thebeastwithin's posterous

Actually, who am I apologising to?

I now have all three of Take That's post-revival albums, and this latest effort is probably the weakest of the three. As much of a continuation of Williams' solo career as it is of the career of Take That, it is a definite outlet for Robbie's personal direction both in terms of the songwriting and the instrumentation.

Robbie Williams' most recent LP, "Reality Killed the Video Star", was produced by Trevor Horn. That speaks for itself really. The man likes synthesisers, and always has. His various collaborations with Electro-Gods Pet Shop Boys only go to prove this further.

Whether the heavy synth influence on Progress is a positive thing is a matter of debate in my own mind however. The arrangements on this record are vastly different to those on Beautiful World and The Circus. The lush string sections, beautifully clean acoustic guitars and high register pianos are all gone, and most of the record has been constructed digitally. Especially the drums, which have been replaced by drum machines for virtually the whole album.

Have Take That sold out by opting for this production style? To an extent, perhaps they have. Either that, or they've been really clever.

The album opens with its lead single, "The Flood", on which Williams sings the lead vocal line with some contributions from Barlow, and backing vocals from the rest of the group. It's a great song, and by the end of the first line, Robbie has well and truly made his mark on post-revival Take That. He continues to do so for the rest of the album however.

"The Flood" is followed by "SOS", a duet between Owen and Williams, which is probably my favourite track on the album. It should have been a single in the place of "Kidz", because the latter song is really rather forgettable and lacks any real oomf.

The third track, "Wait", is terrible and sounds more like a JLS song. This is definitely the worst track on the record and shows them going in a very nasty direction, but later on the album we are treated to "Pretty Things", a beautiful song on which Barlow and Williams sing in octaves. It's one of the songs on the album that really exposes the themes of the LP, which I consider to be the mistakes the band members have made and their apologies for these mistakes. Despite their apologies however, they don't appear to be able to guarantee that they won't make the mistakes again, with lust having a high degree of prominence in their mindsets.

Owen in particulair, on "What Do You Want From Me?" seems to have an "I'm a man and I can't help my primeval desires, but I love you really" attitude. It's a great song though, one of the LP's high points, and reminds me of a Killers tune, especially when the synth riff comes in towards the end.

Overall, this is a good album, but has fallen into some pop music booby traps. It's often said that you can't polish a t*rd, and a number of the songs on Progress are examples of that saying in practise, although I do rather like the vocal treatments on "Happy Now".

Decent work, lads.

So the session failed miserably today, and it was nobody's fault.

We experienced the same hissing sound over the whole system that we'd experienced to a lesser extent at our last session, and we just couldn't sort it out. We tried changing the mics, we tried mucking about with the gain, we changed the channels we were going through. The lot. But none of it worked.

Eventually we asked the studio manager for some help, and he couldn't have been more helpful. He eventually concluded that it was an issue with the 24 track desk, which isn't usually used to record real instruments. He helped us out by bringing in a smaller desk which worked, but by that point we only had an hour or so left, so we never actually got any of my stuff done (I couldn't get a good take of "Circle of Fire").

What we did record was the new lead vocal for "Electrical Addiction" for Closed Circuit Culture's demo EP. We tried to get the backing vocals done, but then Logic went kaput so we just went and got a Sub and then got on the train.

Today was quite a sad day, and Marc and I had some quite sad conversations. It's always good to share our feelings though. It makes me feel better anyway. I hope it makes Marc feel better.

Hopefully next session will be more successful.

Dylan Marsh.

xxx

My family disagreed with me a couple of weeks ago when I said that Cheryl Cole was being selfish when she launched her solo career. I said that if I was in Girls Aloud with her I'd be pretty unhappy that she was cashing in on her success as an X Factor judge.

The reason my family thought that this was silly is because I'm currently in the process of producing a solo album, apart from my band, Closed Circuit Culture. So isn't it hypocritical to attack Cole for her solo career?

I wouldn't say so, because the reason I've chosen to make a solo album is because I've written a whole bunch of songs that aren't appropriate for the band artistically. Cole, on the other hand, is clearly only in it for the money. I know this because the music isn't very different to the music of Girls Aloud. Perhaps it has a little bit more of a dance influence, but doesn't everything nowadays?

Cheryl Cole did not make an artistic decision to launch a solo career. She made a greedy decision. Basking in her success on the X Factor (and indeed her success in the fantasies of men), she thought to herself:

"I have an idea! If I make records alone, so all the credit goes to me rather than all five of us, then I'll also make five times more money. Then I'll take most of my clothes off and appear in some saucy music videos and that'll make even more!"

What a greedy woman.

Another member of the girl group, Nadine Coyle, appeared on morning television the other day promoting her new single. It was intentionally different to the music of Cheryl Cole, and had more of a "rock chick" feel to it. I understand what Coyle's attempting to do here, but she's going about it in completely the wrong way. "Rock chick" is just not at all marketable. It appeals to no one in particular. True rockers will see it as someone pretending to rock (which it probably is) and chart music fans will not be enticed by its falseness either, and will probably just listen to Cheryl Cole instead.

Things aren't looking good for Nadine, and elsewhere the future's bright for Cheryl, which is sad really because Coyle's probably a better singer.

Why does the music industry frustrate me so?

My solo album would never be released. It doesn't have enough synthesisers and I'm not enough of a pin-up. Never mind. I'm no J.Bieber am I?

Dylan Marsh.

xxx

My Dad, the other day, defined music as "sounds organised in such a way that it is pleasurable to the ear", and I questioned him greatly with regard to this definition.

"Pleasurable to the ear"?

Is music always intended to be "pleasurable to the ear"? I'm not sure it is.

Fair enough- you're usually making music for people to listen to, and for people to have a positive reaction to. The 12 bar blues is such a common form because it's proven to be pleasurable to many ears around the world throughout history.

And take Tom Milsom's album, "Painfully Mainstream", which I previously reviewed on this blog. It's pop music how it should be. It's fun, it's exciting, it's pleasurable to the ear.

However, Milsom is currently producing an open-ended series of EPs entitled "Explorers", jam-packed with crazy experimental music. Some of the EPs are more avant-garde than others, but perhaps the most mental of all is "Explorers 3", which is really quite indescribable. Go and listen to it. It's insane. And it definitely isn't meant to be pleasurable to the ear. It's really about the statements you decide Milsom is making in the EPs. Indeed, this is what most experimental music is about, and should be about.

Other examples are the first works by John Lennon and Yoko Ono, which are certainly not pleasurable to the ear, but certainly meant a lot to Lennon and Ono, and certainly are still music. One track from their second effort is entitled "2 Minutes Silence" and is exactly what it says on the tin, in memoriam to their dead child, John Lennon Ono II. This is a beautiful thing for somebody to do for something they have lost, and that's what the whole LP is about. It's about appreciating that. It's about appreciating other people's views on life, and things in it.

Music doesn't have to be pleasurable to the ear, and visual art doesn't have to be pleasurable to the eye. Art doesn't have to be pleasurable at all.

Well actually it does in a certain way (sorry to backtrack). It has to help us in appreciating someone's opinions, beliefs or ideas. That, to an extent, is pleasure, isn't it? I mean, it's got to be pleasureable hasn't it? We don't listen to music as some kind of self-harming. I do realise that I am now crazily backtracking, but what I am saying ultimately is that experimenal music is pleasurable in a very different way to normal music.

There you go. That's what I think.

Today the first session for my solo album, "Breakfast at Mackenzie's", took place. I met Marc at the train station at quarter past one to get the train into town. Natalie had come along as well because she's recording her album in the Futureworks studio too and wanted a look around. As soon as I saw the two of them I started irritating them by referring to them as Yoko and Phil. I can safely say that this grated on their nerves very quickly.

When we arrived it took quite a while to get set up, because Marc's still getting familiar with the nw studio room. We had to ask the studio manager about one particular problem, but it was soon sorted.

Marc had brought some rubbish microphones with him to play with and see if we could produce any nice sounds, but they weren't compatible with the equipment so we had to make do with some ordinary microphones. I set up in the live booth with a vocal mic and a popshield and two mics on my acousic guitar. Again, this took a while to set up, and before we started recording properly, we went down to the lounge for a 10 minute break and a drink and we watched a repeat of Robot Wars on the TV.

We then went back upstairs to do some takes of the album's opener, "Our Prerogative (I Want to Cry)". I did loads. I'd been told by Marc that I needed to do the vocal with sincerity and the guitar part with vibrancy, and I was having difficulty getting the balance right. Eventually, after a short break during which I sat in the control room playing my 12 string and talking about the album's cover.

I then went back in the booth and did another take, which was quite a win really.

By then, we didn't have long left, but we had a go at recording the Hammond organ part on that tune, but I hadn't worked out what I really wanted to do and the sounds on Logic weren't great, so we're gonna have another go at that next time, as well as some other drum-free tunes.

For now, however, that is all.

xxx

In 2005, when Doctor Who returned to television, the production team did exactly the right thing: they made a sequel to the original series.

As long as it doesn't rely too much on minor continuity points,that's fine. This is something that production teams don't appear to understand nowadays. Why is it that almost literally whenever a new sci-fi movie is made, it is immediately made a reboot of any previous movies?

Take Batman Begins. It was originally proposed as a prequel to Tim Burton's "Batman" and its sequels. This pretty much works throughout that film (ish. The main problem is that "Batman begins" is set in a completely different decade to the other films, but never mind- floating timelines, da-di-dah) but I still didn't quite see the reason for going into detail about his origin and a weird sequence with Qui-Gon Jin in it that reminded me of the pre-credits of "Die Another Day".

Even so, I was happy with it being a prequel, until its follow-up, "The Dark Knight" was released. Now don't get me wrong: I love that movie. But it is in no manner a prequel to "Batman". So that means that the makers were lying to us about "Batman Begins". It wasn't a prequel. It was a reboot.

"What's wrong with that?" you ask in frustration, "Batman and Robin is the worst film ever."

Well, first of all, it isn't. the worst film ever is "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace". And secondly, you're probably right. One reboot doesn't matter. Perhaps it needed rebooting. After all, "Batman and Robin"hasn't had the greatest reception, and neither has its predecessor, "Batman Forever".

So reboot it. But at least make it good. Don't make it like that, because "Batman Begins" was terrible. It was like someone putting Jason Bourne in a Batman costume and giving him a few fancy gadgets, which resulted in embarrassment for the caped crusader.

Next came "Casino Royale". I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you just don't show Bond's backstory, It's a no-no. I know you like to do things in a dark gritty fashion nowadays, and that you might want to delve deeper into his troubled character, but it's a bad idea. Bond has a certain mystique to him that you can't take away.

Another reason that this reboot was a bad idea was because of the nature of the Bond movies. There's no continuity to rewrite. The Bond series hasn't ever had any kind of continued continuity before, so why introduce it now? You're just opening doors to trouble. I was happy with Sean Connery doing a few movies, meeting a bald Blofeld, then George Lazenby turning up and not being recognised by a Blofeld with a full head of hair. I was perfectly happy with that.

Returning to my point, the list of reboots goes on with movies and TV shows alike, and they're planning to make more of them.

Next year, a new X-Men movie comes out. It has the prequel label attached to it, but realistically, they're not going to last long before they have to bring in a mutant that's been used in one of the first three films, especially considering those with cameo roles in "The Last Stand".

So, while it's a prequel, in actuality it will probably result in a reboot.

Another scheduled reboot is a reimagining of Spiderman. Why? Those were all good movies. Why not just make another sequel. Fair dos: you don't have Toby Maguire, but who cares? I'd be quite happy with another actor taking over for the next part of the story. 'm already telling myself off for the money I will definitely spend on a ticket to see this film.

The Fantastic Four are also set for a reboot which seems another crazy idea, considering the quality of "Fantastic Four" and "Rise of the Silver Surfer".

They probably weren't gritty or dramatic enough. But who's going to take a character called Victor Von Doom seriously?

Oh, and as if "Superman Returns" wasn't super enough, the Man of Steel's also in for a reboot.

Just make a sequel.

Dylan Marsh.

xxx

Dear Chris,
I have been so far thrilled by your "Albums to Check Out" and hope you don't see me as a total copycat creating a series of posts with the same name.
Good. I knew you wouldn't mind.
I'm starting a series today entitled "Albums to Check Out" inspired by my friend Chris. Sometimes these albums may be potentially embarrassing (like today) and sometimes they might just be albums that I adore.
But here goes. It's time to introduce you to a classic album of my generation- Busted's eponymous debut album, which includes the aforementioned Chris' most hated song OF ALL TIME.
I'm the first to admit that the melodies and the lyricism of "Busted" aren't its selling points. Whilst the singles are probably great pop songs, the other songs are most definitely not, and have lyrics similar to those I remember being ashamed of writing when I was nine.
However, considering that I'm supposed to be reccomending that you "check out" this album, I want to focus on the positives. It's not really the songwriting or the performance I want to praise, but the production. This record  sounds amazing. I regularly lie in bed listening to this album on my headphones and just appreciating the amazing work of the producer.

Everything is placed perfectly in the mix, but perhaps more importantly, the right things are placed in the mix. You would never to thing to have extra rhythm guitar tracks played on an acoustic, would you? What about the string quartet on "When the Day Turns into Night"? Not to mention that the vocal harmonies are perfectly arranged throughout because, when you have three singers, why waste them?

On top of these beautiful arrangements, the actual sound quality is wonderful. I know it sounds ridiculous, but the music is crystal clear. Just listen to the acoustic guitar line that opens "All the Way" for an example of that. I feel like I'm in the room with Busted when I'm listening to it. If I close my eyes I can perfectly envisage Charlie, Matt and James sat on my bedroom floor. This is what every album should sound like.

And it even has a concept. Flowing throughout the album I feel the angst, the schoolboy humour and the sexual frustration of your average teenage boy. The first and final tracks are unbelievably linked actually.

So, planet Earth, stop laughing at the mere idea of Busted. Because this record's not actually that bad.

When I decdided to go and see it, I went in feeling aprehensive. Having grown up with the previous two installments in the Toy Story series, I was nervous about whether this latest chapter would ruin its predecessors and, ultimately, whether it would be worth doing at all.

SPOILERS AHEAD:

The film begins in the same manner as every other Pixar film, with a complimentary short, this one entitled "Day and Night". Rather than urging the film to start as I had imagined, I actually thoroughly enjoyed this short film, which involves two smalll creatures representing night and day who squabble and fight continuously with one another until the film's predictable conclusion. That said, it was the only way this short film could have ended.

The opening sequence of the main feature has us see into Andy's imagination whilst he is playing with his toys as a young boy. While it is obvious from the outset that none of the scene (set in an American desert) is actually taking place, it's a fun and colourful opening to an already promising movie.

In the bulk of the film, Andy is now 17 and is going to what the Americans call college. This means that all of his old toys are seemingly facing the end. Most of his toys are donated to a local daycare centre, but Woody, his most treasured posession, is set to go to college with him. In the confusion however, Woody ends up accompanying his friends to the daycare centre, which is run by a strawberry-cented bear known as Lotso.

It later materialises that, as far as the toys are concerned, the centre is a dictatorship, ruled by Lotso and, after Woody's escape, there is no hope for the remaining toys.

The rest of the plot is a brilliantly colourful romp following the toys' escape from the daycare centre, and Woody's adventures in a local little girl's bedroom. It has just the famly spirit that made the previous Toy Story films so fantastic. This isn't an endless string of cheap laughs (like the Shrek sequels) and it doesn't have a convuluted plot like many other sequels of this type. It's just a good strong film, and I will definitely show it (along with the first two) to my offspring.

With all the characters I have grown to know and love, some new characters (including a Ken doll played by Michael Keaton), all of the clever adventure involving small household items, and no innuendo for the adults, Toy Story 3 is entertainment at its best.

In fact, I take that back, it represents the very foundations of what I live for.

Dylan Marsh.

xxx

I write this a day late, because I never got round to it yesterday.

I arrived at Marc's relatively early yesterday, and pretty much immediately began work on "The Beast Within", the song after which this blog is named. We tried to add some "ooh" backing vocals to that tune but it wasn't quite as effective as on other tunes. Other than that, that song was OK.

After this, I then had a go at the hardest song of the lot, "Collateral Damage", during which I became rather upset with my apparent inability to sing and suggested that Marc should just be the singer. This was the lowest point of the whole week, but we got over it eventually with the help of some careful double-tracking and use of the demo vocal.

Soon some lunch was required. I had two slices of toast. That's all I have to say about the matter. We then had a go at one of my tunes, "The Stars are There to Guide You", which I did relatively quickly. It's an acoustic track, really subdued.

The final song we tried was another one penned by me, "Cover to Cover", which again was quite easy, and was acheived by saying different lines on different channels so I didn't sound breathless.

I still have two songs to do: the second version of "Are You Going to Live Forever?" and the final B side, "Earth, Sea and Sky". These will be recorded at some point in the notfardistant future.

For now, that is all.

Dylan Marsh.

xxx

Marc had been playing the organ for a funeral this morning (which I'm sure was a blast) so I didn't get to his until about twelve, at which point we spent a little while setting up a projctor so that Natalie and her chums could watch "Alice in Wonderland" on the big screen.

Soon afterwards, we set to work on the vocal for "Travelling Light", the closing track of the album. I had thought this was going to be easy, but it wasn't. I struggled with making it sound sincere, but eventually, by means of emotion memory, I managed it. The backing vocals were quite fun to do, and involved a lot of different choral harmonies to make me and Marc sound like a gospel choir.

We then had some lunch, and despite the fact that I had brought with me two cornish pasties, we had a pizza. Chris arrived just in time to grab the last piece, then we started on the vocal for one of his tunes, "Storms in July". I'm going to lose all element of modesty now and say that the harmonies I have done on that song are fantastic.

The last thing I recorded was "Adrift", a B-side, and I enjoyed doing that most today I think.

After that, Marc, Chris and I got the bus to Edgely in order to be interviewed by a YouTube channel called UBTV. We had a right laugh.

Dylan Marsh.

xxx