Never Confuse Music And Football

Recently, I noticed that I haven't updated this blog anywhere near as much as I should, especially considering my aspirations to be a journalist. So what could be a better way to return than with a post combining my two favourite things, music and football?

Those of you that have read my previous posts or know me personally will be aware that I like a moan about something now and then. Unfortunately for those of you who were expecting a calculated, methodologically and critically considered discussion of an intelligent topic, you might be a little wide of the mark. Don't let that put you off though.

As previously mentioned, I'm here to discuss music and football and particularly the former. One thing that really annoys me is when people mistake music for football. Hear me out.

You may be wondering what kind of dim-witted simpleton could possibly confuse the two, and come to think of it, so am I. What I'm referring to is when people treat music as if it's a competition, I can't say it's a major issue in my life but when it occurs, it's fairly annoying. I'm not one to care much about other people's opinions, but it's the principle of their beliefs that I'm bothered about.

Let me explain. The people I'm referring to are those that dislike the Rolling Stones because of the Beatles, or dislike Oasis because of Blur. I have no problem with people disliking these bands if they chose to (despite me liking all four) but their reasons seem invalid. The people I have an issue with are those that dislike a band because of the 'rivalry' that exists between the relevant band and a band they're fond of.

This kind of behaviour is perfectly applicable to football, it's expected that a Man United fan will dislike Man City; or a Liverpool fan will dislike Everton. This is because football is a competitive sport where teams are pitted against eachother. Music is not the same.

Music is there to be enjoyed, it's not to create rivalry or hatred.

I don't understand how one person can love Blur but hate Oasis (or vice-versa) simply because of this nonsense view that a likeness of both can't co-exist. This brings me back to the belief that you can't pick and choose what you like, especially music-wise. You hear what you hear and like or dislike it, you can't make a conscious decision to dislike something, it's something natural that you can't control. Blur and Oasis made similar music in the same genre, if you like one then it's practically impossible to hate the other.

Some may say that the personality of the band members is another factor. I simply reject this point. As a football fan, I dislike Luis Suarez. I think he's a cheating, diving little scumbag, but I can appreciate his world class talent. You can relate this to someone like Liam Gallagher, who isn't everybody's cup of tea to say the least. Some may debate his talents, but personally I think he's a great. Considering many feel he's among the greatest front men of all time I'm not alone either.

You can't deny that he played a major role in making Oasis who they were. Okay, he may not have had the creative influence Noel had but that wasn't his role. That's like saying Bobby Moore wasn't a significant part of the England 1966 World Cup winning team because he wasn't a creative player like Bobby Charlton. The fact that the High Flying Birds aren't as successful as Oasis lends itself to the opinion that Liam made a huge difference. How Beady Eye compare to NGHFB though is a totally different argument.

My point is, personalities shouldn't matter much in music. I like Oasis and if I did had heard them before I knew who Liam was and what he was like, I wouldn't suddenly decide to hate it just because I heard some explicit anecdotes. I think Oasis needed Liam's controversy and sharp tongue to compliment Noel's comparatively more calculated approach.

Back to my original point, I remember when I played an Arctic Monkeys track in the company of a mate (who's a Manc) and he responded with "What's this shite from Sheffield doing on?" Clearly, they weren't over the war of the roses and still held a grudge over Yorkshire. This predetermined that he couldn't like Arctic Monkeys before he'd even heard their stuff, simply because of where they were from. I'm fully aware his comments had a light-hearted tone underlining them, but the principle still puzzled me.

Maybe my point about competition not being the point of music is why X-Factor is becoming an increasing failure. Acts aren't developed to be entertaining, but the pressure of competition limits them to what their audience want to hear. This ignores to primary objective of music: to express yourself, but instead focuses on a desire to win. Acts are now brought up in the fashion 'to not play well but scrape a 1-0 away win at Stoke/Sunderland/Fulham' rather than forget what the average hormonal X-Factor voter thinks and do what they please.

In conclusion, music is an art, not a sport. And it should be treated accordingly.

Rant over.

Why Overplay Is The Greatest Musical Sin

Having listened to 'Fast Fuse' by Kasabian already today as I was watching the slightly less boring than usual tennis; I couldn't possibly listen to it again for at least another 24 hours.

It may sound like I'm the ambassador of the OCD Members' Society, but I cannot bear to listen to the same song more than once a day. It's like the thought of having two bowls of cereal a day, it's just not right.

This 'rule' of which I must obey is to avoid the greatest musical sin: overplay.

Music is like prostitutes. Good the first time, but they slowly deteriorate for whatever reason with excess use.

It's the same with films as well, watch them too often and the appeal is just lost. Like visiting the same holiday destination year after year; like eating the same meals day after day; like being an accountant. Life can easily become monotone and quite boring, look at John Prescott for proof.

If the same song is replayed often it must be popular for whatever reason. Lets take 'Sex on Fire' by Kings of Leon for example. A good song, but it was regurgitated more than a bulimic's dinner by constant overplay.

The song now has over 37 million YouTube hits. This is simply far too many and the song has now lost any musical novelty and has almost became a cliche. The band have even been quoted saying that they don't like the album 'Only by the Night' anymore, due to the constant playing of the singles. Turn on the radio and within minutes I think you could find a station playing 'Sex on Fire' or 'Use Somebody'.

This is why I'm happy that my favourite songs aren't in the charts.

My favourite tracks include 'Making Up Numbers'; 'Veiled in Grey' and 'Shake Me Down'. You may not have heard of any of them, and that's brilliant, because that means the radio probably hasn't either.

I am sort of grateful now that chart music is full of talentless rubbish that makes my ears bleed because never mind how much I hear it, it can't get any worse.

I'll go back to my prostitute analogy and represent this with a disabled hooker whose face has been burnt off with a blow torch. Never mind how much they're used, it can't really get any worse.

In comparison, I'm glad my Indie Swedish pornstar with long blond locks and double Ds isn't in the charts. That way she won't deteriorate with time and be thrown on the music scrapheap of 'heard that, incredibly repetitive, got the t-shirt'.

I feel for bands such as Kings of Leon, Arctic Monkeys and the likes, because they've been punished for making great records because they've been ruined by DJs with the musical variety of a Spandau Ballet tribute band.

In short, to keep your favourite songs your favourite: never listen to the radio and never listen to your ipod. Keep the songs in a little safe box and revisit them every few months as a treat, like a bottle of vintage Rose.

During the mean time, I've only got 21 hours and 36 minutes until the one day deadline has passed and I can listen to Kasabian again. Tic. Toc...