The Mercy Side: I'm Going to Disneyland!

Here's my first wrestling article in nearly two months. Enjoy.

I may not be writing as often as I used to anymore but that’s because of time, not because of my lack of interest in doing it. I still play video games, listen to music, watch football games and watch wrestling. I just don’t often get the chance to jot my thoughts down on anything anymore, which is a shame. But in the wrestling world, one of the most intriguing, most entertaining, and most unpredictable storylines in recent memory is the program that’s occurring between Kane and Daniel Bryan.

I’m a huge Kane fan. I have been for a long time. And while Daniel Bryan individually is by far my favourite wrestler at the moment, and has been for about half a year now, this article is actually in homage to Kane. You see, Kane is a character and wrestler who is always overlooked by both his peers and the younger talent. Back in the late nineties, there were far more popular wrestlers than Kane. He was a medium fish in a huge tank in those days, in comparison arguably larger fish in The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Mankind and The Undertaker. Then when that tank got smaller, new talent were still considered bigger fish; Chris Jericho, Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit. Then the new breed came in when the fish tank was getting smaller still; John Cena, Randy Orton, Edge, Jeff Hardy, Brock Lesnar and now CM Punk. At this time Kane’s medium sized fish was shrinking. He was getting older, slower, less interesting.

One thing they tried to keep Kane’s character fresh was take Kane’s mask off. This was a huge angle. I never thought they’d get Kane to take his mask off; it was key to his character and a fundamental part of his look. Kane was supposedly burnt in a fire as a kid so the idea behind the mask was to cover up his scarred face. And while Glen Jacobs, the man who portrays Kane, has a menacing look on him, it took away a huge part of Kane that made him so scary in the first place. The only reason why I’d have been happy for Kane to lose his mask was if the WWE were to actually give him the push to the top he deserved for such a long time. They never really did.

Something that always used to annoy me about the WWE was that they burderned Kane with a one day title reign for so long. I never thought he deserved to lose the title in one day, after finally getting to the top and get a win over Stone Cold Steve Austin in the process. I thought that was terrible; at the time Kane was still one of the most interesting characters on TV, even in the fruitful attitude era. He didn’t deserve that. No one does really. It’s one of the reasons why I feel sorry for Dolph Ziggler and Rey Mysterio and their terrible title reigns. What’s a bigger crime though is that it took over 12 years for him to not only get another World Heavyweight Title reign, but for him to have a good crack at the top. Kane had a decent run as champion a couple of years ago, and his program while wasn’t great, his character was pretty damn entertaining.

It's hard to remember this ever happening.

Who was he in a program with as World Heavyweight Champion? Oh yeah, some guy called The Undertaker. Kane has the unfortunate title as being an Undertaker-lite. In nearly every way possible, Kane is inferior to The Undertaker. He’s a big guy like The Undertaker, but in the ring he can’t compare to Big Evil. The Undertaker is unparalleled when it comes to big guys and their ability in the ring. He’s untouchable. Kane however, is a damn good wrestler, for a man of 7 feet and 320 pounds; he can fly across that ring and put on a very good show. His moveset is distinctive despite him sharing his finishers with The Undertaker. On the microphone, The Undertaker, when on form, floors Kane in this respect too. Kane isn’t often given much time on the microphone, not because it’s a weakness, but because it’s against his character to talk too much. But he’s still very good; one of the highlights of the disappointing program between Kane and The Undertaker for the World title two years ago was Kane’s “reveal all” promo where he explained his plot for the title all along and how The Undertaker fell for it. That promo was gold, and he was on the microphone for a good 10 minutes then, a rarity for Kane. His character is inferior to The Undertaker’s as well; in the respect that The Undertaker’s Deadman gimmick has lasted an incredible 22 years, bar the few years as The American Bad Ass, with few tweaks here and there. Kane has had to change his character over and over again, to avoid being too similar to The Undertaker, and yet maintain the entertainment value. Kane is less popular than The Undertaker in every other way possible too; fan opinion, backstage respect and reputation, merchandise, everything. Kane is exactly that, The Undertaker-lite.

But there is one thing that Kane can revert to that The Undertaker can’t. There’s one thing that Kane has the ability to do that The Undertaker can’t even begin to compare with, and that’s the ability to be funny. You can call it an underrated trait in a wrestler, but the ability to make an audience laugh is important. It’s entertaining; it’s an often overlooked quality in a wrestler. I can give you two very easy examples to back myself up on this. The first, Santino. Santino will never be a World Heavyweight Champion. He’s not good enough in the ring, not popular enough overall with any age demographic, not even kids. But if you remember The Elimination Chamber earlier this year, Santino was amazing. He was put into the match due to a concussion to Randy Orton, he was a surprise entrance really, and no one expected him to be given the spot in the match. But how the fans reacted. They knew he had no chance of winning the Elimination Chamber. They knew he was a huge underdog. And they supported him in his underdog role. Why? Because they knew his value as a comedy wrestler. And you know what? Santino delivered big time in the Elimination Chamber. He got by far the biggest pops in that match when he dug in deep and survived to the final two in the chamber, with Daniel Bryan. It was a simple story, but if it wasn’t for Santino playing the funny guy so well now for a number of years, we wouldn’t have got that great performance from Santino.

Secondly is Daniel Bryan himself. Daniel Bryan is a great story in today’s WWE. A little indie guy who happens to be the best technical wrestler since Chris Benoit, gets his chance at glory by winning Money in the Bank, and cashes in. But he’s still one of the most entertaining wrestlers in the roster, in my opinion; he’s been the most entertaining wrestler for a good half year now. And why? Because he’s just so funny. He knows how to garner a reaction. And his in ring ability is unquestionable; it’s always been the ability to play a character that people questioned. And how he’s backed that ability up. He gets probably more time on TV than any other wrestler nowadays. It speaks volumes, it really does. And it’s the comedy element to his character that makes him stand out, even when he’s not heading into a World Title at the moment. Because he’s such a good wrestler, the true best in the world I’d say at this time, and because he’s so entertaining and funny, it’s inevitable he’ll be given that reward at the top again very soon.

I admit it, I'm a huge Brothers of Destruction mark. I have no shame.

Because Kane is immediately compared in every way to The Undertaker in everything he does, not only because he’s the storyline brother of The Undertaker, but also because he too has an evil streak, is a big guy that has a similar move set, Kane has to adjust himself in a way that’s different to The Undertaker. I think deep down Glen Jacobs knows that he’s just not as good in most ways to The Undertaker. Sometimes it’s good to accept that you’re not #1 and just be the best you can, and be better in ways others can’t. And Kane does that by being funny, in usually inappropriate or unexpected ways.


Kane has a great career in comedy segments. Because it’s not every week, every time we see him and a little unexpected when it does happen, it’s often absolutely hilarious. Kane does evil and sinister segments, he does horror slapstick segments (usually badly, take the Paul Bearer freezer storyline as an example), and he also does comedy. One of my all time favourite funny moments from Kane is when he’s preparing a six-man tag team match with The Rock and Hulk Hogan, and his partners are discussing how they’re not too sure how to deal with The Big Red Machine. Kane walks in and just tears the roof off with his amazing impressions of The Rock and Hulk Hogan, hulking up, posing, everything. It’s just brilliant. It came out of nowhere and was just one of my favourite segments ever. What about the celebratory Santino trumpet segment from last year? Kane was just turning into a good guy but wasn’t quite there yet at the time, and was in an eight-man tag team match with Santino, Big Show and Vladmir Kozlov; his three partners start doing the trumpet celebration and Kane just stands there in disgust. Then all of a sudden he just starts joining in. It’s just moments like that that Kane can get away with, in a way that The Undertaker can’t, and he’s just so good at it.

Which brings me to his current program with Daniel Bryan. I truly believe that the paring of these two unexpectedly funny guys wasn’t planned long term. I believe everyone thought they’d have a program that ended with Daniel Bryan being put over by Kane to the top again, because Kane has spent long periods of his career putting smaller wrestlers over, which is another trait he’s better than The Undertaker at. But the segments have been just so funny consistently over the last couple of months that they’ve started to pair them and even gave them the Tag Team Titles. The Tag Team Titles were almost inevitably being readied for Rey Mysterio and Sin Cara to the point that the writing was pretty much engrained on the belt, but with Kane and Daniel Bryan working so well together with their fantastic chemistry, plans have changed. And while Daniel Bryan is a really big part of why this team is so successful on TV, Kane needs more credit in his role.

The "hug it out" segment was comedy gold.

That’s the purpose of this article. To pay homage to Kane, something that isn’t done enough. Sure, there have been better wrestlers than Kane, in many different ways; in ring ability, on the microphone, everything. I’m not taking anything away from these wrestlers. I’m not taking anything away from The Undertaker, who in most ways is better than Kane. I prefer The Undertaker to Kane myself. But Kane is just not praised enough for the role he’s done consistently since 1995. That’s fifteen years service. He’s a scary monster, he’s a big wrestler but can wrestle really well, he’s decent on the microphone, he’s put more smaller wrestlers over in that time than most other wrestlers (Chris Jericho may trump, but I doubt many others do in the past 15 years). But he’s also a very, VERY funny guy. I don’t know if it’s Glen Jacobs the man who has decided that comedy segments are good for his character, or if it’s Vince McMahon, or multiple other people over the years that have created storylines for him, but it works. It’s always worked. And Kane, I thank you for your fantastic work throughout your career. You’ll always be one of my favourite wrestlers. And one more thing Kane, I really, truly, deeply hope you enjoyed Disneyland. Thanks for reading.


For the latest updates on my work, follow me on Facebook and Twitter here!

The Mercy Side: Attitude Adjustment

Here's my first wrestling article in nearly eight months. Enjoy.

I've been thinking of writing this article for over a week. And with an epic 1000th episode of Monday Night Raw occurring yesterday, I thought that I'd forget writing this article due to the state of wrestling changing so quickly on a weekly basis, it may not have been relevant. But after the events of the milestone episode, it's actually done the opposite. It's made this article even more relevant.

What I want to talk to you about today is this chap you might know if you watch wrestling called John Cena. What a career he has had. 35 years old, he's already a 12 time world champion and he doesn't look like he's losing steam any time soon. He's sold more merchandise in the 2000s than any wrestler, he's attracted more fans to the product more than any other wrestler. Since the days of Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock, no one has come really close to the value of John Cena.

People are divided in opinion on John Cena. He's stale, he doesn't sell moves very well, or for very long, his moveset is repetitive and overdone. He's superman, never letting people get over. But he still works his absolute ass off to give as entertaining a product he can possibly give. He cares about wrestling, he cares about the WWE and the fans. There's no denying that. I have a huge amount of respect for the man, despite how certain smarter fans feel about him.

Despite all that John Cena has accomplished, there's just one thing that the man has lacked in his career, in my eyes anyway. And that's a true rivalry. Now before you drop your cereal out of your mouth (or doughnut, hamburger, or any other food you're obviously eating right now, don't deny it), there's someone you might have thought about already - Edge. There's no denying that if there's one man that John Cena can call a rival throughout his career, it's that man.

John Cena and Edge had a long term rivalry from around 2005 to 2010.

They did have some good matches, that's true. The best probably being the TLC Match at Unforgiven 2006. They helped each other become as big stars as they are; John Cena as previously mentioned was the star attraction of the naughties and Edge was one of the finer wrestlers of that decade. They both put each other over many times and had some great segments. Both Edge and John Cena have said in interviews that the other person is their greatest rival in their careers.

So why am I saying Edge isn't the true rival of John Cena? It's hard to explain in some ways. Some key points for me are, for the most part, I don't feel Edge has ever been John Cena's equal. While they did have some very good matches, they had some duds as well. And not only that, but they wrestled each other so often it, similar to Cena's career in some ways, became stale. To have a great rivalry both wrestlers need to be on equal footing in most ways, and I never felt that Edge and Cena really were. Edge was always a step below Cena for most of his career.

What is a true rivalry then? Well the most obvious one to me is Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock. While it's well documented that the top star of the Attitude Era was Stone Cold, The Rock was right up there with him. Did The Rock sell as much merchandise or PPVs as Stone Cold? No, I suppose not, although his star power for last year's Wrestlemania was a true shot in that direction. But there is no denying that there were two men that were on top of the Attitude Era and that was those two guys. And they always had amazing matches. Always. Their matches are legendary in the WWE. There's no denying that.

Arguably the greatest wrestling feud in WWE history.

And one thing there is no denying is they were booked quite equally. Sure, Stone Cold didn't put The Rock over until their last match, but the feud, the promos, and the actual wrestling in itself, was equal. The line was drawn very finely; it felt that the only reason why The Rock could not beat Stone Cold was through bad luck, rather than being the inferior wrestler. And the fact that they didn't wrestle against each other very often is another reason why I think it works. John Cena and Edge had countless matches it was boring. I can only think of three or four matches of the top of my head that The Rock and Stone Cold had. I'm sure they may have had more, but it definitely wasn't as many as Edge/Cena.

Which brings me to answer your question of who I think, long term, could be John Cena's truest rival. My answer is simply CM Punk.

There are so many similarities between John Cena and CM Punk and The Rock and Stone Cold. Neither sets of wrestlers wrestled each other often. Cena and The Rock were brought into the WWE by failing at something else first, Cena with bodybuilding and The Rock with American football. CM Punk and Stone Cold had to claw their way to the top of the wrestling ladder; CM Punk had to go through Ring of Honor and had to wait until last year's Summer of Punk before he was finally given the platform to really show what he can do. Stone Cold had failed at WCW and was only brought to the WWE because he was a good technical wrestler, he was never going to be more than an enhancement talent until the amazing 3:16 promo occurred.

The Rock and Stone Cold had fluid matches; they oozed quality for upto half an hour. John Cena and Edge doesn't compare in quality to the Rock/Stone Cold series, not consistently anyway. The Rock, as good a wrestler as he was has a similar problem that John Cena has, in that he had to have the right opponent to have a true quality match. The Rock is a better wrestler overall, at least in my opinion, but still he had that same problem. Where as Stone Cold and CM Punk can have great matches with a variety of opponents. Most importantly, The Rock drove Stone Cold to having world class matches he drove him further than anyone else did in his entire career. I believe John Cena does that with CM Punk. I don't feel Edge did.

CM Punk could be Cena's true rival.

You know what made me think about this? I was so excited to hear about CM Punk vs John Cena last week. Really excited. I loved their two matches last year, at Money in the Bank and at Summerslam. They were the best matches of the year in my opinion, they were so fluid, so special, and you honestly didn't know who was going to win either match. And in the end, CM Punk won both matches. CM Punk walked away champion yesterday as well. Another thing that Stone Cold and CM Punk have in common with their rivals. You get the feeling CM Punk is the bogey wrestler to John Cena that Stone Cold was to The Rock. The Rock has said it himself many times, he didn't feel like he truly was 'the man' until he finally beat Stone Cold. I think it could make a great story to keep CM Punk as Cena's bogey wrestler.

Last night CM Punk turned heel again. At first I was thinking this was a bad move. Why? Because CM Punk is so hot right now in the WWE. He's the first wrestler to finally knock John Cena off merchandise. Sure John Cena is still king of selling the product, but CM Punk is catching up. And shirt sales going in CM Punk's favour is a sign of that. CM Punk, unlike John Cena, is cool with all ages and genders of viewership. It feels inevitable long term that CM Punk might finally be the true top guy in the WWE. The WWE definitely have him as their #2 guy now, finally knocking Randy Orton out of that position. I still feel it may be a bad move, in the respect that CM Punk might be too over to be truly booed. The smarter fans will definitely cheer for him, especially if he does go for this rematch against Cena at Summerslam, which feels inevitable.

But the heel turn, despite of my mixed feelings, means one thing. We should get another, great CM Punk and John Cena match. I don't want Cena/Punk shoved down my throat over the course of the autumn though. One match at Summerslam, and then separate them again. I want John Cena and CM Punk to be the new Rock/Stone Cold. It has truly can be. CM Punk's heel turn, the adjustment in his attitude, makes him opposite Cena again. And of course, it makes him opposite The Rock again, which is another match I desperately want to see at the Royal Rumble. CM Punk/Rock could be great as well.

I'm really looking forward to wrestling again now. John Cena vs CM Punk, Brock Lesnar vs Triple H and Chris Jericho vs Dolph Ziggler seem set for Summerslam. That's an awesome trilogy of matches. I just hope the WWE don't make Cena/Punk stale long term, it has all the ingredients for greatness.

For the latest updates on my work, 'like' me on Facebook here!

The Mercy Side: Youth and Young Manhood

Here's a short article from me today. I just want to get a few things off my chest.

So I bought a game last week. A game I hadn't played in a very long time. A game that is terribly dated, and even at the time it was poorly designed. That game is called 'Championship Manager 2007'.

Why did I buy 'Championship Manager 2007'? Well, the Championship Manager series, like most football manager games, are mainly released on the PC, where as I used to have it on the Playstation 2, but wanted it for my XBox 360 as I'm trying to move as many games as I can from my old console(s) to my current one. And this was the last year they released a Championship Manager game onto a console. 2008 onwards have solely been released on the PC. So I'm stuck with a game that's six years out of date.

Six years in football is a very long time. As you may know I support Liverpool. What players did Liverpool have in that season? Rafa Benitez was in charge, and we had the likes of Peter Crouch, Robbie Fowler, Sami Hyypia and John Arne Riise at the club. We even had Stephen Warnock and Darren Potter, remember those youth players that have found better success elsewhere? Ah yes. Football goes so quickly we all get sucked into it and forget how fast time can go. Six years ago was before we got to a second Champions League final, got new owners, got rid of new owners and got new NEW owners, got 2nd place in the Premier League, won a Carling Cup, went through three managers in two seasons, bought Fernando Torres, sold Fernando Torres and spent a whopping £35 million on Andy Carroll. Six years really is a very long time.

But... in real life, six years is nothing. Six years ago I was still writing, and yes, things in my life have changed but my mentality hasn't, my aspirations haven't and my priorities haven't. Six years ago I still loved the same bands, played similar games and cracked similar bad jokes as I do today.

Where am I getting at with this article? Well, six years ago this game came out and I'm still playing it today. As I said, it's terribly dated and the squads are terribly outdated. Only Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher and Pepe Reina are still in our squad from six years ago.

I had some great times playing this game.  I used to live in Portsmouth, and I remember when Havant and Waterlooville almost caused Liverpool a shock cup exit. Since that day I remember taking the Havant and Waterlooville of the Conference South and making them a Premier League force over a long period of time. It was great.

I used to be Liverpool and make them from the team they are in real life, the almost-rans, or not even that, the underachievers. The team that's known from outside of Liverpool as the team whose fans always boldly predict to win the league and fail miserably each season. I liked taking Liverpool and making them the ultimate force of world football. Not Premier League titles but Champions League titles. And every season. And all the major internationals would join my unstoppable team and become even greater. It's one of the most fun things to do on any football game, manager or playing, is to take a team and make them great.

Championship Manager also lets you see the progress of the Youth and Reserve teams. I used to try and make them good as well, even if it made zero impact on the first team as they were so good. At Liverpool we had Paul Anderson, Gabriel Paletta, Danny Guthrie, Lee Peltier, Stephen Darby, Jack Hobbs, Miki Roque and Besian Idrizaj.

Miki Roque and Besian Idrizaj.

If you didn't know already, Miki Roque died only a few days ago. He was 23 years old. My age. I was 17 when he was 17, six years ago. He died from cancer. That could have been me. That could have been any 23 year old. No one should die at 23 years of age. It's just not right in any way at all.

Besian Idrizaj died two years ago. He was 22 years old. He reportedly died of a heart attack in his sleep. He had collapsed on at least two different occasions in his career beforehand. My sister turns 22 today. It could have been her, or any 22 year old.

Football goes so quickly. Six years ago as I said, the Liverpool squad was dramatically different. But when I, at the age of 23, play a Championship Manager game that's six years old, it feels weird. It's unnerving playing Championship Manager 2007, with a Liverpool squad who has two players in its team that have died. Roque was 17 years old, Idrizaj was 18. These two players, these Liverpool youth players, were just boys in real life. In a game they were potential, they were seen as bright players for the future. In football that's what they were too.

But in real life, six years is nothing. Six years ago these boys were becoming men, it probably only felt like yesterday they were playing in Liverpool's youth squad. I remember them. And now they've passed away, terribly before their time should have been. It's just frightening what life can do.

I don't know what this article was to represent, as I said, I just wanted to get these feelings off my chest. I wanted to pay my respects to Miki Roque, his family, and wish them all the best in this terribly difficult time. The same goes to Besian Idrizaj, even though it was two years ago it was still premature by a long shot. I also wanted to convey a simple and possibly clichéd message that is, life is precious and we need to make the most of now. These boys did, they lived their dreams of being footballers, playing for some of the biggest teams in the world, including Liverpool.

I'm a writer, this is my long term dream. I hope I can continue to excel, to improve, and one day this can be what I am remembered for. Miki and Besian may have lived their dream, but it was snatched from them before they could really make their careers shine. Their lives were cut short. I really hope that I can fulfil my ambitions, I'm alive and well, and I'm lucky. Very lucky. We all are in different ways. I want to live my life with no regrets and make the most of my opportunities. I hope you all want to do the same with your lives. Stories like Miki and Besian are cruel, and shouldn't happen. So please make sure you live your life to the full. Whatever you want to do, work hard to achieve it. Thanks for reading.

For the latest updates on my work, 'like' me on Facebook here!

The Mercy Side: Metal is Dead

I said a few months ago that I'd be doing an article on dubstep. The idea of that article was that, frankly, I don't like dubstep but I'd try and get into the genre. Why? Why get into a genre you don't like? Well, I feel I should like dubstep but don't. It's a combination of dance music, electronic and in some cases, metal, particularly industrial metal influences. All of these genres when done correctly, interest me. Hell, I just did a Mixtape of my favourite Industrial songs. So while a lot of my friends and large parts of the world are embracing dubstep, I was stuck, as I didn't like the genre. I asked a lot of people on some forums and on my Facebook to put their favourite songs of the genre up so I can try and get into the genre. It kinda failed as I anticipated. I was going to write that article but it just got forgotten about in the end. That was until, I decided I'd review KoRn's new album "The Path of Totality" for this site. Fingers crossed, you'll see that review tomorrow if you're interested.

This article is not just about dubstep though. This article is about a topic that I've been dreading to talk about for some time, but hoped it wouldn't be true. It all stems from this quote that Jonathan Davies, lead singer of KoRn said on the 5th December 2011 to Revolver Magazine:

"You have an open mind. The album is getting people to have an open mind and just accept that this is the future – accept the change."

Now, I only came across this quote this week when it came up on my Facebook (I follow KoRn on Facebook). It pains me to say it, but good old Jonathan Davies is spot on. And if he's saying it, it's got to be at least half right. I mean, I'm not saying that the words of Jonathan Davies are gospel or anything, but the man knows a thing or two about music, metal in particular. The guy is not a pioneer of the genre, but man, KoRn have been consistent in the genre for a good near twenty years. I love KoRn's sound. They're not my favourite band or anything, but I could listen to KoRn any day of the week because they sound fantabulous. I love the raw guitar sound they have, a sound that as far as I'm aware, has rarely been replicated by any other band. What's sad though is that Jonathan Davies has said this now. I'm not bigging up myself or anything, but I sensed this a long time ago. Probably about five years ago.

KoRn. Man, they like dreads don't they?

You see, I remember having a conversation at school with a friend about the future of music. She isn't really into my style of music, she likes her RnB music, her dance music and her pop. She was a dancer after all. I haven't spoken to her in a few years actually. Anyway, we were talking, and "SexyBack" by Justin Timberlake came on the radio while we were talking. I told her that this is the future of music. You see, this was a time where Timbaland was dominating the charts by collaborating with RnB artists but giving them an polished electronic sound. He had also worked closely with Nelly Furtado. This is the Nelly Furtado that sung this piece of cheese six years prior. And what does Timbaland do? He cranks the volume up a little, gives Nelly a harder image, puts some of that electronic polish on her music, and she sounds pretty damn badass, as RnB goes. "Maneater" is the song I'm talking about if you didn't know. Yes I like that song. I liked a lot of the Nelly Furtado songs of this part of her career. She's gone off the rails a little recently but 2006 was her year.

It's electronic sound that Timbaland mastered in this era is a precursor to how music sounds today. Timbaland is a pioneer.  Look around you. On the softer side of music you have this electronic sound everywhere. Everyone's doing it. One of the biggest RnB artists of the moment is Nicki Minaj. What about LMFAO? Black Eyed Peas? This electronic sound is all over the place.

Why am I mentioning this exactly? What has this got to do with dubstep, or hell, metal? Did you listen to "Maneater"? It's a good track. Oh sorry, to answer your question, well... metal has gone in this direction too. My silly prediction in a classroom five years ago has become true. But not in the way I expected. It's happened everywhere. Everyone is including electronic music into their music. Laptop and computer electronic music is bigger now that it ever has been. Dubstep came from this idea, that your computer can make music. And it can. And now look at the genre. It's exploded to the mainstream. But it's also threatening metal as well. I say threatening because this is the genre I grew up to love as a kid, and it's dying. It might already be dead.

I've been asking a lot of people to get me into new metal bands for years without success. Do you want to know the last great metal band I really liked? Do Grinderman count? Grinderman being, Nick Cave and co. forming a new band? Are they even metal? Erm... how about Pendulum? What, they're dance music? Damn... I erm... I don't know actually. Okay let me do some research...

Click on this picture. No seriously.

...okay, after scrawling through Wikipedia, The Murderdolls formed in 2002... Audioslave in 2001... Brand New in 2000... and they're okay but I wouldn't say they're a GREAT band... let me look a little further... aha! The Eighties Matchbox B-Line Disaster formed in 1999! There we go! Oh wait, I don't know how many of you have heard of them. Besides, are they metal? They're more psychedelic rock and punk... okay, let me go a bit further in case that doesn't justify it... in 1998 Jerk formed but they only did one awesome album... Skindred formed in 1998? Skindred are pretty cool... should we go with them? If I go to 1997 I find Mindless Self Indulgence. Now that's a GREAT metal band.

You see, I have to go 15 years into the past to find the last great metal band. Obviously that's personal taste, I'm sure there are bands formed since then that you or anyone else will like a lot. Not for me though. I love metal, most of my favourite bands are in the genre. Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson, Rammstein, Rob Zombie, to name a few. A lot of these bands were prominent in the nineties but that's not to say that there wasn't great metal to be found in the noughties. If you look at my Top 100 Favourite songs of the decade, you'll see plenty of metal bands and songs in the list. Bands like Drowning Pool, Disturbed, Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, Avenged Sevenfold and System of a Down.

But then around 2007 time, something changed. What is now known as emo music started to dominate rock and metal. It's a genre that also went mainstream and it was everywhere. I hated emo. I still do. I didn't think it killed off metal or anything, I mean, emo incorporates modern punk and metal after all. But it definitely knocked metal back a peg, and great metal bands were finding it hard to adapt to the change. Some bands did. Slipknot, Papa Roach and Linkin Park come to mind when it comes to bands who changed their sound slightly to appeal to the emo rise. They started including more melody in their songs and less metal. It was more about the whine in the voice, the sentiment in their lyrics. But other bands ceased to exist in some ways, Limp Bizkit come to mind as an example of that.

And now, we have dubstep. We have electronic music fusing with all the genres around us. It got to RnB, you can see proof of that above. It's also gotten to indie music. Bands like MGMT and Foster the People come to mind that like to fuse the sounds together. I mean it's nothing new in a way, Radiohead have been doing it for years. But there's something different this time around, because it's just so much more prominent, so much more... successful. It's become the norm, become the way to make music. And I have very mixed feelings about this.

"You have an open mind. The album is getting people to have an open mind and just accept that this is the future – accept the change."

I just thought I'd put Jonathan Davies' quote back up there as a reminder. Times are changing. Music is changing. It's always changed. I have to be honest, in my lifetime, we've had a lot less change and what has changed has been at a snails pace in comparison to the past. We had jazz and blues, rock 'n' roll, then glam rock, then punk rock, then new wave, then indie. Now we have this electronindie thing going on. In the world of pop we now have artists using electronic music quite a lot. In metal we've used electronic music, but it's always been as a booster, as an enhancement. Look at industrial music as a means of looking how electronic music has been used in metal the most. The best song to suggest is my favourite band of course, Nine Inch Nails with this blistering effort that I put in my Industrial Mixtape last week. From 1:38 onwards is absolutely amazing.

Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails.

But as a general rule, metal hasn't embraced the change. It hasn't accepted electronic music, and dubstep, into its genre. It's been trying to push it away. Metal has suffered as a consequence of this I'd say. As I said, I have mixed feelings about it myself, dubstep as a sound is okay, but it's repetitive and boring. I like electronic music as an enhancement myself, but not when it becomes the source of a song. But KoRn's new album has taken a big bold step forwards for a new way to incorporate metal and electronic music and dubstep. Do I like that album? Well if you read my review you'll find out. But before I review that album I thought that this article was worth writing. I thought it was worth talking about the changes in music at the moment, where electronics and dubstep are becoming more prominent, are becoming the focus. 

Someone, I can't remember who, told me that in five or ten years time, the stars of the future will have started making their music on computers in their bedrooms. I think that person is right.

What do you think? Is metal dead? Does metal need to accept the focus on dubstep and electronic music to survive? Disagree? Comment below. Thanks for reading.

 

For the latest updates on my work, 'like' me on Facebook here!

The Mercy Side: Building a Dynasty

Hey there and thanks for joining me for my first football article in three and a half months. Things are a little different for this article though, I’m not going to talk about Liverpool. No I’m not talking about England either. I’m going to talk about Chelsea.

Unless you’ve lived under a rock (or, are not a football fan and if that’s the case why are you even reading this?) you might have heard that Chelsea manager Andre Villas Boas was sacked yesterday. Some have said it was justified. I mean, since Roman Abramovich has come in with his billions of pounds, no manager has had a worse percentage win rate or a worse points-per-game rate. He managed the team for 40 games, and only won half of them. Not since Glen Hoddle, sixteen years ago, has in fact done worse than Villas Boas. But they never built Rome in a day, and if Roman Abramovich wants to build a dynasty, he needs to have a long-term plan.

Villas Boas was perfect for Chelsea. It’s probably quite a controversial thing to say, but it’s my humble opinion that this was so. Why? Chelsea needed a young, fresh mind. Villas Boas was seen as a ‘new Mourinho’, a Portugese mastermind with a keen eye for tactics. He did wonders at Porto, and is an exceptionally young manager at the age of 34; Henrique Hilario is two years older, Paulo Ferreira, Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba, only one year younger. Some could say too young, but I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t matter how young or old a manager is, all that matters is that they’re a strong character and can back up their skills with style.

Andre Villas Boas.

And Villas Boas did just that. For a man of 34, he had balls. He did, truly. When criticised on Match of the Day, or by other pundits, he’d actually call them out and tell them where to go. He was a frank man; always spoke his mind and was vocal in a way a leader should be. I really liked Villas Boas, and I’m a Liverpool fan, as I’m sure many of you are aware. He was deep in the thick of it and while he did struggle to swim against the tide, he gave it his best shot.

As I said, he’s 34 years old, and was put in that job for one reason – long-term success. If you put a manager at a football club for long term success you have to realise that you’re going to struggle short term because of it. It’s impossible to build a house without creating your base. Andre Villas Boas was entering a Chelsea team that was in the middle of transition, a team that still IS in the middle of transition. The old guard are getting older; Petr Cech and Jose Bosingwa are 29, John Terry, and Ashley Cole are 31 and Frank Lampard is 34. And this is the most chosen starting 11 for Chelsea this season. This is the starting 11 that Villas Boas was looking to, to ‘freshen’ this aging side.

I’m not saying Villas Boas is faultless in this torrid Chelsea season. He decided to bench Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba a lot, and back instead an inconsistent Ramires and an absolutely atrocious Fernando Torres. This has been difficult for Villas Boas, I mean, it says something that 33 year old Frank Lampard has scored more goals for Chelsea than any other player this season. He is still required; it’s as simple as that. But when you have a Drogba that’s a shadow of his former self, looking backwards instead of forwards, also at the age of 33 but your £50 million striker just can’t score, what else can you do?

The 'old guard' aren't getting any younger.

The Fernando Torres situation is difficult for Chelsea and was for Villas Boas. Obviously from a biased Liverpool perspective it’s great, we got £50 million big ones and got Luis Suarez and Andy Carroll, who are looking better and better as the season is going on. But if I’m being unbiased here, Torres-gate is awful for Chelsea. To spend such a big amount of money on a player, and he just can’t score is terrible. What can you do in a situation like that? Sell him? It’s not as easy as that. With him not scoring he’s not going to be sold for a decent price. Also, we all know that Torres, when motivated, when on form, can be the deadliest striker in the world. I mean that by the way, and that’s not me being a biased fan.

Villas Boas was trying to freshen things up. He bought 20 year old Oriol Romeu, 18-year-old Romelu Lukaku and the excellent 23-year-old Juan Mata, while selling 29 year old Alex and 32-year-old Nicolas Anelka. The age of the squad was definitely getting younger. And the old guard all got a chance; they’ve all played games this season, with mixed results. It’s not as if Drogba and Petr Cech have had stellar seasons. It was a tough job for him. It’s a tough ask for anybody, you can’t inherit say that Villas Boas was the reason everything went wrong, just like you can’t say that Jose Mourinho was the main reason Chelsea did so well. Mourinho came to Chelsea in 2004 and won the title that season. Well done Mourinho. But seven of the eleven were players he inherited by Claudio Ranieri. Here’s the squad:

Cech

Ferreria

Carvalho

Terry

Gallas

Makalele

Tiago

Lampard

Cole

Duff

Gudjohnsen

There’s the 7 players inherited from the team left by Ranieri. And then Mourinho continued to lay more foundations onto this team, and they were the best team in England for a good few years. But then Manchester United, and Alex Ferguson kept renewing his squad, and took the mantle again. It’s no coincidence. If you want to look at building football dynasties all you have to do is look at Manchester United now, and Liverpool in the eighties. Year and years of one step backwards, two steps forward. But Abramovich will never let his managers take that second step forward, apart from Mourinho, who was a very special manager, and also inherited the nucleus of an excellent squad.

Kenny Dalglish and Bob Paisley are two of Liverpool’s most successful managers, but history says if it wasn’t for Bill Shankly, they wouldn’t have inherited world beating squads. Alex Ferguson has continuously shed his squad’s skin, to make them a world force for the past 25 years. His longevity as manager, as well as the patience shown by the ‘powers that be’ in the United hierarchy, gives him the patience and time to rebuild his squad again and again. United sucked at certain times in the past 25 years. In fact, they sucked in the late eighties. But Ferguson being one of the best managers in world football even 25 years ago, along with the patience and time given there, and the collapse of Liverpool, meant that Ferguson has rarely looked back since winning his first title back in 1993. United weren’t very good from 2003 to 2007. But as I said, Ferguson shed the skin of the squad, got in some fresh youth and good buys, combined that with the good of what he still had, and then became a great force again.

So, I don’t really blame Villas Boas. You have some very strong personalities in that squad, a strong set of older players who can’t take it they’re slowly starting to get past their best, and would rather they stay in that squad, with their big salaries and even bigger egos, than accept that it may be time to move on, and let the youngsters have a go. They’re too afraid of their positions in their squad, and the money they earn, that they’d rather sacrifice their manager than their positions in the team. Look at Jamie Carragher. Is he happy to be on the bench? No, but he’s not complaining about it. Frank Lampard has been scoring goals, so it is a slightly different situation, but at the same time the principle is there.

Bill Shankley built a dynasty. He'd have no chance under Abramovich.

But the person at fault the most is Roman Abramovich. How is a manager supposed to operate a team if the owner doesn’t place the trust in him, and instead of the rebellious players? The players control the dressing room, and it’s not right. And when they get taken down a notch, they complain to the owner, who takes their side. How long must the older players be selfish before the managers don’t want to take the chance and manage Chelsea? It’s pathetic.

Abramovich has quite a lot of models to take inspiration from. In the past you have Liverpool. The 1960s Shankly built the base. In the 1970s and 1980s Bob Paisley, Joe Fagan and Kenny Dalglish built the dynasty. In the present, you have Manchester United, and in the 1990s and 2000s Alex Ferguson has made his base, built his dynasty and maintained it.

And for the future? Well, who can predict it, but at the moment you can look at Manchester City. Yes City have more money than Chelsea do, but it’s comparing a billionaire to a billionaire in the end of the day. But under City, Roberto Mancini has built a base. If they win the league or not this season, they’re currently building their dynasty. Mancini started by taking the reins from Mark Hughes, finishing 5^th in 2010 and getting to the semi finals of the Carling Cup, then 3^rd last season and winning the FA Cup. This season at the moment they’re top of the league. As I said even if they don’t win the league chances are they’ll be mighty close to the champions, where as they finished 9 points adrift last season. Of course all of this could be pointless if the Sheiks at City sack Mancini if he ‘fails’ and doesn’t win the league, but I just feel the Sheiks seem to have more patience, much more. Mancini could have been sacked once or twice so far, so it seems like he’s given more time there than any Chelsea manager gets from Abramovich.

Like it or not, but Alex Ferguson didn't just build a dynasty, he's maintained it.

In the end, history is there to show that long term planning usually means better prospects. Newcastle sacked loads of managers and have been relegated and promoted for that. Liverpool are evidence that long term planning is usually the way, so are Manchester United. Arsenal and Everton have long term managers and have had mixed results, but mixed to exceptionally positive results at that; Arsenal were once The Invincibles, not to mention that at one point Everton got 4^th place and a Champions League spot under David Moyes. Roman Abramovich really needs to be patient. Andre Villas Boas could have been something ‘special’ at Chelsea, but he never was going to be short term, not with that dressing room. The next manager really needs to get rid of some of those troublemakers and hope to god that the signings they make are instant successes, like Mourinho’s were in 2005. Otherwise it looks like Chelsea will continue to struggle to stay at the top of the English league pyramid. Which is fine for me; as it means Liverpool have more chance of building success. But from an unbiased perspective, it’s bad for Chelsea.

Do you agree? Disagree? Should Villas Boas have been sacked? Let me know your thoughts by commenting below. Thanks for reading.

For the latest updates on my work, 'like' me on Facebook here!

The Mercy Side: The Language of Football

If you’ve been following me on this site for some time you should know by now that I’m a Liverpool fan. I cover Liverpool matches on this site. I’m a member of the official Liverpool FC forums. My family are Scousers and while I have a Welsh accent, I’m a Scouser too. But I’m also a football fan, and I’d like to think I’m an unbiased fan at that. If you read my Live Thoughts on the Liverpool matches I hope you would see that I try to see the game from a biased Liverpool perspective, but when incidents occur, I take off my Red glasses and see things for what they are. Penalties, controversial decisions, for or against the Reds, I give my opinion for what I see, not for what I want to see.

The reason why I’m explaining this is because of the extremely sensitive subject, which is of the racism incident from October, when Liverpool’s Luis Suarez was accused of racist remarks towards Manchester United’s Patrice Evra. Unless you don’t follow football or have been living under a rock, Suarez has been handed an 8 match ban and fined £40,000 for these remarks, an unprecedented amount in this situation. I’m giving my take on the situation here, which isn’t easy, especially as there is so much speculation and grey clouds hanging around the issue.

Evra, on a French TV station, claimed that Suarez says “a certain word” “at least 10 times”. Suarez in response told the Uruguayan media, “There is no evidence I said anything racist to him. I said nothing of the sort.” “There were two parts of the discussion - one in Spanish, one in English.” “I did not insult him. It was just a way of expressing myself. I called him something his team mates at Manchester call him, and even they were surprised by his reaction.”

The word if you didn’t know that has highly speculated to have been used is “negrito”, which is a variation of the word “negro”, which means “little black person”. The Negritos were a class of ethnic people who inhabited parts Southeast Asia. The word “negro” is used a lot more, and means any person of black ancestry. The word was never considered offensive, just like the term “black” is not often considered racist nowadays. That was until the 1950s and 60s, when the Civil Rights movement considered a word attached closely to the slavery and discrimination to black people in the past. Since then the word “negro” is more often than not considered offensive.

However, in certain Spanish cultures, including Uruguay, the word has a positive meaning. The word can be associated with “mate”, and “friend”, just like a lot of black people use the word “nigger” in a similar manner (something which frustrates me as I believe black people shouldn’t use a word used against them so disgustingly in such a harsh time in their history so freely and in a positive way, but that’s a different discussion). So from what we can tell, Suarez used the word “negrito” or “negro” at least 10 times during this match. That’s the bottom of it.

The FA’s response to this was to charge Luis Suarez of using “abusive and/or insulting words”, in “”reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race”. The hearing took place last week, and yesterday the outcome is the 8 match ban and the fine. Liverpool then said in a statement yesterday that they are completely behind Suarez, do not think of him as a racist, and are surprised at the outcome based on the fact that Patrice Evra alone, and no referee or teammate has said anything otherwise. They haven’t appealed yet, but all things point to the fact that they will.

So, my take on all of this? There’s a lot of things to say about it. Firstly, racism is a disgusting thing that unfortunately still exists in today’s modern society. If anyone is being racist, or saying things with intent to discriminate on origins of ethnicity, then it’s a shameful act and shouldn’t be tolerated. But was Luis Suarez being racist? No I don't think he was, but the argument is frustratingly justified.

On one side, you have a guy from Uruguay, who speaks Spanish, who has spent less than a year in England, learning the English language and getting used to the English culture. What we have seen from Suarez as a player in the last eleven months is someone who is extremely intelligent, both with his feet and with his tactics. We bought Suarez in January and I said it at the time – it’s all fine and dandy getting someone like him, but I still didn’t agree with his influence on the game between Uruguay and Ghana in the World Cup last year. In case you forgot, the game was level, and he intentionally handled the ball in the penalty box when the ball was shot at goal and would have gone in if it wasn’t for his hand. He got the red card that was deserved, but Ghana missed the resulting penalty. Suarez, heading towards the exit, saw the missing penalty and celebrated like he just scored the winner himself. Because, in theory, he did; Uruguay went through and Ghana lost the match in controversial circumstances. All because of this little Uruguayan menace, a menace who has since dominated English club defences like no one else. I absolutely love Suarez. He’s the most exciting player in a Liverpool shirt since Steven Gerrard at his peak three or four years ago. He does things not many people can do, his ability to play between midfield and defence, and between defenders is absolutely amazing. But then there’s the other side. Luis Suarez goes down very easily. Luis Suarez complains if any decision goes against him. He has become the new Cristiano Ronaldo of the Premier League, and we all know how annoying that was when the boot was on the other foot. But a lot of Reds tolerate it, in fact; embrace it, as he wins us penalties or free kicks in dangerous areas. It doesn’t make it right, but it’s hard to not be happy when decisions like this work for us, because when they’re against us it’s absolutely frustrating.

Suarez gets under a lot of people’s skin, both on the pitch like a professional and exceptionally skilled footballer. But he also gets under people’s skin because he’s very vocal on the pitch. From what we’ve seen, everything seems cordial, or at least standard, when it comes to the altercations between him and other players. Tensions are always high on the pitch, because footballers are usually passionate when they’re playing, and the fans help keep the intensity going with chants and in derbies, some heckling. It does get out of hand, sometimes the fans start some disgusting chants and they’re usually dealt with, just look at Celtic for evidence. But there’s an unwritten law on the pitch, one that seems universal, which is, what happens on the pitch, stays on the pitch.

It’s similar to wrestling in that respect; sorry to bring it up if you dislike the ‘fake’ sport. There are things that are said or done in wrestling matches. Sometimes wrestlers hit each other hard, it’s called a stiff shot, to demand respect and to test your nerve. All you have to do is hit them back, maybe even harder, to show them that you won’t be bullied and that you’re not going to take that type of disrespect. I’ve read about this in many autobiographies. Wrestlers don’t talk about their matches when they get back into that locker room. It’s considered disrespectful to talk about how good or bad your match was, because there are other people who have or have to wrestle before or after, and it’s not nice to brag or to have an ego (unless it’s part of a character on screen obviously).

This is similar to what happens in a football match. Certain things are said. Nasty things. Players swear at each other, they push each other, they might cross the line. But when the final whistle blows, all the players shake hands, talk about the game, and are kind and respectful to each other. It’s rare that off the pitch altercations happen between players, very rare.

And this is where I think in a certain way Patrice Evra took things a little too far. If Suarez did indeed call him a “negrito”, it was to rile him up, to put him off his game. That’s why players swear or insult each other on the pitch; it’s to get a reaction, to put the opposition off, to make it harder for them to concentrate on the task at hand. Suarez has done this all season; he’s done it his entire career. And he’s not the only one, loads of players do it. And if Suarez did call him a “negrito”, it wasn’t with intention of racism. It was with intent purely to put Evra off his game. Evra took this too far in my opinion. And there’s the argument that a “negrito” in Uruguay is your “mate”, your “brother”, or your “nigger”, in a friendly way, not in a racist or discriminatory way.

But I’m also of the opinion that maybe it is time that players stop this type of behaviour. Maybe it’s about time players should stop insulting each other, and to stop any verbal bashing. Players are passionate, I can appreciate that, but there’s no need for this language and attitude. But it does happen all the time, probably in every match across the English leagues and more than likely across the world. Football is a game played with your feet but it’s also with your head, and Luis Suarez knows how to play the game in both ways.

I do however believe the FA has taken a harsh stance on Suarez, I mean, eight games? Seriously? That’s basically 6 weeks. A red card is three games, and you get those for shattering a player’s leg in half, putting them out of action for months or maybe up to a year and opening up a ton of problems for the rest of that player’s career. That affects someone’s life for good. But saying a word that someone finds offensive gives you nearly three times the punishment. Something’s not right here. But then again, I’ve been reading what journalists have been saying on the matter. And most of them are in favour of this harsh punishment, and if anything, support the idea of increasing bans for these horrendous tackles.

And providing that the FA take this stance with all racism issues in the future, then I think long term, I’m okay with this. Seriously. Am I happy we potentially have no Suarez until February or March? Absolutely not. I’m as frustrated as any Red out there. But if it means that other players watch their tongues on the pitch, and most recently, John Terry of Chelsea gets the same punishment of a ban of 8 games for his remarks towards Anton Ferdinand of Queens Park Rangers, then I’m okay with that. The FA needs consistency. And if this is their new punishment for disgusting comments on the pitch, then fine. I’m okay with that. And I think Liverpool need to be as well. Most people who are not a Red are reading the official statement on the website as an over exaggeration, blind support of a player who like it or not has said something that can be considered racist. We are in England, not Uruguay. If a white Englishman called a black Englishman a “negrito” in a Premier League match then we’d all consider that disgusting, unacceptable and deserving of a ban. And that’s what we have to abide to, and if we don’t see it this way then we’re in denial.

It took me a lot to come to this outlook. On Tuesday night I was seething, I was angry and I was completely against this ban, or at least, the amount of games the ban is for. I saw the LFC statement and rallied behind the club, thinking they were spot on and took matters to a level required. But… I woke up yesterday morning; I looked at the headlines, looked at how things seem in other parts of the country and the newspapers and journalists, and saw things differently. I’m not saying that if Liverpool appeal and we’re successful and have Suarez back that I’m not going to be happy, of course I will be. All I want is consistency, and for racism to be taken seriously. And if the FA are to begin this clamping down on racism and unnecessary comments on the pitch, then I’m all for it. I’m annoyed it started with Suarez, but I’ll be happy if it starts with Suarez, moves on to John Terry and then on to other players who use repulsive language on the pitch. I’m all for that. And while they’re at it, they can increase bans on players who maliciously tackle people and shatter bones and tear muscle, putting the long term injuries to justice.

Saying horrible things on the pitch is something that is often considered the language of football. Something that just happens because of the passion and tension on the pitch. After the match everything’s forgotten. It shouldn’t be this way. If players say nasty things on the pitch, racism or not, they should be punished. The language of football needs to change, and if there’s one thing that should be gained from Luis Suarez’s punishment, it’s that the FA are hopefully going to clamp down on this unwritten rule once and for all.

But if I’m completely frank, I don’t think the FA will keep this consistency. I think the FA are trying to make an example out of Luis Suarez, and possibly John Terry, but in the next few weeks or months things will return to normal. I don’t think anything is going to change, which is a damn shame. I think it will start with Suarez and end with Suarez, or maybe Terry, and that’s it. As a Liverpool supporter the whole thing really annoys me but as an unbiased fan I’ll be happy if it starts with Suarez and becomes a signal of intent to stamp out racism or disgusting remarks out of football for good. We can all hope.

Do you agree? Disagree? Is the ban too harsh, or should they increase the bans on disgusting tackles? Should Liverpool appeal or not? Will the FA use this harsh stance for all occasions? Let me know your thoughts by commenting below. Thanks for reading.

For the latest updates on my work, 'like' me on Facebook here!

The Mercy Side: An Empire of Dirt

On Saturday night I was made aware that pop singer Leona Lewis was covering a song called “Hurt”, originally written and released by industrial metal band Nine Inch Nails. I believe Leona Lewis sung this song on the X Factor recently and the EP was released yesterday, with this song and two other cover versions of songs by the Goo Goo Dolls and Counting Crows.

Now my initial reaction was one of disgust and anger. My feelings haven’t really changed on the situation, but after raising my views with many people of different interests and musical tastes, it’s not as straight forward to slam this move as originally thought. There are a lot of complications and perceptions when it comes to doing cover versions, and who does them. Before I get into that nitty gritty however let me make you aware of this song and its importance, in the event you don’t know of it.

“Hurt” was written by Trent Reznor, lead singer and mastermind of the band Nine Inch Nails, and was the last track on the critically acclaimed album, “The Downward Spiral”, released back in 1994. Trent said he wrote this song in his bedroom and it was written when he was at his lowest ebb, on drugs, depressed, suicidal, and potentially self harming. The song is usually interpreted in one of two ways, either as a suicide note (obviously not Reznor himself, but a possible persona he created for the album) or as someone hanging on the edge of life but manages to cling on and finds reason for living. Lyrical evidence supports both arguments with the lines “Try to kill it all away/But I remember everything” and “You are someone else/I am still right here” can be interpreted in either direction.

Much to Reznor’s surprise, the song was praised by both fans and critics and has remained one of the most important songs of the nineties and a song that has a strong setting in nearly (if not every) Nine Inch Nails gig. Self harm is a very serious issue, and it has only for the last fifteen or twenty years become more prominent. A lot of people who have harmed themselves, tried to commit suicide or suffered with severe depression have found comfort in this song, knowing that a high profile singer like Trent Reznor has had similar issues in his own life. The good news about Reznor himself is that while this wasn’t the end of his drug problems and personal demons, it was his own “Downward Spiral”, one that things would slowly get better from. For the next 7 years Reznor still had these issues but they would come to an end in 2001 after he entered rehab and successfully stopped taking drugs, and his life is better now than it ever has been, with a wife and a new baby. But the elements in “Hurt”, its meaning and significance to Trent Reznor remain key to his life and career, and the fans of his music.

In the beginning of 2003, nine years after the song’s release, country music legend Johnny Cash decided he wanted to cover the song on his album “American IV: The Man Comes Around”, which had many cover versions, including songs by Depeche Mode, Simon and Garfunkel and The Beatles. When the producer of the album, Rick Rubin, asked Trent if Cash could cover the song Trent said he was flattered due to Johnny Cash’s status as a legendary singer, but he was concerned it would sound “gimmicky”. Trent never heard Cash’s version until the music video was made and released and had this to say when he heard it:

“I pop the video in, and wow... tears welling, silence, goose-bumps... Wow. [I felt like] I just lost my girlfriend, because that song isn't mine anymore... It really made me think about how powerful music is as a medium and art form. I wrote some words and music in my bedroom as a way of staying sane, about a bleak and desperate place I was in, totally isolated and alone. [Somehow] that winds up reinterpreted by a music legend from a radically different era/genre and still retains sincerity and meaning — different, but every bit as pure.”

What made the song so amazing was the music video, produced by Mark Romanek, who had also worked with Trent Reznor no less than two occasions before, with music videos for “Closer” and “The Perfect Drug”. Romanek wanted to emphasise on Johnny Cash’s clear frailty, the weakness the elderly state of the country musician and contrast it with his bright and beautiful career. Some say this song is Johnny Cash’s epitaph, which is ironic due to the nature of the lyrics, but it some how fits in with Cash’s career. No, there are no signs of self harm from the Man in Black, but drugs and depression almost crippled his career decades ago. And as Johnny Cash died in September of the same year, the video is as striking as anything; it brings fantastic closure to a career that spans 58 years.

The song has been covered by other artists, although it’s usually been done live, and as homage to Nine Inch Nails, or maybe because they too, had serious issues in their lives, or can associate with the people that have. Artists that have covered it include Tori Amos, Matthew Good, Peter Murphy, Breaking Benjamin, Underoath, Aaron Lewis, and Sevendust. However the big difference between Leona Lewis and these artists is simply the genre of music, and more importantly, the lack of logic behind such a cover version.

I don’t claim to know much about Leona Lewis, she’s not someone I enjoy listening to and I’ve barely followed her career. What I do know however is that she is 26 years old and she won the X-Factor back five years ago. She’s been singing for most of her life and she didn’t get a break she arguably deserved until she appeared on the TV show. As I said, I don’t really like her music personally, but I do think she has a fantastic voice; she is a brilliant singer and as far as a lot of the other X-Factor contestants go she’s probably the most talented and most deserving winner on the show so far. However, there’s very little revealed about Leona Lewis’ background and personal life, but from what I can tell she had a decent upbringing in London from her parents and was raised musically pretty much her entire life. She seems like a nice woman, I can’t say she’s ever come across as anything other than a charming and respectful person who has kept her feet on the ground despite her immense popularity.

But that’s a lot of the issue here. In a certain way I feel Leona Lewis has no right to cover “Hurt”. Has she ever “hurt”? I can’t say she has, not in the depths and stresses the song talks of. Sure, she got hit in the face two years ago by some idiot, but has she ever been depressed? And by depressed I don’t mean she split up with her boyfriend and felt down. I mean she has suffered through anxiety and can’t face to looking out of her own window. Has she ever felt like hurting herself, to deal with depression? Has she ever felt suicidal? I really doubt she has.

I’m a very lucky guy. I’ve never been depressed. I’ve never felt like killing myself. But I know a lot of people who have. I’ve had to watch some of the closest people to me suffer with symptoms they have very little to no control over. It’s awful. It’s distressing. But what I feel is nothing in comparison to how some of them feel. If I could sing, I too, would have no right to cover this song.

But for Leona Lewis to even contemplate covering such a song, is appalling. This isn't a pop song. This isn't a song that a pop singer with a cushy lifestyle should be touching. And I’m sorry I’m being blunt but in comparison to what the people who find comfort in this song have gone through, she has a cushy lifestyle. Yes, Trent Reznor was addicted to drugs. I’m sure a lot of people who understand and seek assurance with the track have too. But, does Leona Lewis don't have any idea what the song is about? And if she does, is she really a person that should be singing a song about such upsetting topics?

This cover version isn’t about raising awareness, if it was I’m sure Leona Lewis would have made that clear by now. If she has suffered, or a friend or family member suffered, and she wants to show understanding, she would have said so by now. And if it’s about homage, has she even come to understand that it’s Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails that wrote this song? If so she hasn’t shown it.

There is an argument to this opinion of mine, one that I am aware of, and that is about the rights to the track. Does Trent Reznor, the lyricist, or Interscope Records, the record company, have rights to the track? It’s still not clear if Reznor has the rights, or if it’s the record company. There’s a point to be made regardless of who has the rights to the song and that is in the end, Reznor gave away the move for this cover version to happen in the first place. If Intercrope have the rights to the song, it’s only natural that they would agree for such a huge pop star like Leona Lewis to cover the song, as it would give them a lot of money. If however, it is Reznor that has the rights to his own music, then he gave Leona Lewis direct permission to cover the song. And if so, why? Trent Reznor is a clever man in the respect that he rarely makes moves based on money and greed, but for the good and honourable options available. Johnny Cash is a country music legend, and someone who was unfortunately close to a terminal state when he asked for the rights to cover the song. Leona Lewis is a pop singer, and it’s often clear that Reznor has a large distaste for that genre of music. In my opinion the chances are low that it is Trent that gave Leona Lewis a big, juicy thumbs up for covering this song but it’s not been made clear at all.

In the end one thing is for certain is that someone is cashing in on Leona Lewis’ mainstream popularity against the logic and understanding of the contents in which she will be singing. Someone once said that the topic shouldn’t dictate who sings it, but there should be I feel. Especially when it’s such an important topic. But it doesn’t matter what I think, what matters is on written paper contracts, and the empires that control them. And if it is Interscope that have the rights to this song, this is an empire that does exactly just that. And while it’s not the “empire of dirt” that Trent speaks of in this prestigious song, it’s an Empire of Dirt that chooses making money over keeping songs like this immaculate and untouched. An Empire of Dirt that would rather put their slime on the feelings of thousands of sufferers for the sake of making a quick buck. And it really shows that money indeed, is what makes the world go round.

Do you agree? Disagree? Am I being too sensitive? I don't think so but I can see why you might think so. Comment below with your thoughts. Thanks for reading.

For the latest updates on my work, 'like' me on Facebook here!