MTV News recently gave what they consider to have been the top 25 songs of 2010 so far. And now that the year is nearly at its complete end, presumably - End of.
They reckon "Love the Way You Lie" is the #9 song of 2010, here's the complete list:
1. Usher - OMG
2. Kanye West - Runaway
3. Kanye West - Power
4. Rick Ross - B.M.F.
5. Cee Lo Green - Fuck You (no need for stars here
)6. Robyn - Dancing on My Own
7. Drake - Fancy
8. Jay-Z - Onto the Next One
9. Eminem ft. Rihanna - Love the Way You Lie
10. Lady GaGa - Telephone
11. Katy Perry - Teenage Dream
12. B.o.B ft. Hayley Williams - Airplanes
13. Kanye West ft. Rick Ross, Jay-Z & Nicki Minaj - Monster
14. B.o.B ft. Bruno Mars - Nothin' on You
15. Rihanna - Only Girl (In the World)
16. Lady GaGa - Alejandro
17. Rihanna - Rude Boy
18. Chris Brown - Deuces
19. Alica Keys - Un-Thinkable (I'm Ready)
20. The National - Bloodbuzz Ohio
21. Robyn - Hang with Me
22. Yeasayer - O.N.E.
23. LCD Soundsystem - I Can Change
24. Sweedish House Mafia - One
25. Rick Ross - Super High
So, think what you will of the list. Personally I think it's very flawed, but of course... who isn't going to think that? What are the chances you're going to have the exact same taste and will agree with the position of every song in a list haha, very slim indeed.
But there's some fundamental problems, namely - I don't know exactly what factors MTV News take into account when they're deciding which songs to include and in what order, they obviously take more into account than the exact stats of a song's success alone, proven by the fact some less commercially successful songs are higher than more successful ones.
Now, I think that's fine, there needs to be a A BIT of taste indulgence, if only to give the station some form of palette, some interpretation of a personality of entity, beyond being a fact machine that churns out what's happening and what's statistically better than another thing etc.
So I think it's good that they do that, to a degree, but there's definitely some unhealthy and illogical bias in both directions that are always visible, especially in this list. Whilst I do think it's good that they induce their own collective taste into the proceedings, they also need to still largely reflect the opinions of the masses if they're to seriously try and brand themselves a station of the people.
They're also a commercial station, so whether they want to say it out loud or not, they absolutely need to take commercial success and impact of things into big consideration with these things.
That said, how do they justify not including "Not Afraid"? Which was a massive no.1 single this year and had a huge impact on the sort of demographic they try and tap into and reflect. They quite clearly are trying to overcompensate their previously alleged love of Eminem lately, they're overcompensating that with a counter-reaction of underplaying their respect / love of him and his work. Which is just wrong, in the other direction lmao.
They appear to be too stupid to divorce deep personal taste just enough to be reasonably objective whilst at the same time allowing it to come into play just enough to give them a personality beyond fact churners. I definitely also think Eminem's colour is STILL working against him with stuff like this, because like I said - people try to overcompensate and downplay his greatness from the path of their tongue simply so they don't look like they're favouring him. And they do that because they're paranoid about looking racist, which is just absurd.
Paranoid about looking racist means they themselves still see his colour as a defining factor. True colour blind thinking means not taking it into account AT ALL. That includes people announcing everytime another black actor wins an Oscar.
"X is now just the SIXTH black actor to win an Oscar"
It's like, okay we get it. Black people had their history robbed of them and for the past hundred years have been integrating and becoming a full force in society. But do we really need to keep announcing tit for tat stats like this that does nothing but re-initiate race debates, the very thing we're trying to avoid by doing it (ironically) and in-fact over-treating black people in the process.
Naming a black Oscar winner every time it happens is a failure. It's a failure because if race is no longer an issue, why are we still emphasizing it? If we're sophisticated and intelligent, if we're beyond that apish, childish, offensive thinking - then stop reverting to it to try and abolish it. Accept that it's abolished and treat all humans like humans. Stop using race as an excuse for anything, and stop using race as a platform for praise. Humans are humans.
Can you imagine...
"X is now the FIRST Jew under 6ft to win an Oscar"
"X is now the THIRD ginger female to win an Oscar"
Of course not, seems silly doesn't it? But that's an exact parallel of what we're doing by announcing black winners and the number there have been etc. like it's still something we need to emphasize and congratulate. Race; like height, age, genetic heritage of any sort and other human characteristic is one of many that none of us have direct control of, we play no hand in it.
So emphasizing it in any kind of fashion is a failure to accept that.
Back to the list...
Now, I'll be honest - I follow no other genre from hip-hop so am not privy to other genres, the important music in those genres and what's currently worthy of attention in any of them. So I'm speaking from a place of ignorance when I discount songs of other genres but...
Surely this list, by its title at least, is supposed to reflect songs that transcended that ignorance. Songs that if I'm of this generation, alive and kicking - I should know about irrespective of my genre taste, due simply to the impact of that song and the unlikely chances of me escaping its presence.
So with all that said, can anybody (fans of these included) honestly say that Sweedish House Mafia's song "One" had more of an impact, on any level than "Not Afraid"?
I seriously doubt that could be argued. Meaning that's what, just an inclusion based purely on taste? How can they justify not even INCLUDING "Not Afraid" and then placing a song which didn't have an ounce of its impact nationally or internationally higher up than it. Well, higher up by definition by the fact it's on the list and "Not Afraid" isn't. But they deemed Em's song not even worthy of a mention and that song worthy of a placement. Seems very bias if you ask me.
Like I've repeatedly said in this post so far though, the fact they put their taste into the mix is fine and right, I agree with that. But to do it to the degree they appear to have done it on chunks of this list and simply ignore culture, ignore impact, ignore everything and deem their opinion above it anyway... that's nothing short of irresponsible. It'll cause debate, and probably in-effect be better for them (and their list) but it doesn't do much for the validity of it or the perception of their musical knowledge, cultural integrity or supposed unbiased nature.
Eminem to Star in Boxing Movie Southpaw
News has broke of development on a new movie featuring none other than Marshall Mathers.
To fans of 8 Mile or, more broadly speaking - Eminem's performance in it and his promise of acting talent (myself included) this is certainly exciting news. As we all know, 8 Mile was in 2002, which is now nearly a whopping decade ago.
So, the movie itself is called Southpaw, it's going to be backed by DearmWorks, produced by Paul Rosenberg and Co. and written by Sons of Anarchy (TV) creator Kurt Sutter - the script is due in Feb 2011. Then I guess they'll find a director for it.
Eminem will play a southpaw (left-handed) welterweight champion boxer that spirals downwards after a tragedy occurs in his life. He then fights to reclaim his past glory and win the affection of his young daughter back (The Wrestler anyone?). The title handily (pun-intended) refers to the fact that Em himself is left-handed, and it's also somewhat metaphorical to the fact that in hip-hop he's something like what a southpaw is to boxing.
You could justify that in various ways, you could say that's because he's dangerous and left-field and also because of the fact that he's white. Which in hip-hop is a rarity just like being a southpaw is in boxing. Here's a quote from Kurt (writer) on the situation...
Kurt Sutter wrote:I took meetings with Marshall's producing partners over the past seven years, looking for something to do together. I know he's very selective and doesn't do a lot. But he shared so much of his personal struggle in this raw and very honest album, one that I connected with on a lot of levels. He is very interested in the boxing genre, and it seemed like an apt metaphor, because his own life has been a brawl.
In a way, this is a continuation of the 8 Mile story, but rather than a literal biography, we are doing a metaphorical narrative of the second chapter of his life. He'll play a world champion boxer who really hits a hard bottom, and has to fight to win back his life for his young daughter. At its core, this is a retelling of his struggles over the last five years of his life, using the boxing analogy. I love that the title refers to Marshall being a lefty, which is to boxing what a white rapper is to hip hop; dangerous, unwanted and completely unorthodox. It's a much harder road for a southpaw than a right handed boxer.
To me, this is a very good idea.
When I imagined the idea of him doing another movie, firstly - I was absolutely hoping that it would be another lead role as opposed to a smaller part, I was actually hoping that he could do something that would allow him to fully embellish a character.
And on the face of it, I would think I wouldn't be thrilled with another movie that somewhat mirrors his life but the fact this is only metaphoric and not a retelling in his actual life context means it's the perfect balance. I think he's doing it just right - firstly by playing a character in a situation that resembles his own life, in similar situations meaning he can draw heavily from his own experience to more easily give a performance true to the story...
And now, he's playing a character that isn't in his life situation but the fact he's struck by tragedy and then has to struggle back to the top of his field and reclaim his place, is an obvious reference to his situation. But the fact it's in the conext of boxing etc. will allow him to create a totally new character, with different 'kinds' of thoughts and mannerisms.
Fact he isn't by profession an actor means it's probably best to ease into it overtime if he is actually thinking of ever doing it full-time. And that's why I say he's doing it just right, because his first role is a role he can more comfortably handle and mirror, the next role will now be a role of which still metaphorically mirrors his life but has enough elements and situations away from it that he can begin experimenting with creation within acting. It's practically the next step-up, a slightly harder challenge for a second role - makes sense. And the fact he's turned roles down for so long speaks volumes of his integrity. He's a true artist, in everything that he applies himself to.
Also, I think people are taking too lightly of the fact that boxing is a whole new world. I see that some people think it'll just be 8 Mile but boxing but... aside from the basic mentality of an underdog coming back and the fact you could say battling is like boxing - it's really a whole new world. A whole new history, new look a whole new angle to capture on film so... if done well this really could be something very different from 8 Mile and something very engaging.
It's also perfect timing in my opinion. And just... such the perfect project, really gives me that 'buzz' feeling when all the elements seem correct. Which happens so rarely. Whether it lives up to that presumed greatness remains to be seen but on the face of it, looks so great because...
So far, his comeback has mirrored the first phase of his career whilst being unique enough in its own right. For example...
His first album, The Slim Shady LP (1999)
A twisted, comedic album focused on lyricism and storytelling.
His first comeback album, Relapse (2009)
Ditto.
His second album, The Marshall Mathers LP (2000)
A more personal, serious, shouty album.
His second comeback album, Recovery (2010)
Ditto.
I know the second comparison may seem vague and a stretch to some but, I do think that he's essentially tried to recreate the elements of both. But that doesn't mean the music is similar, just that he's tried to capture the spirit of both. Though Recovery is more like The Eminem Show but, you get the idea.
And now, he'll be starring in a movie metaphorically summing up a stretch of his life, or at least... drawing from it. All the dates literally mirror each other lmao. Seems a little too calculated to be coincidence, him and his team are so cunning me thinks. Learning you are.
I think it's a really good look for this time period though. It feels very... 'proper' in an artistic sense, so neat and calculated the way it's all worked out.
I think this draws obvious inspiration from The Wrestler, which is a brilliant film by the way. And it's also coming relatively close to The Figher. So it may draw comparisons due to its likely release date, meaning it may have to be twice as good as people expect to get a fair shot at review. I haven't seen The Fighter myself yet but understand it's supposedly a good film and that Christian Bale gave an Oscar-worthy performance...
There also hasn't been that many good boxing movies. I mean, you have Raging Bull - which is a near-masterpiece, then you have the first Rocky and that's about it. Although I haven't seen that many boxing movies but am not aware of many others that are good. And even the first Rocky is only great as an actual movie, in terms of boxing it's not realistic and the other Rocky's are awful. Except for the final one actually, that isn't bad.
But, this means they could have a good chance of providing a rarity in a genre here. Marking it out somewhat from other movies just like 8 Mile is marked out for being the only movie of its kind.
Also, people are focusing on the fact it's another underdog story like it's uncommon for movies to use the same formats anyway. Just because it's an underdog story doesn't mean it's going to be like 8 Mile. Because, when you think of the thriller genre for example - most films in that genre follow the same basic formats of mystery and suspense but does that mean all thrillers are similar? Of course not. Les not also forget that boxing is a sport so that's an extra world of detail to hone in itself.
I think that Em would make a great character actor and that's why I say i wanted him to take a role where he could tap into that. Reason I say that is due to the level of character acting he's displayed throughout his career, in his music. Just because he was recording his voice only doesn't mean he wasn't acting. When you take "Kim" and "Stan" for example - his voice acting is fantastic and done in real-time, which is why they sound so real and haunting. The nuance in his writing and delivery in some instances is superb and he clearly has a mind for realism and effect.
And it's not like acting is performing brain surgery, there's absolutely no reason he couldn't move into acting as a second career when he's done with rapping and I think that would be a really amazing thing to see. To see if he could literally become a GEUINELY respected actor after being renowned as a lyrical genius and being such a huge name in rapping. And he's only 38, which seems old in rapping but in reality, that's not old at all. He could easily now build a great film legacy too.
Reason I say acting is not like brain surgery is not to say it's easy but just that there's no reason he couldn't do it and become great at it. Though, he seems to be pretty great already. But, I think acting is sort of like humour - you either have it or you don't. I think it ultimately comes down to self-awarness and whether you're an observer or of the observed.
As take, Ricky Gervais for example - The Office was his first time acting (ever). And to anybody who's seen it, his sheer level of detail and realism in portraying that character is incredible. It's one of the best comedy performances or portrayal of any human being I've ever seen. It's so fully realized and believable, so totally honest and real. And that's because Gervais had a bag of human observations which he simply recanted out in the open.
If you can act well, you usually can because you observe people - Now that doesn't mean you necessarily will be great at recanting your observations but chances are that if your observations are intelligent and you're self-aware, you'll usually get better at recanting them overtime anyway. And you don't need to go to a class with a group of people all doing the same to do that.
Christian Bale for example never took any acting classes. Pretty sure Matt Damon didn't either. He just loved it since childhood and knew he was good at it.
I actually have a little theory and thinking that part of the reason acting takes ITSELF so seriously is because it's in reality pretty silly lmao. When you think about it logically, all you're doing - no matter what way you slice it or dress it up - is pretending to be people that you aren't, in situations you're not really in. So you're in essence, making play play in the head.
Now that, is a very childish and silly thing to do. But you often get quite intelligent, worldly people who want to do it. Because it involves storytelling, it's an art... so just because acting itself is silly doesn't mean that only silly people will want to do it. So dressing it up as such a stern, serious thing could in-fact be an organic counter-action to that very perception lmao.
When you look at Actors Studio for example... the way James Lipton talks about it and the way they talk about certain 'techniques' and act as if acting is the most complex thing possible to comprehend in the human mind and that it's not only complex and intelligent but extremely difficult and must be respected at all costs. Even when speaking about it
. It's quite hilarious.But you know, acting can be all those things - it can be hard, intelligent - when of course the subject matter it revolves around is those things. But in itself, I think it's simply counter-acting its own silliness by taking itself so seriously and demanding such respect.
Eminem Named MTV's #7 Pop Icon of All Time
Sorry to make the third news story another fucking MTV list but I think it's worth mentioning.
There list goes like this...
1. Michael Jackson
2. Madonna
3. Kurt Cobain
4. U2
5. Britney Spears
6. Metallica
7. Eminem
8. Jay-Z
9. Shakira
10. Robbie Williams
First of all, I think they and everybody needs to get a handle on what a pop star is. Now, I know they're probably using it in this instance to probably mean pop-culture as in, a figure of pop-culture (proven by the fact they mention rock stars too) but still... people still comfortably refer to Eminem and his music as pop...
Eminem is on no level and never has been a pop singer or pop star. Pop music is watered down rock music that developed in the 50s and 60s. It's MADE for mass consumption, it's made to be as anodyne and palatable as possible, it's designed to appeal to as many people as possible as its intent is to be a mass enjoyment genre. It's also specifically watered down love songs. That's why nearly all pop songs are about love and are so tame, unoffensive and broad.
So - being very very famous, does not make you a pop star. Being the biggest musician on the fucking planet does not make you a pop star. Pop does not mean fame, pop is a genre and no amount of record sales or teenie bopper fans can change what fucking genre you work in.
Eminem raps. He rhythmically rhymes words over music with drum loops that hit in time to emphasize his bars. He's an individualist, he's a lyricist; he's honed, potentially offensive and if there could ever be an anti-mass artist - Eminem is that guy (at least in the commercial arena).
He is absolutely hip-hop and nothing but hip-hop. As for him using pop singers on chorus' - how many rappers haven't done this? That doesn't change what THEY are doing or what genre THEY are artists in.
Eminem could not be more of a single-minded artist. I think in essence, that is what a great artist is - they're essentially bigots. Bigots make for great artists, and whilst he's seemingly not one in real-life he absolutely is in his music and that's why Eminem is not and can never ever be called, in any aspect, no matter what way you spin or flip it POP. If you wanna argue that his music has lost, or is losing edge etc. fair enough - that's a different debate. But I've never once witnessed the man work outside of hip-hop or compromise his integrity.
And again, incorporating other elements of other genres or collaborating with artists from other genres isn't compromise. This is what hip-hop is fucking built on. Hip-hop is built on sampling records. And what the fuck do you think it sampled before there was... hip-hop? = POP, ROCK - OTHER GENRES! So to act like a rapper is compromising the genre by doing it is silly. It's all about content and execution.
OK. Now that's done with, lets talk the list...
For once, they actually placed Em in a reasonable position. I'm in pretty much agreement with him at no.7. On the face of it, to much music historians and lovers, it may even seem a little early for his inclusion but I would argue that's a delusional stance and an obsession with things of age deserving of more respect for no other reason than the fact they're... old.
Reason for that perception is of course because, people think the longer something sticks around the less of a fad of it is, therefore the higher true quality and more deserving of its place or mention in history it is. In art at least.
I'm not in total agreement with that. People often say this with Dre for example. That he's "been around" for 25 years. Well, no - he's been known in the genre for 25 years. But has he been putting out albums of his own material for 25 years? No. He's put out TWO solo albums in that time, that's hardly a test of his consistency is it, the fact he's "still around" is testament to nothing other than the fact he's... Dr. Dre.
And for those that say "Dre is a producer" as if he doesn't have time to put out his own music, don't forget that in under a decade Eminem wrote, recorded and helped produce four solo albums, two D12 albums and two Obie Trice albums, not to mention countless other single productions.
And it's not as if his work is shabby. His first three solo albums are absolute classics, Devi's Night is a classic and the second and Obie's two are decent also. So the fact Dre's put out two albums in nearly 20 years, is testament to his laziness, not him being prolific.
Once you establish yourself at a certain level then as long as you don't fucking die or go crazy, as long as you still work on some level - you'll still "be around". I know that Dre has produced for other artists but he's hardly been prolific in his own right and has not innovated as much as people keep saying. Now I'm not trying to knock him, I like Dre but he was a perfect example to make this point. Still "being around" isn't necessarily a testament to your consistency or relevancy.
Now, in the case of Eminem, whilst his oldest album is 'only' eleven years old, I do think that his first three albums alone are so totally brilliant, original and groundbreaking and that he was such a fucking movement, in and of himself - that he deserves his spot here. And his albums really do not get the credit they deserve, at all.
Nobody, not a single rapper in rap's history even touches the fucking sides of his first three. No Nas album, no Jay-Z album, no Redman album, no 2Pac album - No album by any of them and beyond is as artistic and original as The Slim Shady LP. None as brain shatteringly daring and breathtakingly artistic, cultural, political and ballsy as The Marshall Mathers LP. And none as musical, well-rounded, well-executed, lyrical, on-point, coherent and damn fucking brilliant as The Eminem Show.
With all that said, I think that Michael Jackson is a goo no.1. Although, I think it could be argued and probably won easily the point that The Beatles are bigger and maybe more deserving of the no.1 spot. And the fact they didn't even INCLUDE them is pretty insane.
Especially when they've included Robbie fucking Williams, which is you're pretty is extra funny as you have this whole other perception of him. To Americans who may not have that perception, let's just say that it would be somewhat like calling... Justin Timberlake the tenth greatest music icon in HISTORY. Okay, maybe not JT, but hard to think of a comparison that works in the right way.
But basically, he's an ex boy-hand member, he's not very intelligent, and he's barely an icon in his fucking home country let alone music history. I mean, he didn't even properly break America, how can he be an icon there? In the UK he's an on and off again singer that's popular because women fancy him and can tap to his music. I mean, he's put out some big songs here but he's not a fucking icon. He was just very famous at one point, but the fact he doesn't have albums that transcend genres, the fact that he's not bigger than his talents and the fact he's done nothing truly original means he's not an icon and definitely not deserving of his spot here.
I mean, I don't listen to them but what about Stevie Wonder? Billie Joel? there are countless other icons and legends that should be up there so much more than half of them.
And Shakira? Uh... those three dots preceding 'those' say it all.
My list would probably go like this...
1. The Beatles
2. Michael Jackson
3. Elvis
4. Madonna
5. John Lennon
6. Kurt Cobain
7. Eminem
8. David Bowie
9. Prince
10. Tupac Shakur
Now, I don't even listen to half of them but I can recognize their stature, legacy and impact all the same and people like The Beatles and Kurt Cobain are bigger than life. You know about them whether you listen to their music or not.
Also, I think John Lennon was a gigantic icon and still is, in his own right outside of The Beatles so should be mentioned on his own too. As his music is different from the music he did in the band.
Put your own list here if you can be fucked. If not, who gives a fucking fuck
