Albums of the last year…
Yes, yes, I know it’s been a long time. A busy schedule mixed with holiday festivities kept me away from my beloved corner of the internet- beloved because it gives me the chance ramble on about the things I love.
Anyway, I thought a good way to hit back would be with the inevitable end of year list; so here it goes the top five albums of 2010 that have acheived the much sought-after Sebastian Clarke stamp of approval!
5. Kanye West- My Beautiful dark twisted fantasy
With his 5th album Mr West pulled no punches. In a world where mainstream hip hop has become the most conservative of genre’s, Kanye continues to push buttons with an epic, genre bending, witty and- perhaps too- erotic stadium rap album. It may convince you of the insanity you alway’s suspected ‘yeezy’ had but it’s an album that can’t fail to impress.
4. Johnny Flynn- Been Listening
Perhaps the most underated of the recent folkie, singer-songwriter resurgence in Britain. As a Lyricist, in this country, he is unrivalled- although his lyrics certainly benefit from repeated listens. A lot of critics seem to feel Johnny is too young and singing about events beyond his esperience. I find it odd that well payed critics can’t see beyond the surface of the story’s he’s telling and recognise the substance beneath. On of our best talents he produced an album that should, at least, deserve recognition for giving us possibly the song of the year- The water, a moving duet with Laura Marling.
3. Eminem- Recovery
The finest wordsmith of the last ten years felt he had something to prove after the overlooked (but still rather brilliant) Relapse release last year. To be honest, his unique talent for rather complex rhyme was still in fine form but was re energised by a somewhat newly found knack for simile. Quite simply, Almost Famous, is one of the most ferocious, mind spinning four minutes of wordplay this master lyric writer has produced.
2. Laura Marling
See my review of Laura’s brilliant album in the archives.
1. Joanna Newsom- Have one on me
In my heart of hearts the second I had listened to Have one on me I knew it wasn’t the difficult, unable to get to grips with, only for muso’s album broad sheet critics made it out to be. Complex, yes, but Have one on me only contrasts to the fellow artists on this list in the same way that The Wire contrasted to other shows on network television. Newsom creates whole worlds with her music and you become more inloved with these worlds the more you revisit- like a good novel or a favourite film. I suppose what I’m trying to say is, the fact you have to return to this album to fully appreciate it isn’t the chore that words like- ‘Difficult’- make it out to be. In fact, it’s the clever way that Newsom has intentionally crafted an album that you have to get to know- as opposed to telling you everything straight away- that mean’s you get to know it much more intimately and this, surely, must be an even more enjoyable listen?
Design For Living @ The Old Vic Theatre
I was very pleased when I heard The Old Vic was producing a revival of Noel Cowards 1933 play Design For Living. Quite the Coward fanatic, Design For Living has always been one of my favorite works. Of course, you always worry about whether a new production will get the right tone; will the actors truly get to grips with, not only the sheer amount of words per sentence, but the very specific rhythm of Cowards dialogue? Will the director manage to appease Coward purists whilst still presenting a production suited for modern mainstream audiences? And will the astute observations on human morality be brought to the surface or sacrificed in a sort of half mocking, high farce as often seems to be the case with modern Coward productions (bizarrely, this particularly seems to happen when adapted for film)? Fortunately, this production, well directed by Anthony Page, scores pretty high on all counts.
The play essentially revolves around a sort of menage a trios between the three main characters Leo, Otto and Gilda (The relationship pretty well summed up in a line of dialogue by Leo ‘I love you. You love me. You love Otto. I love Otto. Otto loves you. Otto loves me. There now! Start to unravel from there.’) The play follows these characters and their partner swapping rebellion against social convention from bohemian Paris through to the high rise apartments of Manhatten all the while dishing out hilarious witticisms and acute observations on love, high minded moralists, lust and, of course, selfishness. It’s comments on love are fair and true, asking questions about how realsitic monogamy is in the face of human desire and whether the idea you can’t truly love more than one person simply stems from society’s conditioning? Questions that for a show put on the heavily censored stage of the 1930’s, make this play very ahead of its time. However, and this is sometimes overlooked, the play seems equally as critical of the reckless attitude of those who completely act on the whim of their self motivated desires. This production with it’s more subtle approach seems to allow these arguments to battle it out naturally rather than inflict its own reading of the play upon the audience. For every outburst which seems to see Coward embracing the relatively modern idea of free love, such as Otto’s impassioned speech when seducing Gilda in the second act ‘ But the whole point is, it’s none of their business. We’re not doing any harm to anyone else. The only people we could possibly mess up are ourselves and that’s our lookout… To deny it would be ridiculous, and to unravel it impossible, Therefore, the only thing left is to enjoy it thoroughly, every rich moment of it, every thrilling second…’, there’s another that seems to acknowledge a carless selfishness of which Coward is quite critical, this was displayed by Leo when breaking the news of his affair to Otto ‘ You don’t suppose we enjoy telling you, do you? If it wasn’t that we loved you deeply, both of us, we’d lie to you indefinitely, rather than inflict this horror on ourselves… we’re having just as bad a time as you are, probably worse!’. This is quite interesting, as it seems to reflect the dual personality Coward occasionally diplayed. On the one hand rather forward thinking and liberal, on the other very conservative, with a stong view point of society rooted in middle class values. If I had time, there is so much more to explore in this truly brilliant play satirizing all the petty, and eventually insignificant, hang ups we as a society create for ourselves. Coward earned his nickname of ‘The Master’ and this play proves him to be one of the great observers of human nature writing for Theatre in the twentieth century.
The performances were all on point. Lisa Dillon captures the essence of Gilda superbly, playing her as rather restless and also, somewhat concerned about whether she, as the only woman in this relationship, is on equal footing. Tom Burke, as Otto, plays the dependency on this three way relationship very well, really making it come through in a way a lot of actors forget when caught up in all the language. The real standout for me was Andrew Scott as Leo, his comic timing was incredible, a slight change in the tone of voice or the right physical gesture had him always ready to provoke laughter from the audience, this whilst always keeping a line that never betrayed the emotional realtionship his character shared with the others, So yeah, all in all Anthony Page has directed a remarkably succesful revival of a great play, a play which should be placed up there with the best of Coward (It remains my personal favorite). Definitely recommended.
The Social Network
"You're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a tech geek, and I want you to know from the bottom of my heart that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole." Rooney Mara tell's it like it is in one of the best opening scenes in recent years.
I suppose some would say it’s about time we had a film tackling the incredible rise of social networks in recent years; In fact, some others would claim that it’s come a little too late. Of course, more important than how rapid a response to social trends by Hollywood, is whether the film is any good, and whether, as topical as it is, the flick can deliver a great drama able to stand the test of time? On this, writer of The Social Network Aaron Sorkin and its director David Fincher have certainly delivered.
In a way, the cinematic marraige of Fincher and Sorkin is something of an odd couple. Sorkin, most famous for creating and practically penning every episode of the first four seasons of this bloggers personal favorite hit show The West Wing, is known for quick fire, back and forth dialogue with an individual rythm all of his own and Fincher, well, whether talking about Fight Club or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, is usually more of a moody atmosphere mixed with scenes of giant action sort of director. Of course, as with most odd couples, it is precisely this sense of slight tugs in different directions that not only makes their relationship work but, most importantly, makes this film immensely watchable.
In what is one of the best opening scenes of recent years, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and his girlfriend, Erica (Rooney Mara), are having a conversation over a drink in a local college bar. The scene plays out like classic Sorkin and pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the film. Eisenberg, it has to be said, gives something of a tour de force in the lead role. Coming from a film fan who found Eisenberg utterly convincing and in possession of an involved and watchable knack for playing similar characters in The Squid and The Whale and Adventureland, It’s nice to see his talents really get pushed to their best here. Particularly in that very opening scene, he plays Mark’s intellectual arrogance in a way, that whilst not particularly likable, finds the inner turmoil behind a guy who basically still can’t accept why girls would rather date ‘dumb’ physically appealing jocks instead of academics like him, who will no doubt rule the world one day. The very thing that drives Sorkin’s Zuckerberg is the same desire that’s driven many males to success, essentially wanting to sit at the ‘cool’ table with the prettiest girl in school by your side. Another good performance that must be pointed out, perhaps rather surprisingly, is Justin Timberlake as founder of Napster Sean Parker. After seeing Timberlake’s earlier film efforts admittedly I was a little skeptical of his ability to handle such material but my doubts were pleasently put to bed. The usually wholesome Timberlake obviously relishes the chance to play a chracter that can be essentially summed up in one word; Prick (Albeit a rather humorous prick). He also manages Sorkin’s highly stylized dialogue as well as any of the more experienced actors on show and display’s a previously underused comic timing.
Whilst this film is mostly a talkie affair, David Fincher still gets the chance to show of his undoubted skills; His visual flourishes used to their most exhilarating effect during a rowing sequence at the Henley regatta. The film also poses a lot of important questions; The lack of regard for privacy in Zuckerberg’s quest for social networking dominance, the voyeuristic elements of ourselves such sites exploit, the ironic loneliness that can exist when adding so many virtual friends (A point really nailed in the betrayal of Zuckerberg’s only real friend) and the freedom to put in print ill judged opinions as you think them when you’re, ahem, blogging. Of course, many of the free thinking, people unifying, truly democratic positives tend to be ignored but, perhaps, there is another kind of film to be made on the subject that future filmakers can tackle. Ultimately, this is a great piece of drama that anyone, regardless of your relationship to social networking, can enjoy. In fact, the reason for its success is precisely because this ISN’T a facebook movie and I doubt that many people would seriously be interested if it was. Along with Afew Good Men, The West Wing and the underrated Charlie Wilsons war, The Social Network allows Aaron Sorkin the claim of possibly being the best screenwriter working in Hollywood today; this is proved not just by his remarkable use of language, highly individual and his greatest talent, but in his understanding of how to convincingly create characters that want things and the obstacles that get in their way which, as simple as it sounds, are basically the ingredients of classic drama. So, it’s fair to say that Fincher and Sorkin have not only put together the best film of the year so far but possibly something of a masterpiece.
Downton Abey, Miliband and Tuition Fees
Alas, busy times have yet again kept me away from my beloved blog. Hopefully I’ll be on track a bit for next week.
For my viewing pleasure a couple of things sparked my interest. I saw Ben Afflecks latest The Town last week. Very Enjoyable, it was a good solid crime flick. Also, I find myself quite suprised about my enjoyment of Downton Abbey. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nowhere near the high level of Fellowe’s earlier effort Gosford Park but decent nonethless. I had high hopes for Meadows This is England spin off but ultimately found it disapointing. It was too rushed, didn’t really explore anything that wasn’t already explored much better in it’s partner film and overall didn’t really add up too much except, rather arrogently, assuming than grittiness in of itself moves British Drama forward. This is where Downton succeeds, for all it’s soapie leanings (and they certainly are there) it allows itself time in it’s story telling for character development. So yeah, it’s rather well done.
I also, caught Mr. Ed Milibands first Pmq’s. To me, he seemed nervous at first. The witty, well prepared lines seeming a little forced but, as Cameron continued with his ill judged way of dealing with the new leader, Ed’s confidence grew allowing him to nail the final question. Still, he hasn’t mastered his problem; that Cameron couldn’t have been mistaken for anyone other than the Prime minister and that Ed still looked somewhat like a studenty opposition leader.
As for the Lib Dems and the Tuition fee’s? Well, they’ve payed a bit of a price for making a promise, that I suspect, they knew they wouldn’t be able to deliver in power. On principle Lib Dems probably should vote against it; not because of the manifesto argument (an argument that finds itself redundent when talking about a goverment formed in coalition) but because of how hard they went after that student vote. I mean, we’ve all seen those pictures of mp’s siging the pledges and rallying alongside students. It was a promise they shouldn’t have made, but because they did so aggressively, they look shifty when making such a dramatic U turn. Of course, this also means they don’t get thanked when the 30% poorest students will actually pay less than they do now. Also, Cleggs fairness premium should also be welcomed.
Anyway, keep checking back
The Brothers by Paul O’ Neill/Duck VariationsBy David Mamet @The Old Joint Stock
A couple of years ago I caught a production of Harold Pinter’s The Lover by an independent Theatre company. It was a quite remarkable production by a group of actors who handled Pinter’s particular and delicate use of language seemingly with ease, but I was also struck by the venue itself, The old joint stock Theatre based alongside colmore row in Birmingham’s city centre. An elegant venue, with the hustle and bustle of people merrily drinking away the woes of a working week downstairs providing something of a relaxing atmosphere before heading upstairs to the studio Theatre, where an even merrier, sort of, haven of art exsisted amongst the escapist attitudes of drinking gamers that, by the majority of people in the building, inhabited the place. So, I was quite eager to revisit the venue for the debut production of Theatre Company Duck Brothers productions, a dual revival of Paul O’ Neill’s The Brothers and David Mamets Duck Variations.
The evening kicked off with The Brothers, a short one act by a writer I’m not too familiar with by the name of Paul O’ Neill. It’s essentially a black comedy about two Irish Brothers, who come from a family of butchers and run a butcher shop themselves, who are now living in New York. Breaking the fourth wall, the whole play follows the relatively simple, if hard to acheive, struture of these two brothers, Matt and Pat, explaining to the audience, through humor, the rather weird pact they made with their live in house maid Mary in regards of how they would dispose of her body if she died (This show really isn’t for the particularly quesy). The Brothers is well written and rather funny but doesn’t really add up too much. Then, who says it has too? It’s an audience pleasing, well directed, funny hour of Theatre. The performance of Henry Amphlett and David Rex as the two brothers was spot on. Their comic timing was great and, most importantly, they had the right amount of brotherly chemistry. All in all, it was an enjoyable piece.
After a short interval, here came the reason I bought my ticket, David Mamets Duck Variations. When reading early Mamet, Duck Variations had always been one of my favorite of those younger, becket inspired Mamet shorts, of course, as it is rarely revived these day’s, I’d never seen it performed. Like so many other writer’s before him, Mamet has kind of lifted Becket’s Waiting for Godot, only here, its two older guys in a park discussing ducks as a subtext for deeper more profound thought. I was struck by just how different the Mamet we know now has grown from the Mamet of yore. I could imagine todays more conservative, plot driven Mamet deriding a young writer for penning such an open ended, ambiguous piece as pretentious and not concerned enough with ‘Getting asses in seat’s’. Which of the two Mamet’s is right- or more exciting- of course, is subjective (and something which, I personally am always indecisive about). David Rex does a good job with George, giving a studied, understated performance Mamet would approve of but, for me, it was Dean Taylor who impressed most as Emil. Playing Emil with the right amount of uncertainty, indecisiveness and sort of wandering charm he asks the audience of its most emotional responses. Both Actors managed Mamet’s poetry well and with care; as always, you could sit and simply listen to Mamets dialogue for hours on end, whilst Mamet’s pholosophy might change from time to time his musical use of language never does. Duck Variations is still my favorite of those early Mamet shorts even if, unlike present day Mamet, it refuses to tackle things head on and sometimes allows its audience to confuse ambiguity with the profound. What it does have is a sense of unpredictabillity, a sense of excitement that, perhaps, some of Mamets later more well structured work has lacked. Anyway, who cares what Mamet you’re getting, its Mamet and pretty much everything he has ever written is worth the price of admission.
Enron @ The Birmingham Rep
Lucy Prebble
One of my major, personal dissapointments of the last year was that I didn’t make it down to London to catch Enron, the much acclaimed dramatisaztion of the american financial scandal by dramatist of the moment Lucy Prebble. So, of course, I was filled with anticipation and delight when, flicking through my regularly posted Birmingham Rep brochure, I found Enron was not only going on tour but visiting my beloved hometown. I quickly booked myself a ticket and counted the days until I would finally see the theatrical experience everyone is talking about. Then, the nerves started to kick in. So hyped is Enron, that I felt I must be setting myself up for some sort of let down; it couldn’t possibly match up to the ridiculous expectations that broad sheets of all stripes had instilled in me. So happy am I, then, that I can report with glee that Lucy Prebble’s master stroke of a play did just that.
What Prebble does so well, other than share Sorkin’s knack for making issues of finance and politics actually entertaining aswell as informative, is build a true dramatic momentum. This, of course, you could say is the job of any playwright, surely? Yes, but many’s the time I’ve sat in a Theatre (or Cinema) during a play meant to be tackling the issues of our time and, whilst the observations have been acute and sometimes profound, found them to be didactic and boring. What makes this play so great is not simply its deep understanding of corparate greed but it’s use of the theatrical form to its full potential. This is a play presented as a song and dance show, with quick dialogue, physical comedy and audience asides combined, steeped in the vaudevillian tradition. Make no mistake, Enron couldn’t have taken place anywhere other than the Theatre. That been said, its fast pace and quick changing scenes no doubt take some influence from Lucy Prebble’s time spent in television and certainly add to the dramatic momentum I mentioned earlier. The cast are excellent too, Corey Johnson perfectly captures the growing arrogance of Jeffery Skilling, Paul Chahidi’s knack for physical comedy makes the slimy, intelligent, awkward, anti social CFO Andy Fastow a treat whenever he’s onstage and Sara Stewart, who plays Skilling’s rival and sometimes sex partner Claudia Roe, always delivers whenever I see her.
Of course, one can’t ignore how Prebble has managed to take a financial scandal that has baffled many a top economic analyst and break it down to surprisingly simple levels for her audience. No one will leave this Theatre without some understanding of what went on. What makes her critique of Capitalism so scathing is that this isn’t some left wing rant from the sidelines, no, Prebble observes precisely how human it all is and how intrinsically linked to human nature it’s more morally dubious practices are. She also examines, particularly through Skilling’s philosophical outlook, how powerful self delusion can be. Most importantly, in my opinion, and perhaps others would disagree, she isn’t all that judgmental in her observations. Enron is certainly a play that will remind you why the Theatre is still the greatest medium.
Tamara Drewe
The Archers on viagra. That seems to be the consensus reached by most critics when reviewing Stephen Frears latest cinematic outing, whether that’s a positive or a negative depends, I guess, on your own personal turn on’s. Based on Polly Simmonds acclaimed graphic novel, Tamara Drewe is a satire of sorts set mainly amongst the middle class guests at a writers retreat situated in an idyllic English country spot. The well observed opening scene, portraying writers of different sorts (The academic intellectual, the slushy romantic and a hardened writer of lesbian crime fiction) sharing narration as they try to conceive of that golden sentence, is one that will have most of the audience unable to stop the laughter spilling from their lips. Fortunately, this is a trend that, at least for the most part, continues throughout the film.
What this film is most succesful at, both through Moira Buffini’s rather brilliant screenplay and the generally well suited cast of actors, is accurately observing the trivialities of British middle class society but without the condescending and unconvincing stereotypes that have littered most films of the last decade trying to acheive the same level of ‘send up’. The whole cast do a good job, Roger Allam is perfect as serial cheater Nicholas Hardiment and Arteton proves yet again why she has a great career as a leading lady in front of her but the real stand outs come in the form of Tamsin Greig’s hilarious, and yet moving, portrayal of a down trodden wife and the performance of two teenage girls, particularly Jessica Barden as Jody Long, who essentially steal the film from under everyone else’s noses. Whilst there are many plotlines running seamlessly through the film’s narrative it is the tale of two bored teenagers that, at least for me, moved and provoked the most. As I mentioned before, Buffini’s script is marvelous, balancing so many characters and plotlines is no easy feat and the dialogue is both witty and spot on.
Whilst I enjoyed this film, I didn’t love it quite as much as others have. There is a feeling that this project isn’t quite suited to its medium. As with some of Frears previous outings for the movies, you get a sense that this film would’ve fitted much more easily onto the small screen; somehow, these characters and their predicaments, even when shot quite well, don’t seem to fill that magnificently large screen before you. Also, and this drives at what makes feature length comedy so hard to do, the film risks pushing its tedium to the limit as it rolls toward its finale. Truthfully, the satire works, the characters are truthful and the jokes are actually funny, so my criticism’s are probably a case of me nitpicking, somewhat. At a time when our cinema’s are filled with juvenile, grotesque, two hour long toilet jokes passed off as comedy, and a world in which the Appotow strain of childish Humor can actually be considered innovative, a genuinely clever and funny comedy film like Tamara Drewe is definitely needed.
The Runaways: The difficult art of the Bio Pic
Bio pics can be funny things. Huge successes such as the Johnny Cash flick Walk the line can bore me stiff with their over stylized, very Hollywood- more interested in ticking plot point boxes than exploring the character of their subjects- shtick. Where as a smaller film like Control based on Ian Curtis of Joy Division, a band I know very little about and have never been particularly interested in, I can find riveting. When confronted with the (albeit limited) promotion of the latest rock ‘n roll bio film The Runaways I wasn’t exactly sure which area of the genre that first time movie director Floria Sigismondi wanted to inhabit with the flick. The one thing that it did have in common with Control, other than a low budget, was that, other than being aware of the name and Joan Jett’s later success, I had very little knowledge of who The Runaways were.
It was clear to me, sitting in the darkened and actually quite full cinema as the opening scene rolled before us, that a film which starts with the dripping of one of its protagonists menstrual blood on to a clear, hard pavement, wasn’t exactly going to be subtle. What later became clear to me was that it was going to be all the better for it. No, subtlety isn’t this movies strong point but then, this isn’t a quiet piece about the emptiness experienced by a middle class house wife in a 1950’s England yet to enjoy the liberating sixties, this is an all girl teenage rock ‘n roll band from the LA seventies; subtlety and teenage rock ‘n roll aren’t exactly synonymous. Perhaps, an early scene where Joan Jett is told by a music teacher that “Girl’s don’t play electric guitar” that the audience has to then be slapped over the head by James Brown’s This is a man’s world, is a little too on the nose but other than the occasional wrong note, this film play’s the youthful love affair with the non conformist fuck you attitude of early punk rock absolutely on point (This of course was proven to me by the large group of teen’s in the audience, who gave out every laugh and cry precisely where Sigismondi wanted it, I’m guessing).
What, of course, drives this film forward more than anything is its performances. Dakota Fanning is well cast as Cherie Currie. The naivety, lack of self assuredness and overall insecurity that lay behind the overtly sexual onstage and public persona crafted by manager Kim Fowley, is portrayed to a striking degree by Fanning, particularly in a scene towards the beginning of the film where Cherie is roped into singing audaciously sexual lyrics that she clearly isn’t comfortable with yet. Kristen Stewart is perhaps even more perfectly cast as Joan Jett, although the character isn’t as much of a stretch from her twilight character as is visually suggested, but she has every mannerism down to a fault and, more importantly, shows through her performance that the outward aggression and aloofness is born out of a somewhat shy soul. The best performance comes from Michael Shannon as the hero/villain manager Kim Fowley. Shannon is increasingly proving himself to be one of my favorite Actors (He essentially stole Revolutionary Road from Leo and Kate, even though he was barely in more than one scene). As Fowley, Shannon chews the scenery around him every time he’s on screen. Turning Fowley’s insanity up too ridiculousy high levels you’re unsure as to whether he’s a despicable Simon Cowell-esque manufacturer, a creative Genius of sorts or simply fucked up (the obvious answer, of course, is all of the above).
As I’ve pointed out the film isn’t perfect. It falls short of classic status by its tendency toward cinematic devises that have been used perhaps too many times before in films of this type but what it does do is care about its characters and remain true to them throughout. Maybe not groundbreaking but if you’re looking for an enjoyable and somewhat insightful two hour slice of Rock ‘n roll you should be sure to check this flick out.
Hip Hop:The Greatest of all Time?
Recently, I have been involved in quite heated debates with a few friend’s of mine. This is a debate quite common amongst hip hop head’s, and I’m sure it’s a debate that will never be settled. Still, it’s a question you can never stop yourself from asking; who is the greatest emcee of all time?
Of course, now I have a blog to act as my literary megaphone, I have taken the liberty of officially adding my two penneth into the mix with a top ten of my own;
10. Chino XL
Here to save you all was groundbreaking for it’s time. Mixing the traditional elements of battling braggadocia with witty satire and social commentary, it somewhat laid the blueprint for eminem’s debut The Slim Shady lp. However, whilst Chino’s techinical ability is unquestionable, and enough to earn him a spot in the top ten, a bit more depth and a few glimpses behind the undoubtably cool sun glasses and, maybe, his spot would be much higher.
9 Big Pun
Another emcee ahead of his time. His impeccable flow and uncanny knack for intricate multi syllabic rhyme patterns had Pun shining above the rest at the time. Criminally over looked, Capital Punnishment is right up there with the likes of Illmatic or The Blueprint.
8 Canibus
Admittedly, the fanbase for whom Canibus makes his music for is something of a niche market, but his verbal talent is too great to go unnoticed on any serious Hip Hop list. A lack lustre first album, and his most recent out put doesn’t show him at his best but everything from 2000 bc through to rip the jacker adds up to something of a backpacker’s classic. If only he could have found the right musical callaborator?
7 Sean Daley (slug from atmosphere)
Many rappers, from tupac to nas had hinted at their vulnerability on wax but no one else other than Slug has laid themselves quite so bare on the mic before.
6 Andre 3000
Cetainly one of mainstream hip hop’s most underated in terms of mic skills but he also moved hip hop in a more progressive direction, not simply through musical exploration but also his outside of the box thinking.
5 Jay z
Derrided and hyped in equal measure, jigga is certainly one of hip hop’s most talented MC’s. With two albums as influential as The Blueprint and Reasonable Doubt anything less than top 5 would be ridiculous. However, sometimes you can’t help but feel… if only he had broken the mold a bit more…
4 Notorious BIG
One of hip hop’s greatest story tellers, there aren’t many in the genre who can paint a picture so vividly. Perhap’s a little too gangsta by today’s standards but the work speak’s for itself.
3 Buck 65
No one has done more to make you question the status quo than buck. Not only does he have the techinical skills to put him up there with the best of the best but he has consisstently pushed hip hop’s boundaries. Mixing folk, country, elctronica and punk into the mix Secret house against the world stand’s as an example of hip hop’s seemingly limitless range.
2 Nas
If any emcee has a poet’s blood running through his vain’s it’s Nasir Jones. Illmatic still remains, ironically, the blueprint for everything a hip hop classic should be. Consisstently challenging Hip Hop’s convention’s and pushing boundaries in terms of wordsmithery, narrative structure and even genre, Nas’s place in Hip Hop culture is undeniable.
1. Eminem
Whether we’re talking intricate, multisyllabic rhyme schemes, humurous satire, detailed narratives, heart wrenching emotion or the range in rythym and delivery no one can match Eminem. His knack for crafting mind blowing sixteen’s that can easily sit on top of the most back pack of back packer beats or coming up with catchiest pop hooks imaginable, is uncanny. Maybe he was too fond of shock tactics and childish humour for some but show me someone else who can reign supreme in so many area’s and put fear into the hearts of any rapper about to step on the mic with him, and I’ll reserve them the top spot. There are many great rapper’s on this list but Marshall Mather’s is the only one for whom Genius actually feels like an accurate description and not merely high flown praise.
100 Days of Coalition: The Liberal concern
100 hundred days of coalition. This seems to be the inpsiring slogan enticing politically motivated journalists of all stripes to their laptops this august. It is sort of catchy, I guess. Of course we’re in quite a weird position; the government has moved quite rapidly in mapping out their plans to dismantle everything they percieve as the problem, and in the process set out policies that could completely change the nature of our society, and yet… we’re still caught in this awkward moment where nothing has actually happened, a sort of calm before the storm, if you will. The question I am most asked is, am I, as a liberal, happy with the direction the coalition is taking? And the answer always, rather frustratingly I’m sure, is… I don’t know.
There are many potentially very liberal things that could be acheived by the coalition. They have set out, quite well, ways to move forward on issues that are very liberal; this is in terms of personal, economic and maybe even political liberalism but the worry, of course, is will social liberalism be left behind? The great moves forward on the issue of civil liberties (personal liberalism. Almost forgotten by the Labour government) should be appreciated and not swept aside and almost forgotten like they seem to be by many in the media and public. This isn’t to say the coalition itself will never come into conflict on issues of civil liberty (The nature of government acting for its own benefit can lead any administration down this road, which is why it’s up to us the people and groups like liberty to defend our basic rights) but we should at least be grateful that we have a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who, at least appear,to sincerly rcognize it as an issue of imortance unlike Labour, who even now seem to view the erosion of our liberties as a secondary little kink they can sort out as opposed to the awful social injustice it actually is. Also, I do think the coalition are right in wanting to give the people more choice over their public services and in giving local government more control. In fact, I often supported Blair over Brown on these very issues but the difference is that blairites at least acknowledged that to do this actually needs government support and not the sink or swim approach the coalition are taking. That been said, I’m not ignoring that annoying issue the left would rather forget, that of the structural deficit. We are in something of a financial pickle aren’t we? This is what makes it hard for labour to oppose the government when it’s not giving support; where is the money for this support supposed to come from? This, obviously, doesn’t mean I’ll blindly follow wherever the coalition takes us but it does mean I have to accept that many things I’d like government to do, right now, we simply can’t afford.
However, I do somewhat share that worry of many on the left; that for the Tories this isn’t about necessity but ideology. The review of the BBC license fee and where that might lead to literally reeks of right wing political dogma , and if a cut in the license fee is proposed it is something I’ll strongly oppose. Also, some of the reforms of benefits; I was always skeptical of the idea we simply reduce someones’s benefits if they turn down one job offer, simply because I always feared it would be coupled with traveling to find work. Of course, if someone wants to travel across the country to find work this should be made easier for them but the idea that anyone should be forced, by the threat of benefit reduction, to uproot themselves from their family and community is scandalous. What, if someone who lives in Coventry refuses to take a job in Plymouth we should take away some of their support? All this talk of social mobility is great and I wish Alan Millburn well but at the end of the day this won’t be sorted simply by ‘ getting people into work’ if you have a single father with two teenage sons, even if he works a full time, how will our current minimum wage be enough to support them? And finally, the idea we rob people of counsel houses for life by risky means testing… don’t get me started.
So yeah, this brings me back to my worry about social liberalism being left behind, coupled with my Liam Burne like acceptance that there is no money left. The loss of social liberalism doesn’t worry me in terms of the damage it could do the lib dems future electoral potential but for the damage it could do to our society. Honestly, I could see myself falling out with the coalition at some point but the trouble is, I don’t see myself running into the arms of labour. They haven’t yet sincerly distanced themselves from the parental style of government that made them, in my opinion, illiberal. They still seem to cling to the idea, not that the state should support society but that the state is society. There are a few, such as James Purnell, making some interesting observations and left leaning bloggers such as Dan Hartland over at thestoryandthetruth always give some food for thought but I still don’t view the Labour party as liberal enough to secure my vote. Funny the Liberals are in power but I still find myself stuck in the middle somewhat…
Sebastianclarke's Blog 