Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

I`ve had this record in my collection for quite a while but I never managed to listen to it entirely before. Actually it`s a bit surprising, since this 14 songs containing LP is less than 16 minutes long. But now after having done an interview with Mark Prindle, the legendary Mark Prindle, who considers this a hefty fine album, I thought - why not. Do you have something against group sex? Well, I do. Anyhow, this record is something unique. Not uniquely great but certainly not the kind of stuff you forget 2 minutes after finishing listening to it. Basically it`s an hardcore punk record, but the key ingredient to it is the speed. The Ramones are just some teeny-weenies playing college rock, while the Sex Pistols sound like Aerosmith in comparison with the Circle Jerks. They don`t sound too professional, of course, but at least some of the songs are quite good. My favourite track is "Beverly Hills", but "Operation" - a track about a guy getting castrated - comes close to it. "World up my ass" is also good. A few of the songs might sound a bit monotonous but it`s not that much of a problem for an album this short. I admit that the rating is much higher than you`d enjoy this record unless you`re into hardcore punk (I`m not really) but it does have something about it. Still I`m not sure whether I`ll listen to most of these songs again.

Uzreiz atzīšu, ka mana pazīšanās ar vienu no pazīstamākajām vācu metāla blicēm aprobežojas ar šo vienu albūmu, kas mitinās manā mp3 kolekcijas diskā ar numuru 2. Protams, 7 gadus pēc šī diska iegādes atcerēties, kādēļ es tolaik tiku pie šī ieraksta, ir pagrūti, bet nojaušu, ka nosaukums "Pautus pret sienu" man likās gada saistošs. Un gan tolaik, gan šolaik par galveno albūma saistošo momentu uzskatu tituldziesmu - varbūt "Balls to the Wall" nav gluži "Back in Black" (starp citu, šajā diskā Accept man atrodas tieši blakām saviem muzikālajiem kolēģiem no AC/DC, ar kuriem vislielākās paralēles viņu mūzikā saskata ikviens, kas tajā saskata vispār kaut ko). Es patiesībā tiešām saskatu, lai gan ne ļoti daudz, tā kā man pietiek ar vienu AC/DC stila grupu - to pašu AC/DC - un nepieciešamību iepazīties ar daudziem tās konkurentiem neizjūtu. Patiesībā gan Accept mūzika ir sarežģītāka par AC/DC vairumu kompozīciju, taču nezinu, vai tas ir pluss vai mīnuss. Esmu lasījis, ka salīdzinoši ar AC/DC šamie esot "nopietnāka" grupa ar saturiski sakarīgākām dziesmām, bet man personīgi ir pilnīgi vienalga, par kādām tēmām spiedz šādas grupas, jo lai nu ko es varu teikt, tad es neklausos "Accept", lai baudītu filozofijas pērles šīs grupas dziesmu tekstos. Tā vietā es labprātāk klausos spēcīgus ritmus un zibšņiem pilnus ģitāru solo, kuru šajā ierakstā netrūkst. Udo Dirkšnaidera vokāls savā ziņā, protams, ir līdzīgs Braienam Džonsonam no AC/DC (noteikti tas nav līdzīgs Bonam Skotam, skat. recenziju, ko vēl neesmu uzrakstījis), tomēr Džonsons laikam ir trakāks kviecējs par Dirkšnaideru. Ja tā godīgi, daudzas šī albūma dziesmas savā kodolā ir diezgan popsīgas un tikai to aranžējumi tās padara par metālu, piemēram, tādu "Turn Me On" varētu izpildīt arī daudz vieglāka stila mūziķi, kas gan droši vien būtu samazinājuši arī ģitāru uzbrukuma līmeni, bet melodijas ziņā tas ir tipisks popmetāls un nevis smagais metāls, par ko uzdodas Accept. Tomēr, raugoties uz to, ka grupa ir no Vācijas, jāsaka, ka šlāgerisma līmenis šajā ierakstā ir stipri zemāks nekā vairumam viņu tautiešu - metālistu (it īpaši tas ir zemāks kā viņu biedriem iz "Scorpions"). Albūmā praktiski nav pārstāvēts balāžu žanrs, tomēr sliktākā kompozīcija pieder tieši šim stilam - "Winter Dreams" ir garlaicīga un, manuprāt, lieka patosa pārņemta dziesma ar diezgan smieklīgu akustisku piedziedājumu, kas vismaz man neliek sajūsmināties par šo grupu, ok, melodiski viss varbūt ir ok, bet bišķi par saldu manā gaumē šadai grupai. No "Accept" nometnes es labprātāk klausos tādas dziesmiņas kā "London Leatherboys", kas varētu tikt raksturotas ar vārdiem "AC/DC" satiek "Judas Priest" un kopā iedzer kādu kasti viskija.

Es apzinos, ka šobrīd esmu sācis albūmus apskatīt nepiedodami straujos tempos, bet kāds gan tur brīnums, tā kā darīšana patlaban man ir ar ierakstiem, kurus es esmu klausījies jau ļoti daudzas reizes pēdējo gadu laikā, līdz ar to tos ja ne gluži zinu no galvas, tad vismaz piedziedājumus zinu gandrīz visām to dziesmām. Un "Def Leppard" te ir pat ļoti tipisks piemērs. Šo nosacīti metāla grupu es iepazinu tieši ar šo ierakstu un momentā iemīlēju tās saldi popsīgo metāla manieri un tikai līdz ar dubultalbūma "X" iznākšanu un tā noklausīšanos sāku mazpamazām zaudēt savas siltās jūtas pret šo grupu. Daudziem Def Leppard būtu vērts zināt viena ļoti savdabīga fakta dēļ - tieši "Hysteria" ierakstīšanas laikā grupas bundzinieks zaudēja kreiso roku, kā rezultātā patiesība bija "Bloodhound Gang", kas kādā dziesmā vairākas reizes atkārtoja: "The drummer from Def Leppard`s only got one arm". Un tas grupai īstenībā pat nāca par labu.

A book about the legendary Andy Warhol (I don`t even know how to call him - painter, photographer, cheepskate, performer, filmmaker, whatever...). It tells everything one should and shouldn`t know about Warhols public life - beginings as a commercial artist and turning into a "serious" but still commercial artist. His obscene filmmaking, including "Sleep" and "Chelsea girls", his obsession with death - beginning from Marilyn but including car accidents and all forms of violent death despite being not a violent person himself. What I didn`t know about Warhol is that he was really a son of Czech immigrants and that he was Warhola. I also was quite surprised to find out that "Sleep" is actually a repetition of a 20-minutes long shot - just like most of Andy`s paintings (if one should call them so). To be quite honest, I still don`t understand what`s so great about the guy apart from his connection to the Velvet Undergound. But one should respect a dead legend.

Back to the classics of the American filmmaking. In a little town somewhere in the South States during the great depression lives a family of a lawyer named Atticus who has two children - a daughter call Scout and son named Jim. There`s a strange guy named Boo Radley living in a neighbour house, weird things are told about his being mad and very dangerous. Also there`s a farmer who`s daughter has been beat up by somebody and a negro called Tim Robinson who`s blamed for the crime. It turns out that the father was the one who attacked his daughter but nothing can convince the jury and Tim Robinson is sentenced guilty after which he sorta commits suicide (he`s dead all right, but it`s not an official suicide). What`s important about the trial it`s that Atticus was the defender of the black man and almost everybody in the rasistic town hated him for that. The whiskey drinking daughter hitter attacks Atticus`es children one night but gets killed by Boo Radley who`s not as bad as people think of him. I really liked the film, I don`t even know why. Perhaps it`s because Atticus loses the trial, because it shows the way people judge other people without even knowing them but only because of their prejudices. By the way, a mockingbird is a bird that sings all the time and does nothing apart from that. Boo Radley is something similar to that.

Lately I`ve been into Jan Svankmajer, and this here is the first full-feature film by him I`ve seen. It`s an adaptation of `Alice in Wonderland` by Lewis Carroll. And it is a strange adaptation indeed - all the characters except for Alice herself are animated and they don`t look really pretty. And the action doesn`t take place in some magic forest - on the contrary everything happens in some ugly house. From the aesthetical point of view it`s a masterpiece - never before have I seen something like this. For example, the catterpillar that is in fact a sock with false teeth sitting on a mushroom that is being used to patch socks is quite impressive and so is the teaparty featuring the Mad Hatter and the March Hare both of whom are not only insane but also quite unlike Carroll might have thought them to be. On the negative side the film is not very much entertaining, especially in the beginning.

Did I expect this one to be good? No, I oughta be mad to await anything worthy. Therefore it was not a dissapointment but just a completely stupid movie.

Oh my god! You actually can see Terry Gilliam on screen! And he has a perfect role of a man claiming to own a diamond mine which is in fact just a rock mine! But he`s not the main star of this film which he has directed. Michael Palin is. Gilliam`s old friend from the Monty Python days is Dennis Cooper who is a cooper`s apprentice looking for a job in a medieval town which is terrorised by the vicious jabberwocky from Lewis Carrols poem. What else matters is Dennises beloved Griselda who is fat and ugly and doesn`t care for him at all. What this film is - it`s a realistic take on the middle ages, where everyone starting with the king and ending with the beggars is dirty, filthy and stupid. The king himself is called Bruno the Questionable, his castle is a mess, he`s an even bigger mess, he enjoys knight competitions and lets his best men die for no particular reason. Due to a misunderstanding the kings daughter thinks that Dennis is a prince who`s come to rescue her, and after he accidentally kills the dragon, he marries the princess despite his heart belonging to the fat Griselda. This film is not a comedy, that`s one thing I can say about it, although it has its funny moments, and it has its dull moments - for example, there are quite manny pissing scenes in this film. But it is different from almost everything you`ve seen before and after.

Have you ever considered that the world outside your head never existed? That you were the only real person in this world and everybody else was just a part of your imagination? I certainly have. In this book the main hero who doesn`t even have a name accidentally discovers that there once was a philosopher named Gaspar Langenheart, who started a theory that he was the Creator of everything. And this hero starts looking for information on this philosopher, but it turns out that there`s there little to find. Not many people considered him significant, and more than that - there was no real proof that he ever existed and ceased to exist. But what happens is that the main hero partly becomes Gaspar himself, and its a thing like that - every 50 years a man jumps out of nowhere and starts digging up information on Gaspar Langenheart, thus prooving that the man was something like God and that he couldn`t die. Or could he? The book digs deep but manages to stay entertaining. It`s one of the best novels I`ve read this year, without the slightest doubt.

Dustin Hoffman, Sharon Stone, Samuel L. Jackson. That`s impressive, isn`t it. A strange spaceship is found in the pacific ocean that seems to have been there since the 1700s. A group of scientists including the already mentioned trio and a guy whos name I`m not familiar with gets on the board of the ship and discovers a strange goldlike sphere. It proves that the sphere is a living thing and that one can enter it. The trio of stars are the only survivors in a submarine after the others die under strange circumstances and they have to find out who the strange fellow named Harry communicating with them is, also needing to stay alive. I can`t really say that this was a smart film, not really. It was a bit strange, a bit creepy but not particulary good. Sci-fi may be one of my favourite genres but not every film in it is good. Talkin` about "Sphere" I gotta say there`s nothing really in it that will make me remember much about the film in the years to come. Basically a throwaway.