The White Stripes: An Obituary

So today it was confirmed. The White Stripes are dead.

Not that this was necessarily a massive surprise. The band hadn't released a new album since 2007's Icky Thump, they hadn't played any live dates for years, Meg White had health problems and Jack White had started two 'side-projects' : The Raconteurs and The Dead Weather. And yet, I can't help but feel sad that The White Stripes won't make music anymore.

There was never anything complicated about their appeal. It didn't take multiple listens to get into a Stripes album; the sound was immediate, it was raw and above all, it was exciting. I accept Meg White had the drumming ability of a 7-year old taking their first lessons but that and the 'are they sibling/partners' rumours only added intrigue and interest to the two. There is no doubt that it is hard to think of a White Stripes song which does not have Jack White as the main driving force. But what a driving force!!!! Above all else, they made heavy blues cool, accessible and wrote some of the catchiest riffs of the modern era.

I remember when I first heard 'Elephant' and just being amazed at the sheer audacity of Ball and Biscuit as Jack White declares that "it's a fact that I'm the Seventh Son". Sure it was tounge in cheek but it was damn cool and for the 50 minutes in which you listen to that great album, there is noone else that you want to be apart from Jack with his guitar "on his soapbox". Seven Nation Army is, of course, the classic. It is, like the Killers' Mr. Brightside, one of those songs that no matter what music you listen to, you can't help but love.

There's talk of releasing already-recorded material and that sounds tempting. But is that such a good thing?? Because, as ending statements go, the glorious Icky Thump would be one of the best. Sexy, raucous, political ("why don't you kick yourself out? You're an immigrant too" Jack snarls on Icky Thump) and even at times tender, it shows exactly what is great and also bizarre about this band. They will be missed, for sure, and The Raconteurs have a long way to go to be loved as The White Stripes are. But then, most bands have a long way to go before being THAT loved.

Ultimate White Stripes Playlist:

-I Think I Smell A Rat
-Fell In Love with a Girl
-We Are Going to be Friends
-Seven Nation Army
-Ball and Biscuit
-I want to be the boy to warm your mothers heart
-Girl, You Have No Faith in Medicine
-Denial Twist
-Icky Thump
-A Martyr for My Love for You
-Effect and Cause

Why Andy Murray may never win a major....and there's no shame in that.

      I  got up this morning to watch the Australian Open final and I ended up like many British tennis fans dissapointed. Except I didn't. Because as a tennis fan, it would be hard not to admire the power and athleticism of Novak Djokovic who played the perfect  match. He outplayed Murray from game one and was, quie simply, too good. 
   The papers tomorrow morning will no doubt be describing the "dour Scot" who looked lethargic, who is the next in-line of British tennis players who gets to the big occasion and then bottles it. He will be the 'new Henman', the new choker. They will mention how he has now played 9 sets in Grand Slam finals and hasn't even managed to take one to a tiebreak.
    Tim Henman was, undoubtedly, a very good tennis player. It takes great skill, determination and, dare I say it, bottle to reach the multiple grand slam semi-finals that he achieved in his consistent career. Even more impressive that he should reach four of these at Wimbledon where every time he missed a shot, the whole nation appeared to groan over his shoulder. Every time he lost in Grand Slams, Tim lost to the eventual winner. He was at one point in the top four tennis players in the world whilst playing with Hewitt, Sampras, Agassi, a young Federer and early Roddick.
     Andy Murray has surpassed Tim's achievements by the age of 23. He has reached three grand slam finals, losing twice to the greatest tennis player to have ever lived, and the third time to the best tennis player in the word right now. He has won other massive tournaments, already got the semi-final of Wimbledon, been as high as Number Two in the world and yet this still isn't good enough for the British media. Until he ends the Fred Perry hoodoo, he will always be viewed as a failure and this is very unfortunate.
        To be a great tennis player you have to win a major, I accept. However, you don't get to that stage through hard work in the gym or on the practice court alone. You get to that moment through raw genius ability and confidence to totally seize your moment. Even some of the best players have not been able to produce this. If Murray were never to win a slam, he would join the company of players such as the brilliantly-named Mark Philippousis, Henri Leconte, Thomas Enqvist and Todd Martin. There is no disgrace in not winning a major especially in one of the most competitive eras in mens tennis of all time.
     Murray may do it. He may become the player who can take the big match by the neck and play the perfect tennis. To win a major you have to play on the day so that, no matter how well your opponent is playing, you will win. I'm still not sure Murray has that ability but, no matter what the papers write about his career, if he keeps giving himself the opportunity and coming up short he is certainly not a failure. It would be like not managing to win the Tour de France up against Lance Armstrong, writing the second-best album of the year when OK Computer was relased or finishing a sprint a second after Usain Bolt. Just because you don't reach perfection, doesn't mean you don't deserve credit for having that ambition. Alternatively, Murray could just give up now and that really would be a shame.

The Liberal Democrats aren't the solution...but neither are the anarchists.

Recent press coverage of the student protests has tended to focus on the sensationalist images of students smashing their feet through windows and scribbling 'Anarchy' signs onto police vans. And why wouldn't they? Not many people are going to buy the Daily Mail if it has the picture of a legitimate peaceful student making the case for higher education. I suspect that what Mail readers really want is to be terrified about scary students in balaclavas (preferably urinating on some war memorial...whilst holding hands with an asylum seeker...who has got swine flu). Over breakfast, they can them make some ignorant rant about how students aren't like what they were "in their day". They have a point. I can't think of any student protests that happened before the turn of the millenium. As a matter of fact, if you search '1968 student protests' into Google, you will literally find nothing! Try it...

However, much like the Daily Mail, these so-called anarchist protesters are very unhelpful. They undermine the student movement that is legitimately campaiging against the privatisation of the university system and against the Liberal Democrat's shameful U-turn on an election pledge. In fact, I'm not even sure if 'U-turn' is strong enough. The equivalent would be if you booked a flight with a company, ChangeJet, that says they are going to Barbados and then halfway through your flight, the pilot says "And shortly we will be arriving in Middlesbrough". Then, they refuse to give you a refund because they say that your contract was invalid because, after you paid, they were struggling financially so they merged with a stubborn but rich company called AwfulJet who only do flights to the North-East of England.

Of course, the anarchist solution is that we 'smash the plane' and all walk instead...we may get there but it will take a hell of a long time and by then, most of us will have drowned.

You get my point.

The Liberal Democrats promised 'new politics', they promised 'the end of broken promises' and then they shamelessly monopolised the progressive student vote with some PR stunts, got offered power with a regressive Conservative party, and then took all the good jobs they could lay their hands on. That Vince Cable can stand there and say this new scheme is "progressive" is beyond a joke. Does he really think that bright kids on a council estate are not going to be put off by a £50,000 stone mill round their necks once they graduate? Yes, they are raising the freshold for paying back to £21,000 and saying you pay back in smaller doses, but why don't you then put that on the current system? They are just window-dressing 80% cuts in education that mean students will have to pay THREE TIMES MORE for longer (with a worse standard of education). Merry Christmas from the coalition government!

The anarchist solution of 'smashing the state' is equally terrible. Yes, I understand that the anarchist view being expressed by most are not those of the great thinkers of Bakunin and Proudhon but more of those of John Lydon and Jonny Rotten. So we smash the state, we overthrow the Houses of Parliament, we scrap tuition fees...and then what?!?! Because someone then has to fund higher education. Well, you may argue, some benevolent wealthy businessmen could help out. Welcome to the complete privatisation of education...

The truth is and, like it or loave it, the state can be a positive force. We need the state to provide welfare to those in poverty, we need the state to rehabilitate murders so that they can be reintroduced into society and we need the state to provide free education for everyone in this country so that every child has the opportunity of every other child.

We also need politicians with some backbone and principle to implement such brave social change and revive the public's trust in the state's potential. Thanks to Nick Clegg, we still have a long way to go on this one.

Does music chase money or is money following music?

A Travie McCoy song has got me thinking. I accept this may have not been his intention. In his recent single , "Billionaire", featured heavily on Radio 1, he sings how he "wants to be a billionaire so frickin' bad". Margaret Thatcher would have been so proud! It seems to me that this raises some questions about the music industry itself nowadays. Is the motivation for new artists to make money (and be rich and famous) or to make the best music that they feel they can make? And does this affect how we listen to such music?


Music, in particular pop music, has undoubtedly become in many areas a business. Simon Cowell is regarded as a skilled businessman and not necessarily a great producer of art. He would not hide from the fact that he looks for artists that will sell as many records as possible rather than artists who could be culturally significant. The problem I have with Simon Cowell is that I honestly think he would release the screeching of an electricuted dog if he thought he could sell millions of copies. Oh wait, no that was Leona Lewis....


Travie McCoy's song seems to be expressing 'Cowell-esque' sentiments. He does not want people to love his song "so frickin' bad" (though I find it works quite well as a 3-word review of his song), he doesn't want young artists to be inspired by his songwriting "so frickin' bad", he wants simply fame and fortune. What I don't understand though, is that such an expression of greed is being lapped up by the British public. The song reached No.3 in the charts. Yet if a banker was interviewed on the news going into work at his London investment bank and asked what he was doing it for, a response of "I want to be a billionaire so frickin' bad" would surely be met with a less than sympathetic response. And yet surely both are applying their trade to become rich fat cats. What's the difference?


The issue of music and money also can be seen to be related to artists becoming 'mainstream'. An example of this can be seen in the current ill-feeling by some original fans to the band Kings of Leon. They have developed, seemingly deliberately, in recent times into a 'stadium-rock' sound quite apart from their original raucous and raw style. As a result, they have found much higher levels of success; selling millions of records, repeated chart success and radio airplay, selling out stadiums and headlining festivals, oh and making lots more money. So, on one hand, they may have developed their sound because they want more people to enjoy their music and want to play gigs to more people. There seems nothing wrong with this, ask any small-label rock band "do you want to headline Glastonbury or do you want to play pub gigs?" and I'm guessing Worthy Farm is going to be the preferred destination. However, on the other hand, you could look at Kings of Leon's situation cynically and say that their change in musical direction has led them to abandon their musical roots and alienate the loyal fans that have been there since the beginning for the pursuit of fame and fortune. Some may point to recent, possible signs of ingratitude such as greeting fans who have paid hundreds of pounds for a festival ticket with "We are Kings of Leon, so fuck you!" to say that they have been corrupted by fame. Can Kings of Leon be millionaires and still in touch with their fans and their music?


This all leads me to Radiohead (warning: this may not be the last mention of 'the greatest band ever' on this blog...). Surely, if any band were anti-consumerist and all about the music then it was this band. Here is the group who released OK Computer, an album both critically received but also which flung them into the mainstream, and hated the fame that it brought them. They responded with Kid A and Amnesiac; no singles and melancholic electronic weirdness...beauty also...but unquestionable weirdness. They even released their latest album In Rainbows on a 'Pay What It's Worth' scheme starting from 79p. Here are a band who make the music they want to make, that they think is the best music they can make and give it to their loyal fanbase with no intention of making huge profits. However, could this not also be cynically intepreted? In Rainbows raised Radiohead's profile hugely, made them hit the headlines, all which surely benefited the ticket sales for their subsequent tour...


This rambles me towards a conclusion I feel. Musical success and money are inseperably linked; success means that more people will buy your music and attend your concerts and you will, in a capitalist society, become richer. The fact of the matter is that Wembley Stadium can sell more tickets than my local village hall. But what I think is important is that the artist remains genuine and, above all, still fully inspired by making the best music they can rather than getting the biggest cheque possible. If we as musical punters stick to the principle that we only buy music that we love and that is made by people who still love music themselves, then 'Simon Cowell and co' could yet learn the errors of their greedy ways.