Girl Model

Girl Model

            After viewing the film “Girl Model” my perspective of child modeling has been shifted. When most of us think of child models we picture adorable little kids, in cute clothing, and a bright smile. However “Girl Model” appears to be the complete opposite, and shows us how children, specifically little girls are exploited. I was very disturbed and uncomfortable with the movie for several different reasons. For starters, I think that it is a horrible movie with a contradicting plot, no real conclusion, and leaves you wanting more in a bad way. Ashley, who was the model recruiter in the movie is an ex child model in Japan and she described her experience as traumatic, depressing, and miserable; however, she continues to recruit innocent kids to endure that same experience instead of speaking against it. Not only does this movie show the ambiguities in the modeling industry, but it also entails who is allowed to become a child model.

            During the casting call in Russia the line-up consisted of tall, thin, and white models. There were no people of color and the recruiters specified what they were looking for. The woman recruiter from Japan stated that, “Japan only wants white women.” Japanese are people of color, the fact that they don’t want people who resemble them in their ads shows how the world’s perception of beauty is one dimensional. The unfortunate recipient of bestowing this beauty was a young girl by the name of Natalie, she was sent to Japan from Siberia to pursue a career in modeling, and her experience was a terrible one. Her contract guaranteed promises she did not receive, she was treated poorly, and was immobile. There were no white male models in the film, and I thought that was interesting because I am sure Japan uses male models, however being that white men are in the hierarchy are they not being exploited. The film did not go into depth of the world of child modeling, and barely touched the surface because it seemed as if it was more of a censored reality than reality itself.

            The children in this film were objectified to the third degree, and the treatment they received from modeling agencies was inhumane. With every scene I became more disgusted than intrigued; I was baffled that something as horrific as modeling in Japan even existed. This movie portrayal of child modeling was very condescending because they’re pretending to be against the industry, but being advocates for it at the same time, that’s like going to a PETA meeting in a fur coat. Not only was the movie’s plot horrible, but the filming was also very amateur. Overall the only successful thing I can say that this movie did was stray us away from child modeling, after watching the film I realize how pathetic and corrupt the modeling industry is, and my problem also lies in who to blame the agencies for this problem or the world for creating the problem.

           

               

Review

Futurama? More Like Lameorama.

Set in the year 3000 about a space delivery crew, Futurama is nothing but a joke of a show. Critic Matt Seitz states that Futurama has nothing to be modest about, but in reality it’s all just one big laugh at the idea of a cartoon. Seitz states that Futurama contains well written dialogs that can be seen as “postgraduate-thesis humor” and fifth-grade-lunchroom spit-take humor”, but we all know that even third graders would not find a single line in the show funny. The overall plot of the show, a delivery boy from the 20^th century traveling through time by accidental freezing in a cryogenic freezing chamber, just makes no sense at all! Especially with how the Groening decided to show New York City becoming ruins, destroyed by aliens, and rebuilt, how would old New York be underlying beneath New New York? This show does not create a smooth flowing transition between every bit of information released. Not only does Futurama begin badly, it ends in the same way.

The final season of the show makes an attempt at never ending love. Throughout each and every episode there seems to be a closer approach to the long played out love story between Fry and Leela. The little love set up between the two of them is merely a showcase of Groening’s feeble attempt to gnaw and play with the emotion of love. Not only to get Leela to love Fry, but also to get the viewers to fall in love with the show. This is only a failed attempt at something that never even had a chance at greatness. The little story of a boy meeting a one-eyed alien girl and a robot after traveling to the future is a complete fantasy. Also, Fry changing the lives of both the girl and the robot to become rebellious and rather than the “You gotta do what you gotta do” motto of the future, is complete nonsense. One man does not have the power to change the course of the future of the world even if he is from the past.

Futurama was canceled four seasons in and should have stayed that way. It’s attempts to bring out the visual and verbal humor of pop-culture references are weak compared to simple dialogue and tangential cutaways scenes like Family Guy or American Dad. These are the shows of true genius that depict true humor, cultural references, and successful closure. Unlike these shows, Futurama actually ends their show. Groening chooses rather than continuing endlessly and milking the show for everything it could have been worth, he choose to give a series finale and just give up. Groening creates a show with worthless relationships between the main characters. Unlike Family Guy where family bonds are stronger than anything else in the world, Futurama attempts to play with the viewer emotions. Futurama is a joke of a show that should have been canceled as soon as it started. It should have never been given the chance to boot back up in the form of direct-to-DVD movies, or given the chance to be aired on TV by Comedy Central. Luckily it isn’t aired on every other channel, paid and free, like the better cartoons by MacFarlane. The satiric attempts at pop-culture references, sci-fi references, and literary references were all for naught because the show turned into just an all-out-blow-out.

Critic Review:

http://www.vulture.com/2013/06/seitz-futuramas-final-frontier.html

















Ps. I hope the sarcasm is realized throughout the blogpost. This is actually THE greatest cartoon of ALL time. Ever. 

Kanye West- Yeezus

Few artists have spanned their respective genre quite like KanYe West. From a Polo sporting boom-bap technician, to cocky sample-driven hip hop head, to pseudo-provocative high fashion "musician" Mr. West has come a long ways from the once highly regarded young protege of No I.D.

KanYe West's newest release Yeezus, is a culmination of everything that currently plagues the world of hip hop. A wave of hype trailed by little to no worthwhile content awaits any unsuspecting listener who might, unfortunately, be looking forward to a classic KanYe West album in the like to Late Registration or the College Dropout. A general assumption that his previous success in the music world grants license to create a generally unfocused album, which skips from attempted social comment to braggart bravado commenting on material possessions. It is clear that Mr. West's attempted classic and legacy cementing album, despite commercial critical acclaim, fails to connect with the original fan base.

Yeezus diverts from KanYe West's typical wordplay and witty punchlines, and focuses more on provocative social commentary as its main source of lyrical content. With the exception of Bound 2 and Blood On the Leaves, the tracks take on a style more similar to 808's and Heartbreak than any other KanYe West release to date. With a far more electronic emphasis, faster tracks, leaning more towards a d
ark synth track than hip hop it is clear that Mr. West intended for this album to clearly stick out from the rest of his catalog. Indeed the album does, but for all of the wrong reasons.

Its quite clear that Mr. West intended for this album to be one which would create a legacy for him as a game change, while in all reality, it has done the opposite. wide commercial critical acclaim is no match for the disdain and disappointment of the mass of your fans. 

Naruto is too predictable to Enjoy ??

   
 

         In a negative of the popular Anime show Naruto, In a negative of the popular Anime show Naruto, the critic argues that he does not understand the buzz that Naruto is receiving, and that it is highly overrated.  He basis his whole argument around his claim that the plot and character development of Naruto is extremely predictable, and that the predictability of it takes away from the actual viewing experiences.  He makes some valid points in discussing how the plot and characters in the show are a lot like other popular Anime’s like Dragon Ball Z and Goku. Naruto does fulfill the typical archetypal story being about a boy who went from zero to hero but if you continue to watch, over time you will learn that Naruto is in a unique and esteemed class of its own amongst other animes of the kind.

            Like the critic says, you can learn the whole plot of Naruto beginning with the first episode, but to disagree with him it does not take away from the actual greatness of the show.  It’s inferred that the character Naruto will achieve his dreams and be a hero because of the archetypal character he is, but the development of the plot has more twists and turns than the critic gives it credit.  This is also a tribute to the development of the characters themselves in Naruto.  Naruto himself was literally at the bottom of the totem for most of the series.  He was talentless and overlooked and even when he showed signs of greatness, they were still relatively unimportant compared to where he wanted to go.  Villains for one saga in Naruto will say or do something that still has implications in the new episodes that show now.  Since the critic liked to compare Naruto to Dragonball Z, Goku’s character hardly went through development.  Not to take away from the greatness that was Dragonball Z, but the plot of that show seemed to follow meticulous pattern that became quite repetitive over time.  Goku meets a new enemy and has to push himself through rigorous training and then he always succeeds in either befriending or defeating his enemy.  That was the cycle that went on in every saga of the show.  Naruto on the other hand, did the same kind of thing, but it was never as simple as just getting stronger and defeating his enemies.  Some taught him a lesson, some moved on to push the story further, and others did aid him in coming closer to his dreams.  The supporting characters are so well developed that many are often preferred to Naruto himself.  They all seem to have their own stories and backgrounds that all seem to intertwine with the main story of Naruto’s and the information gathered from all of them becomes crucial to better understanding the main plot.  All of these factors come together like clockwork to make the show thoroughly entertaining.  One may think he knows how it ends, but the truth is there are still so many different routes that the creators can take.  It keeps people on their toes by adding new pieces to the puzzle without just throwing it at its viewers and expecting them to accept it with no explanation.  Everything about Naruto is visibly well thought out, and unique enough to be enjoyed over the hundreds of episodes that it does have.  

Cloud Atlas the WORST movie EVER?

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/25/pick_of_the_week_the_overblown_funny_romantic_cloud_atlas/

So, Andrew O’Hehir from Salon.com made “Cloud Atlas” his “Pick of the Week”. Now what exactly was he smoking? Yes I love Tom Hanks and Halle Barry however, this weird alter ego, different dimensions, and completely randomness is a waste of money. And ironically I didn’t even pay to watch this. According to Alt Film Guide, "Cloud Atlas" was one of Hanks; worst opening-weekend box office performances since the beginning of his movie career in the early 80's. The almost three-hour movie didn't do it for critics, as the website reported that the movie has a mediocre 40 percent approval rating and six out of 10 average among Rotten Tomatoes' top critics.

O’Hehir explained he was never bored with the movie. How is this possible? Everyone I’ve talked to said this movie is a completely snooze. Why have 8 different stories that aren’t related what so ever? Why does Berry and Hanks play so many characters?  I have watched this movie 3 times and every time I find myself wondering what is the purpose of this crap. I can’t stop thinking about all the productive things that could have been done during the time I allowed myself sit through this movie. Apparently the storyline tells six separate stories rooted in the past, present and future. And the thing they all have in common are characters seeking love and freedom from tyranny. The movie throws them all at you at once, jumping back and forth in time so often that I got dizzy trying to keep up.

"Fighting" against the Hunger Games review

David Thomson: Why I Hate 'The Hunger Games'

  Critic David Thomson begins his review with a catchy sentence "the film shows precious little hunger and no sense of game". I disagree, even though I have only seen the first movie from The Hunger Games trilogy Hunger Games is precisely the opposite. To begin Hunger Games is a great movie inspired off the Hunger Games series written by Suzanne Collins. This movie is a great representation of a possible post-apocalyptic world. The lower/middle class has to fight to survive in a world run by upper class members. Thomson argues, "There is no sign of how the end came and no trace of toxic aftermath". This is may be true but the author and director left that open for its readers/viewers to wonder and create their own possibilities. With movies dealing with post-apocalyptic visions it allows for the creator to think outside of the box. The Hunger Games sets the scene with starting in a rural area where the lower class has nothing but bread water and hope while the upper class has advanced technology, big homes, and lots of money. Every year this upper class gives teens from the twelve districts a chance to fight, survive, and win.

  Fast forwarding Katniss does the typical heroism move by volunteering to take her sister's place. When a movie begins this way you know that the favors are going to work for them. But according to Thomson, "Even now, I can see that the plot motif, of teenagers in a contest where they must kill one another, might threaten sentimental ideas of what children are or ought to be”. The plot does the opposite, it strives to inspire teens to fight for their loved ones and defend their home. If the world came to such drastic measures Hunger Games shows teens should do all they can to stand up, rebel, and defy labels set by the upper class. Hunger Games is inspiration not destruction. Thomson even compares Lawrence’s lack of adapting to the role because of her characters in previous movies. Jennifer Lawrence played Katniss very well; she was the typical movie character: a fighter who falls in love with her competition in a place where only one can survive. But Thomson has a different idea on Lawrence’s acting ability, “The film should have suspense, fear, and desperation, all focuses on Katniss, but Lawrence seems reserved and biding her time”.

  Towards the middle of the movie when Katniss and Peta are entering the place to fight of course Katniss is to herself because she is there for her district and family. In her mind the motive is to return home for her mom and sister. But as the movie progresses we see that changed a bit as she gets aliases and new friends. To cause a rebellion in all the other districts to fight against the upper class is her new motive towards the end. To further continue the discussion of characters Thomson mentions he thinks Woody Harrelson and Donald Sutherland had pointless roles. I disagree because these actors Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, and Stanley Tucci helped make the movie. Each actor created a character that influenced Katniss and her willingness to rebel. With Woody Harrelson being her and Peta’s mentor he helped supply Katniss with aid during the competition. Donald Sutherland is the seer of the Hunger Games and serves as the antagonist to Katniss. Without those two characters the movie would fall flat. I do agree that Stanley Tucci gives the movie some comedic relief as a host of a TV show. But each character helps makes Hunger Games a great movie. 

Based on a true story, director Peter Berg's Lone Survivor stars Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Ben Foster, and Emile Hirsch as four Navy SEALs whose sensitive mission into the Afghan mountains is unexpectedly compromised, leading to a fierce skirmish with a small army of Taliban soldiers. Shortly after arriving at that new location and getting a positive ID on their target, three shepherds, including a young boy, caught the soldiers off guard. Then a heated vote over what to do with the captured shepherds them to decide that the best course of action is to abide by the rules of engagement, meaning that the soldiers will abort the mission, release the captives, and retreat to their extraction point. Shortly after the shepherds are set free, however, the four SEALs find themselves surrounded by dozens of Taliban soldiers, and engaged in a fierce gunfight that Three of the four men ended up giving the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

I seen a lot of mixed reviews saying the director could of done more to show out the characters more and that the movie had a lot of cheesy saying and the overall movie could have been better. Also that the movie was not portraying actual events that happened out there. But I honestly feel the director portrayed the film very accurately with the events of the book which were recounted by Marcus Luttrell from his first hand view. Instead of having a Hollywood treatment wrapped around the actual story, Director Peter Berg lets the events themselves provide the drama without the artificial insertion of character development. Me being in the Military and seeing war first hand I personally feel like it was one of my favorite movies that came out in awhile.

In this review the written by Stephen Whitty he states that if the director actually got into the characters more and with this story line it could have been a Great War movie. And that the audience never sees any thing about this characters besides four strong men fighting for our country. But to me in the military there is no “I” Especially during combat and I feel singling any of them out would be a disgrace to the uniform. Why do we need to know them personally all we need to know is what they did for our freedoms? I give compley kudos for the director for putting this together so people know what’s really going on over there, and what our soldiers do ever day for our freedoms.

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2013/12/lone_survivor_review_mark_wahlberg_fights_to_survive.html

Illegal Tender Review

Illegal Tender released in 2007, is a movie about a gangster named Wilson that gets caught up in a love triangle gone bad. Wilson gets Javier a big time gangster's sister pregnant, but she ends up killing herself and the unborn child because she feels unloved by Wilson and Wilson wanted to be with Millie and the family he was growing with her causing him to distance from Javier's sister. So Javier wants revenge on behalf of his sister that was pregnant with a fellow gangster Wilson's child because he feels that it is Wilson's fault his sister killed her self and he must pay for what he did. So Javier has Wilson murdered but that doesn't seem to be enough Javier wants more revenge and he knows how he wants to get it, so he goes after the people Wilson loved the most, his family.  So now Millie finds that the DeLeon family are at war, and she must protect her family by any means necessary; and although she thinks she is just fighting just for the safety, honor and revenge for the death of Wilson the man she loves, she will never know the real meaning behind this war but regardless she still fights for her family the ones she loves and also for the man she lost.

This movie received a lot of mixed reviews. Some in which were good and of course there were some bad reviews as well. However I saw one review that I saw I felt was right out bashing Illegal Tender. This review pretty much just seemed as Dr.Frank didn't like the movie at all. In this Review Dr. Frank Swietek on the site "oneguysopinion" made comments such as: this movie was cheesy, trashy, predictable. He even said that you would agree with a line from the movie and say what Millie says " I cant wait for this to be over" after watching this movie. He continues to say comments such as, “Illegal Tender” is obviously not “The Godfather,” Puerto Rican-style: it’s pure B-movie hokum that might once have been half a drive-in double feature and even today could make for campy late-night cable fodder but is absurdly out of place on the big screen. oneguysopinion.com/Review.php?ID=2276

I could not AT ALL agree with this review because i loved the movie. There are a lot of lessons and a pretty good storyline. No Illegal Tender is not past films such as Scarface, The Godfather and etc but Illegal Tender is a more toned down ex gangster family story in my opinion. I like this movie because the cast was great, I think Rick Gonzalez and all the actors and actresses did a great job. The storyline was clear, understandable, there was nice music going along with the movie however it was more Spanish/Hip hop type music playing throughout the movie because it is a Latin/ Puerto Rican family based film but even if you didn't speak Spanish the music still sounded good. However i think this movie is good for people that like action, crime, thriller and drama movies, I think if your not into movies like this you may not like this film; but it is still a good movie to watch regardless I love this movie and can repeatedly watch it and not get bored and enjoy watching it everytime!

Plot Holes in Star Trek: Into the Darkness

So after reading a bevy of critics critique this movie, Star Trek: Into the Darkness, I've come to realize that not too many people enjoy 2 of my top 3 movie directors in 21st century, which are JJ Abrams and Christopher Nolan. (Just for kicks the third one is Michael Bay.)

Anyways, finding a bad review for this movie was pretty hard because most critics were more concerned with not revealing the true identity of Benedict Cumberbatch’s character, rather than actually reviewing and critiquing the movie. It was also fairly difficult because no one critic really harped on one big specific problem, (other than their dislike for JJ Abrams and how he’s going to ruin the new Star Wars franchise), they would list small mishaps and not even elaborate on them. The critics would talk about how it looked bad in 3-D and the director did one too many close ups and the purpose of the Enterprise is to explore new worlds and new species, as seen in these two reviews: http://nypost.com/2013/05/14/star-trek-into-darkness-is-lost-in-space/; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/movies/star-trek-into-darkness-directed-by-j-j-abrams.html?

However, there is one issue that is a reoccurring one out of the reviews that I have reviewed. Senior editor and the principal film critic at The Atlantic, Christopher Orr says “The screenplay is baroque and preposterous, with plot holes big enough to drive a Constitution class cruiser through.” Many critics believe that the sequence of events that take place during this movie just does not make sense. Although I am arguing that this movie is good, I understand where they are coming from. I, myself had to watch this movie two or three times before I could say with confidence that I understood the story line. But in my opinion, the story line is what makes the movie. It’s like a freaking soap opera!

Admiral Marcus, (who is the head guy of Starfleet), and supposed to be a good guy is actually working with Khan so that he can use advanced weapons against the Klingons in war. Marcus sends Kirk and the Enterprise to destroy Khan after Khan attempts to kill him but instead, Khan surrenders to Kirk and his ship after learning that his fellow comrades are in cryo sleep locked in torpedoes that are on-board the Enterprise. After learning this, Kirk and Spock do not know whether they should trust the Admiral or ask Khan for his help. Kirk and Spock defeat the Admiral with the help of Khan and then Khan kills Kirk and then flees the area, (I kind of forgot how though). Spock, in rage, chases Khan in an action packed sequence where he eventually kills Khan. Then, using the same technology that brought Khan back to life, they also brought Captain Kirk back to life. Yes it’s pretty cheesy but nobody said they had a problem with it being cheesy. They just had a problem with the plot holes. I rushed through that summary, for obvious reasons, but the emotions shown through these many events are spectacular and heartwarming to say the least.

I can answer all of your questions about the plot and its “holes”. Why would a Starfleet admiral ask a 300 year frozen man for help? Because the man was a mad genius and had and could create weapons that no one else could. Why was Khan’s act of destroying San Francisco an afterthought? Because it was not really relevant to the story besides depicting him as a villain. I’m not trying to say this was the movie of the year or it was JJ Abrams best movie of his career, but it was held to high expectations, and it did not disappoint. As a matter of fact, I'm about to watch it now. 

2K14(xbox360/ps3) "The Best Just Got Better" ?????

 

http://xbox.about.com/od/xbox360reviews/fl/NBA-2K14-Review-X360.htm

 

NBA 2K14 for the xbox360 / ps3, according to Eric Qualls, is a fantastic game, with brand new features, improved gameplay controls, and awesome commentary. In his reviews he speaks of many pros, and maybe one or two cons of this new basketball game. "The best just got better," says Eric Qualls. Really Eric, is that really the proper statement to make? I mean sure the game has added a few better features I must admit, but are you really willing to overlook all of the major flaws this game has added along with these luxuries? I've been a NBA 2K fan for longer than 7 years now, and as much as I would like this game to be the best basketball game to enter the xbox360, I'm afraid this may not be the case. Let's go on down the list and offer a rebuttal to some of Qualls accusations. He's already touched on this, but I must restate that for the past few years 2K has done well adding modes focused on historical moments in the NBA. This year, they've added the Lebron James mode that lets you decide which path he takes continuing his NBA career. Question? What happens if the person hates Lebron James, and hates playing with him even more? This person would have no use in the least for this game mode. The least they could have done was add a few more exciting players to choose from like Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, or even Carmelo Anthony. Away from that point, don't let Qualls' al-mighty gameplay tales have you fooled. They've done a lot to improve the in-game controls, including the new flashy passes, monster blocks, etc. Still, It seems they've strayed away from making sure simple things don't make game intolerable. Saying the AI defense is noticeably smarter is a little far fetched. If your not guarding the opposing player yourself, don't expect the AI defense to stop them either. Sometimes they may even just look at the player run straight pass them for a free layup if your not careful. Don't even get me started on how ridiculously easy it is to steal the ball on the game. Despite risking one or two foul calls, you might as well approach the opposing ball handler with your point guard and continuously hack them by pressing the steal button until they lose the ball, or you get called for a foul(which pens less often.) Also the formerly mentioned flashy passes, are all flash and no accuracy. Through one while your covered or in traffic, and the ball will surely be stolen or simply thrown out of bounds. Another error would be when you jump to block a shot, and your player hurls into an opposing player resulting in a foul call. The first few times it happens you're like, WOW that's so realistic. Then you play on and see it happens so consistently it gets annoying whether your the person doing it, or it's being done to you. Minor errors like this makes the game very hard to bare. Especially since I've played NBA 2K14 on PS4 and Xbox One, and they lack these errors making for a much more enjoyable game. I'm still successful in defeating majority of my opponents so that's not really an issue of winning that brought me to these accusations. I just respect good gameplay, and I'm sorry to announce that this my friend, is not it. Sorry Eric.

Review of 300

      The movie 300 was released in 2006 starring actor Gerald Butler who played the main character Leonidas. It was directed by Zack Snyder. 300 is a historical war movie set in ancient Greek times focusing on the story about the 300 Spartans who fought against thousands of Persian armies. The Persians at that time controlled majority of the surrounding land.
They wanted Sparta next so Leonidas with 299 other soldiers by his side went on a adventure in order to protect their land and maintain their freedom. The movie is well known for its bloody deaths, slow motion fighting scenes, and rather very attractive Spartan soldiers. Who can forget that phrase was repeated multiple times throughout that year? "THIS IS SPARTA!"

      According to Tony Macklin the movie is everything less than what a real heroic movie should be. Macklin pointed out positive qualities about the movie such as its "vivid, imaginative, and monumental battles" and Gerald Butler's breathtaking performance as the great King Leonidas. Even with the good qualities, in his opinion, the bad qualities outweigh the good. Macklin believes the visual effects were too repetitive, and that the script was not written in a manner that matched the imagery. Zach Gordon who contributed to the script used a specific language that matched the setting. Having the actors and actresses speak in that particular manner and say those particular things added to the idea of a Greek time period.
     Another supposed flaw Macklin points out is the movie's horrid choice of casting Lena Headey as Queen Gorgo the wife of King Leonidas. He views her performance in the movie as "headless and wretched." Her acting matched the type of character she was supposed to be. Headey's character was supposed to be a headstrong and subtle yet smart mouthed queen. She accomplished just that. Her acting was not wretched but instead a mere image of the type of woman Queen Gorgo was portrayed as.
     Macklin, overall, viewed the movie as "another canard that turns "freedom" into all-purpose cliche." The term freedom was not turned into a cliche but was portrayed in a different perspective. Besides 300 is not the first movie to use the obvious freedom and war-like theme. Instead of using a typical American, patriotic war movie, Snyder decided to use a historic Greek theme to advertise the concepts of freedom and justice. With the help of Zach Gordon and Frank Miller, Zack Snyder was able to create a realistic and very powerful movie using a bloody adventure to represent the themes of freedom, justice, and brotherhood   
 

John Mayer: Where the Light Is

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2008/07/review-john-may/

            Released on July 1, 2008 John Mayer’s album, Where the Light Is, was a live recorded album. The album itself consists of twenty-two live versions of his songs that were original released in his prior albums with the exception of three songs. Personally for me, I am not a fan of pop music at all and lean more toward the genre of blues, and this album was musically on the mark in my opinion. Having heard Mayer’s previous albums such as Heavier Things, Try!, Room For Squares, and Continuum, it was understood that he had great talent arranging, composing, and performing. However, in my personal taste, the majority of the songs lacked a sense of emotion behind the songs. I don’t know whether it was because the albums themselves were recorded in the studio or not, but to my musical taste and understanding, there was something missing in those albums.

            In this review of Where the Light Is, the author does not disclose identity in the ABC News website. The author questions and answers him/herself, “Isn’t that a little much? Do we need this much live John Mayer? The truth is um..no. No we don’t! He keeps releasing live albums, though, and they serve a purpose. For those who see him as a wimpy, sensitive singer-songwriter, these records allow him to prove himself by flexing his blues muscle.” There is so much I can say just from this statement itself. First, Mayer has released seven live albums prior to Where the Light Is. One of his live albums, Live at Philadelphia, was released into five different volumes, so technically, he has released just two live albums and a huge live album. Adding on, only one of these albums, Any Given Thursday, is noteworthy of receiving some kind of certification. Therefore, the author’s statement of “Do we need this much live John Mayer? The truth is um..no.” does not seem to make much sense.

            Secondly, the author assumes she knows the intent of why Mayer releases live albums. However, to my understanding and from what I can see in a musician’s perspective, rather than Mayer trying to “prove a point,” I see Where the Light Is as a beautiful piece of art where he is musically expressing himself as he pleases. Yes, there may have been big hits in the past and he may have reused these songs for this concert, but the point of reviewing music should not be to point out that what was so good is so bad now. As an artist, I believe, the whole point of covering and doing concerts in the first place is not to do the songs again verbatim as it was written. However, I believe the whole point of live albums is to bring out the personality of the artist, which is exactly what Mayer did.

From what I can see, John Mayer is a superb musician who can incorporate blues and jazz into cheesy pop songs. Listening to the song “Gravity” from the Continuum album in comparison to the song on Where the Light Is takes on a whole new meaning in his live album. Watching the performance video itself shows so much emotion and character behind his music. This album was a turning point for me on how I viewed John Mayer as a performing musician.

Unfair review of "Dazzle Ships"

If I’m being honest, I’ve never been a fan of 1980’s synthpop. The era of 80’s synthpop was a sterile period during which apathetic artists made soulless music to appease ephemeral fads. However, one album, if only by comparison, amazes and dazzles (Pun Intended) with a great deal of flavor and ambition. Dazzle Ships by Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark is a brilliant album that revitalized a young genre, already beginning to foster redundancy, by incorporating elements of experimental music and musique concrète. However, the album was, like so many masterpieces over the years, ahead of its time. The nonmusical aspects included in the album, all the foghorns, robot noises, and radio chatter, were misunderstood and derided by the contemporary musical press that was turning is nose up at anything other than your run-of-the-mill pop song.

            In the presented review, the author refers to the short musique concrète pieces like Time Zones as filler and disparages the album for trying to be “topical.” The reviewer uses the term “topical” where most decorous musical journalists would use the word “conceptual,” because they do not want to liken the piece to other widely appreciated and respected albums, like Sgt. Pepper or Ziggy Stardust, whose concepts have been universally lauded for years. They also refer to such abstract pieces as Time Zones as filler, because musique concrète is a well-established genre, and referring to them as such would return to Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark the ethos that the author is so viciously and unjustly attempting to strip away.       

            The author goes on to deem the “soundtrack-like effects” as nothing more than “vinyl fill.” With a 21^st century perspective, one can’t help but look back on that such an indictment and laugh. Thousands of modern classics across very disparate genres, from hip hop to alt rock, use similar methods to enrich their albums’ subtext. Whether it’s one of the emotionally charged skits between each track on Kendrick Lamar’s Good Kid, M.A.A.D City or some of the eerie and ever-present electronic noise on Radiohead’s Kid A, such elements can be incorporated into a modern album, and the music critics won’t so much as bat an eye.

            The author only shows appreciation for the “decent electropop baubles,” by which I can only conclude they mean the more conventional synthpop singles. Don’t be fooled, the singles are great tracks with infectious hooks, but they are definitely not all this album has to offer. Dazzle Ships is a lush, ambitious masterpiece that complements only the best elements of synthpop with tasteful dabs of a vintage aesthetic applied with precocious methods of highly experimental sampling. Unfortunately, it came during an era where people didn’t want ambition, an era where fresh ideas were out of fashion, and era where music had a strict formula and a strict solution, and Dazzle Ships just wasn’t it.