the prize on the field, AND given the kid the same prize behind closed doors. It's just wrong to lay out a set of rules or guidelines and then tweak them at your discretion because you're persuaded by sentiment. My cousin said he'd be ringing the club to complain about the incident. I'm not sure if he's gone ahead with that yet, but if he has, I hope they've given him what he deserves.

Now for some general thoughts on the topic of kids always getting their way. I realise that children have especially fragile emotions, and sometimes we are required to give them what they want so they don't complain...or throw a tantrum. But the issue here is not how we should treat children individually; it's how we should treat them in comparison with adults. In essence, we should not give kids an air of superiority just because they're kids. We should not assume that, as children, they agree to being given unfair advantages. Some precocious kids would argue that it's unfair to be given the upper hand based on age. What do we do when we want to reward a kid but that kid happens to be a disrespectful little rascal? And yes, there are plenty of children like that. Should we just ignore the more righteous, older person under the assumption that "they won't want it as much"? As a society, we need to stop judging people based on demographical information, like age, and start judging people based on character. If children grow up getting everything they desire, then how are they going to adjust to adult life, where borrowing a dollar off your parents for the ice cream truck becomes sitting down with your partner, pondering how you are going to pay off the mortgage? As children, we need to learn that, in life, not everything will be clear skies and rainbows. There will be hard times when only you, the individual, can solve a problem.

I've always loved Red Symons' role on Hey Hey It's Saturday, as the mean-spirited, cynical judge in the 'Red Faces' segment. When a child comes on stage and sings, Red does not fall to his/her charm. He assesses the performance realistically, and if it is less than satisfactory, he is not afraid to say so, and may rate the act a two out of ten. We need more people like him in the world.   

"It's Catchy"

It's no secret that I am not a fan of the contemporary music landscape (see My Thoughts on Today's 'Music'). From both a technical and lyrical standpoint, I feel that many of today's 'artists' just don't cut it. Note: 'many', not 'all'. Of course, taste in music is a subjective matter, and plenty of people listen to and thus endorse the music that is found in your typical Top 40 chart. And to each their own. Whilst I may have an abundance of problems with modern-day pop songs, I do not deny the right of others to listen to such music.

Despite my libertarian views on music taste, there is one reason for liking contemporary pop songs that irritates me. Ask a friend why he/she listens to Kesha or Katy Perry, and I can almost guarantee that one of the reasons, perhaps the first they list, will be "their music is catchy." This begs the question: is catchiness a positive quality to have in a song? I believe it's a double-edged sword. A catchy song can perpetuate an artist's name in the industry. If you write a song that people will *remember*, you are likely to develop a fanbase who will demand new material and stick by your side. People will recognise your song if they hear it playing in a supermarket. You may even have your song featured on Australia's Funniest Home Videos during some montage of cats doing funny things. You will not fade into obscurity anytime soon.

The downside of a catchy song is that it will generally receive excessive radio play, and as we all know, overplay is a sure-fire way of killing the authentic freshness of a once-vibrant song. Also, and this may be a big call, a catchy song is a form of musical propaganda. Some artists are aware that their songs don't contain much artistic merit, so they insert a contagious hook to obscure their flaws. That way, consumers of their music may bypass the horrid lyrics. They may not pick up on some casual pitch problems (Auto-Tune should take care of these, anyway). I believe that such a move dumbs us down as consumers of music, under the assumption that we do not want substance in our music, and that we're only after a "sick beat." The truth is: some people ARE after exactly that, and nothing more. Some do not care for original arrangements and profound, challenging lyrics. That is fair enough, although artists should not assume that everyone is after mindless music that's only good for moving your feet to.  

Am I saying that catchy songs are bad songs? Not at all. I just feel that a song shouldn't be worthy of praise because is it 'catchy'. It should be 'catchy' as a result of its good qualities. I happen to love many songs with contagious hooks, but I don't hinge my love of those songs on those hooks alone. A few days ago, I added a Lady Gaga song to my iPod for the first time ever. That song is The Edge of Glory. I like how it builds to a climax, features a nifty saxophone solo by the late Clarence Clemons and exhibits Gaga's vocal talents. Yes, it is catchy, but as a pop hit, it really works, and I feel that Lady Gaga has improved dramatically since coming into prominence. She is now more conscientious about her craft, and has been successful in carving out an image for herself. She also seems genuinely appreciative of her fans. Here is the performance that convinced me that she is talented. Enjoy.