I <3 Andy Warhol

Art can take many different directions, in the primary intentions of the artist, the critics or the audience’s perception of a piece of work. Art is not necessarily always about breathtaking scenery and the qualities of that same scenery captured in the painting by the artist, but also the intention behind what is depicted before the viewer. Irony perhaps or the intention to work against typical artistic rules and theories creating underground art and the ‘anti-art’ and ‘alogic’ conventions of art.

UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick S. Smith, 1986.

Artists such as Tracey Emin and Andy Warhol have used these approaches in expressing their art, for example Tracey Emin used an unmade bed, believed to be her own, with underwear and contraception packets surrounding the area. The realism within this piece can be related to by a wide range of its viewers therefore makes it more appealing to analyse its purpose and question its state of art, due to its simple form of creation, suggesting there may be more to read into.

Andy Warhol also took this approach before Emin, and also very different to her work used products of Mass Culture. The use of everyday objects that may be considered boring in the context of art or even artless but according to UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick. S. Smith, 1986, these paintings gained attention due to peoples speculation about what is in front of them, contradicting the traditional concepts of art, Warhol’s use of the object and what else lies within his interpretation of this ‘readymade art’ have created indifference causing the viewer to analyse further as to how it makes sense.

The viewer can possibly relate to Warhol’s work, pieces such as Dick Tracy, from the comic strip, read to him be his mother as a child and the Campbell’s Tomato Soup apparently his favourite soup, creating a form of nostalgia in his pieces but also something for the viewer to grasp and possibly identify with and or understand.

The viewer therefore will naturally incorporate their own relation/interpretation with the piece in order to understand what is in front of them, without any certainty.

UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick. S. Smith, 1986,

Fine examples of this are the urinal by Marcel Duchamp and the picture of Warhol’s Campbell’s Tomato Soup that was thought to have lacked uniqueness yet gained the

interest of the speculating public due to its indifference as it ‘lacked both good and bad taste’.

A commonly known version of this is Duchamp’s reworking of the Mona Lisa but with facial hair titled, “L.H.O.O.Q” however the meaning behind this is there to be interpreted as with his urinal piece named Fountain. Thought from both of these pieces can be provoked due to the functions brought forward; Fountain- due to the flush functions and what is associated with how it is used and what that can represent to an open mind, and the L.H.O.O.Q.; Duchamp has used the letters for when said sounds like the “Elle a chaud au cul” pun which translates as “she is hot in the ass”

http://www.studiolo.net/Mona/MONASV12.htm

Duchamp’s L.H.O.O.Q. and Fountain have been a clear inspiration to Warhol; this ‘readymade art’ has provoked thought due to its apparent simplicity but it is the intention behind or possibly the alternative meaning to what lies in the picture, for example like with L.H.O.O.Q. there is more to interpret than what is placed in the aesthetic; Mona Lisa with a drawn on moustache and what the initials represent as a whole. In Duchamp’s Fountain, at first glance there may be a urinal, but with the title it is what the functions of this device may alternatively represent. It is also the subtle approach to creating alternative meaning within something well known that symbolises something else.

UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick. S. Smith, 1986,

Due to Duchamp’s inspiration Warhol attempted imitating or recreating some of Duchamp’s work, such as Duchamp’s “Large Glass” Warhol then created “Glass-Handle with Care”.

Warhol’s pop art provokes thought at a glance with its use of objects from the media, for example in 1960 he used the coca cola logo in one of his pieces with abstract expressionist patterns in the background and also in his portrait of Superman, a take on the comic version shows superman blowing out a forest fire with the sound effects written as “Puff” to emphasise his powerful blowing, subtly  emasculating the original perception of the character, possibly in reference to Warhol’s own sexuality.

Along with Warhol’s Campbell’s Tomato Soup he created many other logos for consumer products with similar styles.

Warhol’s ‘readymade’ art containing well known objects and figures was believed by Warhol himself to be like an archive due to the abstract images that manipulated the original creating a new take on something iconic therefore caught peoples attention and disputed the work he did as art.

However this fuelled Andy more with his work and success. Andy Warhol was completely aware of the novelty of fame and the media and the effect it had on the public and how the public were like a machine as consumers these images were used in a way to cause individuality and quite possibly contradict that as at the time

“… everybody is always talking about that (being creative) and individuality. Everyone is talking about being creative”

UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick. S. Smith, 1986,

In a response to his analysis Warhol wanted to prove that everyone was the same despite people trying to be individual as everyone is exposed to the same media content (Marilyn Monroe, Superman, and Mickey Mouse) and products (Brillo, Del Monte, Coca Cola and the Campbells Tomato Soup) which Warhol’s work proves, despite any mixed opinions or confusion, that everyone can relate to the main body, or what appears to be the main body of the picture, may it be the alternative message; the reading between the lines or the well known character that is used.

Warhol used something simple and so well known such as Superman and Coca Cola, adapting his piece with images that caused the viewer to subconsciously analyse as there is something everyone can recognise and interpret their way, whether the response positive or negative, his work still gained attention which proved his theory of the world being like a machine

“Someone said that Brecht wanted everyone to think alike. I want everyone to think alike…Everyone looks alike and acts alike, and we’re getting more and more that way. I think everyone should be a machine. I think everybody should like everybody”

Andy Warhol in an interview with Gene Swanson

UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick. S. Smith, 1986,

Rihanna & Britney Spears - S&M

After turning your claim to fame around from being a singer to certified mess it only makes sense that when you go full circle, in this case, back to the music, that you leech on to something or, more so, someone that is actually raking in the cash.
I will admit, I like Britney, not her music now but I can accept her still trying. I did prefer her music during her crazy period but she milked that to death and now has to move on.
Her music since her 'meltdown' has been somewhat awful. Womanizer shown some promise but even that was tiring to listen to.
S&M has a very good musical backdrop and due to studio wizardry even Rihanna voice sounds less whiny making it tolerable background noise. However I was shocked when I heard the duet with Britney Spears, I had anticipated that it would be a good little pop tune. Both having awful voices and autotuned within an inch of their lives, I had assumed that they would blend perfectly, clearly Rihanna's part has not been touched since the original recording was finished but Britney has been cut and pasted in with not a lot left to desire.
The opening is just Rihanna for the

 "I like it, Like it" 

for the fairly decent introduction of Britney singing

"Nah, nah, nah nah, nah, C'mon"

when hearing this it's as though the song could have been Britney's, she could have owned it, it's almost nostalgic of a better, sexier Britney.

After Rihanna's first verse, which is that of the original record, Britney comes in to attempt a re-written second verse. The verse has been written in keeping with the song and also with the two stars on the duet just as much but after hearing Rihanna's original vocals (that of the original recording) Britney's part, in comparison, appears rushed, leaving it sounding seperate from the rest of the song, it seems a bit too forced, like she still needs to prove that she has still got it. Her vocals sound tired and aged, by comparison, and possibly due to writers block, or just plain laziness, Britney's verse features some silly pointless noises, which somehow makes rihanna look like the talented one as oppose to being on balance...Poor Britney.

The particular pairing is just as bad as that Madonna and Justin Timberlake duet 4 Minutes, although the age gap is not the same (poor Britney) the younger one still manages to make the older one look like they have had their day, despite how famous they may be.

The finished product leaves Britney sounding like she has passed it, unlike Rihanna's vocals, Britney fails to glide along effortlessly with the music and sometimes sounds like it was a mission for her to keep up.  Although the two blend perfectly on the later chrous and the ad libs such as "Nah, nah, nah", and almost sound like one mediocre singer that has been double tracked for a thicker sound as oppose to two of the most famous singers in the world collaborating, they clearly were not in the studio together.

Had they been two seperate songs then maybe Britney could have saved face with her own version or possibly featured Rihanna on that instead as oppose to Rihanna providing the safety net.

Tortoise Shell Tinted Glasses

Hang on a second folks let me just put on my glasses! I will admit that I do like the different styles of frames that are now available but as I have not yet been informed, by my body or an optition, that I need to invest in the beneficial equipment, then I do not intend to. However what is with all these 'costume jewellery' glasses?

Is it 'Right On' (sorry, had to get that in) to have a problem with our eye sight now?

Is that the new black?

When did Coronation Street's Deidre become such a fashion con?

When we are cold, we want to be warm and vice versa so in the long run the same will occur due to faux glasses?

I have been known by friends to be a bit of a consumer whore when it comes to fashion. One of which was wearing these 1970's style frames when I met them in 2007 but they were perscription, I made grandparent and Deidre jokes about the 'vintage' style and funnily enough this said friend told me

"...in a year these will be all the rage and you will wearing them just cos they are in fashion"

I laughed and called him ridiculous...how foolish I was to joke. I do however know my mind and knew I would not be donning the circus esque specs in order to be 'In'. A year later they did indeed come into fashion with the rest of the 'Preppy' look but it was not me who succumbed like my dear friend said, it was another friend of ours who decided he could not repress his urge to play partially sighted. The shame.

The first thought when seeing these victims jumping on the band wagon, from my own experience, is usually: Do you actually need those, or are you just a poser?

Then: Does the frame reflect your personal taste? as the fake high street range usually all look the same and therefore have not been picked out of a collection of many

What is it doing to their eye sight and are they really prepared to sacrifice something as important as their sight for the sake of looking ridiculous?

It doesn't make you look 'cool' or smart create your own identity folks come on! 

For those who actually benefit from the intention of the equipment, not the accessory and for those future users who are perhaps damaging their eye sight, there are some nice frames at the moment that do not appear on your average high street.

For this album Mathew, I will be... ripping off Madonna!

The apparently bonkers starlet Lady Gaga tries to tantalise our musical taste buds with the second taster from her second album Born This Way. Titled Judas, the song is about being torn between two  lovers; the good guy and the bad guy, with her heart forcing her to steer more towards the bad guy, this is Judas. The concept is hardly new. There have been numerous orgasmic cries from female vocalists about falling for these so-called bad men, the latest being Alexandra Burke with the discreetly titled and slightly catchy gay anthem Bad Boys, but surely everyone has a different experience of particular concepts.

The concept alone is not exactly fresh, the intro is desperately trying to recreate the intro to Bad Romance, here however the mention of herself in the third person does not fit with the rest of the vocalised intro as it did with the original attempt. It is very unnecessary as the repetiton of the song and love interest's name fits perfectly fine with the song but someone felt the need for it's exsistance as though we need to know that the name represents greatness. Throughout we hear a elements of watered down House music along a Hip Hop beat riding along underneath two verses that hold the same tune as that of Pokerface with the chorus taking us back to Bad Romance...yawn!

The video is not as controversial as many suggest but it is easy to understand why it would be and why it needs to be brought to our attention as just that.

There is a mixed race man playing the character of Jesus, a take on the mistaken identity of the character in Madonna's Like A Prayer Video? However, it is Lady Gaga's Mary Magadalene position in the video that is the clear attempt at controversy:

• Mary falls for Judas, the man who betrayed Jesus, going against their roles suggested by the bible. 
• Adultery, again going against the bible and committing sin.
• The eventual stoning of the Mary Magdalene character, a torturous ritual that is caused by the above.

The Video does contain a story but it is edited in a way which is very quick to tell. It cuts from certain scenes to others which bridge fine without requring no other story telling, but some scenes like the bathing scene just seem to happen. It does however let the viewer know what exactly is going on with the characters in this story and they cut to the bathing scene, Mary, Jesus and Judas bathing together, alongside the change in the music and the scene is quite explanatory in the 'behind-closed-doors' phrase as the three characters appear to be alone.

As far as the piece as a whole goes, both aurally and visually, it may be a successful formula as fans especially will find it shocking and will want to invest in that but it is not a track that is uplifting or patriotic or profoundly memorable as a song. Unlike Madonna's Like A Prayer as a song and most importantly Gaga's previous work. Judas relies mainly on the subject matter and the rules it may bend with a restraining concept like religon.

The X Factor For The US X Factor?

It's nearly that time again when the public picks who will be christmas number 1 i.e. The X Factor, I'm sure fans of the TV show are excited about it already but that does not appear to be enough, they want more hype than ever before. In acheiving this: The US X Factor and of course the gimmick to set it off: the judges need to play musical chairs. I doubt that will be the name but that is what critics are referring to it as but more to the point, apparently Simon Cowell will be moving, which I think should be ok unless like the majority you only watch the show for the audition comments, and also for safe measure there needs to be new judges! Of course every Female popstar has been rumoured to be 'in the pipeline' for the role which is all well and good as I am sure everyone has ideas of who is could and should be.
It seems to be eeverywhere without much conclusion, which I suppose is part of the 'hype'. All these celebrity names being mentioned and it will probably result in Myleene Klass judging talent...
At first Cheryl Cole was mentioned to move but then that was apparently changed, then Jennifer Lopez had turned it down, she clearly does not need anyone taking up her time now she has a number 1 herself, then it was Victoria Beckham and following her of course came Mel B, who blabbed on a radio show she might have to return to the UK due to work commitments...or perhaps wishful thinking? of course then it went on to more deserving of stars such as Mariah Carey and Janet Jackson only to resort back to Cheryl Cole. The question then should Cheryl Cole be the chosen one is who shall replace her on the UK X Factor, so far all I have heard on that one is Kylie which would be interesting alongside not-so-successful sister Dannii...can you imagine?

The Royal/Bank Holiday Wedding!

I used to be a fan of the Union Jack Tack that is available everywhere but what with the long, drawn out boredom that is the wedding of Prince William and carried-through-life Kate Middleton. It was slightly interesting forming an opinion over their intentions of marriage but now...
what will be behind their divorce?
There is not one person under the age of 50 who will not be using the extended bank holiday to get absolutely bladdered. Does the Royal family actually think people care about the occasion? I'm sure that even despite the Royal Family's caged bird minds, that even they can grasp the idea that all the public care about is the holiday the occasion has provided.
In bulk, the zombie like vultures will fill the town recreating a scene similar to when the titanic plunged to it's death, crawling their way around from bar to bar like something out of the Michael Jackson Thriller Video... hardly a street party celebration.
Once upon the 50's there may have been street parties celebrating such events but somehow, a combination of the changing of the times i.e. binge drinking and the exposure of married life within the Royal family over the past 20-30 years, the novelty appears to have worn off.

Blah, Blah, No Gaga

I know there is a lot of hype around this woman at the moment and there has been for the past three years ever since she burst on the music scene with number one debut Just Dance. I personally have liked such songs as well as some of her album tracks, in fact I have probably preferred the album tracks such as Speechless, Again, Again and Dance In The Dark as these tend to hold some magic in the lyrics and the chorus alongside with the musical backdrop that holds a fresh yet nostalgic element to them as they do in fact resemble work of David Bowie and Madonna, of which the 'Lady' herself has admitted to being a fan of. These songs have proved more successful with my own ear than the dull Paparazzi and Love Game with their forced lyrical gimmicks such as "Bluffing with My Muffin"(Paparazzi) and "I wanna take a ride on your Disco Stick" (Love Game). The disco stick tag seems just that of a tag to connect with a disco fan surely? Code Speech between two folks who can chat about Donna Summer all night? or more on the mark; a one night stand wrapped up in a gay friendly wimsical manner? either way it proves beneficial to create a strong fanbase. My gay Friends love her for these empty sounding songs where as I prefer the more stronger, emotional sounding songs which do in fact have more of a story to.
Lady Gaga is about to rlease her 2nd album...I have no idea what to expect, which is probably a good thing for an artist as it creates that element of surprise and keeps the fanbase guessing, however if the songs I have heard So far from the new collection of work such as Express Yourself, oops I mean Born This Way, and Judas, I personally may find my attention diverted elsewhere. It does seem that Lady Gaga may be entering the same avenue as Cheryl Cole, 'the successful material has been played to death so something new needs to be put out like yesterday!' an approach which has seen Cheryl Cole release a promising debut Fight For This Love and then tarnishing that run with the not so great Promise This. Although in comparison Lady Gaga seems to rely on her professional spectacle as oppose to her personal one, take note Cheryl!
Lady Gaga's new album will probably contain some unreleased gems and will probably go ridiculously platinum before it is even released as people will read into the image and continue to believe if they follow Lady Gaga they too can stand out from a crowd.
Thats all I have to say on the matter...

It’s Oh So Quiet, Director- Spike Jonze.

The music video is used in a way to promote a single for an artist, to use a visual form of gaining attention in order to boost the sales of a record, according to Jody Berland the music video has “reshaped the music industry irrevocably”.
1993, Routledge, Sound & Vision- The Music Video Reader, London.
The promotion of a song relies on a visual aspect for when the song is played on television, perhaps on music channels such as MTV or an advertisement for the single or album the song features on.
The song “relies on the visual” in order for the song to gain attention,
1993, , Routledge, Sound & Vision- The Music Video Reader, London.
The Theme for this music video was based on the musical genre. The song itself has a back drop of a brass band playing throughout which, like the vocals & the theme of the song as a whole performance ranges in tempo & volume.
The promotional video was intended to depict “modern musical with aspects of everyday life” – Björk- 2003, The Work Of Director Spike Jonze, Palm Pictures.
The verses of the song are in complete contrast to the chorus as they tend to glide along very diminuendo, In keeping with the title of the song, even describing the mood.

“It’s oh so quiet…shh, shh,
It’s oh so still”
It’s Oh So Quiet, Björk, 1994

The song itself, is built up of frequent bouts of excitement, as she sings about it being quiet around her, she breaks out into a raised voice as though she cannot contain her excitement of falling in love when it’s so quiet around her, the brass band pick in volume & speed also with her to enhance this feeling.
The level of performance for each verse is very much in keeping with the intended modern, everyday life vision, as each verse is performed similarly to the monologue of a musical in which, the performance is kept realistic; imitating everyday movements, such as riding a bicycle or walking down a street, up until the change in mood which calls for breakout of song , for example, in musicals such as Grease, the audience will not see the cast , as well as extras, dancing in the street unless the occasion calls for song, which usually forms when a character starts to reminisce or explain a situation.
As this is only a promotional video for a song, the timing is limited & the director has used the verses to separate the big performance moments (Chorus) from those intended to depict reality which are used for the cool down of the verses.
In the beginning of the song, Björk can be seen in a garage, surrounded by tyres, arranged to look like a promotion for customers , this creates a realistic approach for the viewer , yet the tyres are set out in a way that simulates pillars on either side of a walkway, as well as the entrance of the garage.
Björk singing about how quiet it appears to be walks through to the front of the garage where the tyres are positioned, the staff of the garage can be seen in the background getting on with their work, this is seen throughout the video with people walking down the street or even in front of the shot, unaware that the camera is there & making the performance more realistic as though it could actually be happening. While still in the verses, everything seems to move slowly, as if in slow motion emphasising a soft floating feel as Björk sings about the silence & peaceful surroundings.
The mood changes with a short build up to each chorus to create the crescendo of the performance during the chorus; this build up describes the change in surrounding.

“It’s oh so peaceful until…”
&
“…starts another big riot!”
It’s Oh So Quiet, Björk, 1994

The chorus parts of the song show the performance side of musicals as everything becomes almost like living fantasy; a delivery man discards a stack of soft drinks as he dances with the story teller & lifts her onto a car causing the driver to get out & join in the routine with the rest of the passers by. Also the dancing post box which comes to life after Björk leans on it, as well as the dancing pillars outside as she leaps through the street & the man in a suit who suddenly back flips away after she kicks the newspaper stand. This can also be seen in the final shot of the video where the audience can see Dustbins at the side of a building come to life & dance in the background, showing that everything in the presence of the character that Björk is trying to portray becomes involved in the mood of the performance & therefore happens to join in as though it’s a natural occurrence.
Another aspect of making the performance look natural can be seen back in the garage near to the beginning of the song, as Björk dances down the walkway of tyres (entrance of the building) we see mechanics dancing past her which is her main accompaniment, but also we can see a mother dancing with her daughter resulting in a lift as they glide across the front of the shot which suggests that as a whole performance, these same actions may be happening outside the shot & even behind the camera giving that unawareness of the cameras being & that this is out of the ordinary.
The ending shot of this video features a dance routine in the road with the extras seen during the song, the main character (Björk) then starts to levitate imitating the final scene from Grease, during this final scene there is a dramatic crescendo finish as is lifted higher & further away from the dancers in the street emphasising the head-in-the-clouds affect.

Crazy Little Thing Called Love?

If true love is supposed to conquer all, then what conquers true love?
I am certain everyone has their own outlook on this tedious subject.
My definition of Love is two individuals wanting to spend their lives together due to the inspiration of the other person who without existence would feel pointless. A feeling that is growing, rejuvenating and replenishing each and everyday (even more so with time spent apart) despite flaws and imperfections, if anything, in spite of anything that is not necessarily of the 'norm' creating a subconscious, unconditional devotion.

My theory however is that of an ideal world. In truth, Love seems to be of a difficult sport, clearly due to the commitment of it which should make it clear to anyone analytical of the smallest thing.
Love can come in all disguises which we will all fall victim to. At first it's all shiny and fresh and we find ourselves captivated and thrown into the hell it will later become when the comfort has set in. Arguements seem to be a good time to stick the knife in. Love becomes manipulation when the other begins touching on the others weakest points that they have confided in.
Lying also becomes easier when the trust is set in place because we begin to know how to deal with the others feelings and how to provoke them and, just as much, spare them.

Is the relationship then a mistake?
Do we need to get out in order to find that true definition?

Heartbreak can be a good thing, what does not kill you... and all. It raises questions and builds walls i.e. a defense which we should all build but can only build a decent strong wall with experience like any tradesman!
It is a vicious circle though, this 'strength' can lead to repeating the behaviour the 'dumpee' is exposed to in order to create a sense of control and false strength.

Is this way of thinking the future or are we our own worst enemies?

If love is like a sport then why not keep competing for the others feelings?
Keep things fresh and new and remain as close to the person they fell in love with, and they should also return that favour.

Too much to ask?

PDA and a Pint of Vomit

I work in a bar and I do believe that the particular bar I work in, the short wait for your order is worth it yet can be somewhat tiresome during those  busy periods. However, it is just as tiresome in a particular bar like in any other that promotes speed of service as well as hospitality when serving the next customer becomes a mission due to the pure ignorance of infatuation. Customers do get rowdy when waiting for a long time to buy a drink or six, I get a little frustrated myself when in that place, I agree, but how annoying is it when you go to greet your customer, sacrificing your soul, with a huge smile attempting a warm welcome and they are stood there munching on each others faces. OK the novelty has not yet worn off so you are lining your stomach to save face…? no?
A very young couple they were, who I would have asked for proof of age had I stuck around long enough to serve, I understand it is all still very fresh and liberating; they think they have found a life partner so they want to let absolutely everyone around them witness their delusion.
After three attempts at a greeting I walked away and wondered if it was some act of Karma being shared out for making people wait or whether the music was too loud for them to hear while being so busy themselves, so I decided not to watch the act of cannibalism and use my time wisely as it is a fast paced environment to work in.
But in all fairness, standing at a much sought after spot whilst trying to make the most of a night out is surely not the most desirable place to dine on a loved one? People may get violent? Push? should either one occur the couple are not going to understand what or why such a thing is going on for they have been in a daydream thinking about riding unicorns through rainbows for they have truly found that pot of gold…
Cuddling? Fine, whatever, making babies here though just holds people up, there are plenty of places to shut off your brain like the restrooms, your table or in the privacy of your very own love dungeon. NOT at the front of the bar when the bar tender is trying to get your order with angry, if not ill, people standing behind you.
Is it all even genuine? Self reassurance?
The novelty of Love really does make a person stupid.

Mariah's Attempt For the Winter Olympics

Difficult Diva Mariah Carey warms up to release another nauseating ballad 100%(Percent). Carey 39, was set to release the song for her latest acting attempt Precious, acting and singing combo has proved unsuccessful for the perfectly piped beauty with Glitter back in 2001, but this time around her voice cannot be used to gain interest in her acting as genuinely talented Mary J Blige was used for the musical promotion of the picture.
The subject matter of the song seems inspirational, however its seemingly pleading with fans (past or present) to remember how hard she worked through those hey day years of the 90′s. OK…! Ms Mariah Mimi Carey Cannon Piggy WE GET IT! We all have a Hero worth giving 100% for. Unlike 1993′s Hero, everything is very ‘this is about me so relate!‘ as oppose to ‘you can do it!‘ which for the Winter Olympics would be more patriotic.
 The whole 100 percent metaphor is all very fitting as she sings about having a “dream” and not being “discouraged” and even the inevitable rhyming of the latter key word with “courage“… the trials she has witnessed to become the emancipated Mimi she claims to be is clearly not of the same nature of an athlete but every hurdle jumped is an achievement (no pun intended, I’m aware it’s the WINTER Olympics). It is the ‘taking part approach’ in lines such as “I’m walking out of here a champion either way“ and “I’ma break through the door til I get in” that may prove inspirational as well as the whole suggestion of nostalgia “put your arms up” if you relate.
Mariah Carey sticks to the vocal formula of past hit ballads such as My All, the build up approach she has taken with her music since the beginning of her career where she builds from soprano eventually into the belt at the end, possibly a parallel for the strong message in her songs. When Carey breaks into the bigger notes for the conclusion of the song, her voice manages to do her some justice. Throughout it does remain strong, mainly in the bridge and the chorus, but the end is where fans may really feel inspired to run out and buy her record immediately, Mariah actually sings here! Not since 2005′s We Belong Together has she made a fine noise. Carey belts out the key points of the lyrics leading to an extended “up“  in which she rides up part of her range and then ventures into her whistler register to really prove that Mariah Carey can actually still sing! when she wants to.

March 1, 2010