Area 11 Live at Cabaret Voltaire - 13/11/14

The internet has made many things much easier. Shopping, communicating, learning, finding pictures of cats- whatever it is you want or need, chances are that the internet is the easiest place for you to find it. It's an infinite database of information, opinion, entertainment and One Direction fan sites- you can do anything when you have the internet at your fingertips. And one thing that a lot of people try to do is to promote themselves.

Area 11: Leo Taylor, Alex Parvis, Tom Clarke, Jonathan Kogan

Before the world wide web became the worldwide phenomenon it is today, an aspirational performer would have to gig, travelling around, playing in dingy little pubs and cellars to audiences of ten people. And maybe, just maybe, one day they might be spotted by a talent scout, or develop an actual following. It's how The Beatles did it, it's how The Rolling Stones did it, it's how Ed Sheeran did it. But Sheeran is a rare modern example- in the internet age, someone looking for an audience can just upload a video to Youtube for the world to see. That's how Justin Bieber did it- although there are many who wish he hadn't.

It's also how Area 11 did it. Formed in Nottingham in 2010, and currently consisting of lead singer Tom Clarke (Sparkles*), guitarist Alex Parvis (Parv), bassist Jonathan Kogan (Kogie) and drummer Leo Taylor- who doesn't have a nickname- the band started uploading Youtube videos, and through the site formed a friendship with The Yogscast, a Bristol-based collection of highly popular internet video game commentators. It's from there that they gained a large amount of their (mostly teenage) audience, an audience that grew so large that they started touring. And that brings us to Edinburgh on the 13th November 2014.

The venue was Cabaret Voltaire, a small industrial-rustic style club just off the Royal Mile, and it was jam packed with a sea of excited young faces, with some older, stubbly ones dotted around, and a group of parents sat at the back with slightly bemused expressions on theirs. There was quite an unusual atmosphere to the place. Never having been to a gig with such high young teenage attendance, I unexpectedly felt a comradeship with them; I knew they had all found this band through the internet, the same way I had. We were all Youtube subscribers and Twitter users, grouped together in a stuffy cellar to see a band we liked. Hardly anyone there knew each other, but there was a sense of cohesion between us that I've never felt before at a gig.


Three people who must've been acutely aware of that cohesion were Scott Tulloch, Marième Corlett and Jamie Dunleavey of MayHeGo, the support band for the night. After an unassuming entrance onto the stage (Tulloch, the band's guitarist, later told me that they "don't usually do shows"), the trio launched into a barrage of intense, grooving instrumental tracks that started small, then built and built with layers of drums, solos and sky-shot riffs to create a special sound. Ambient and heavy, there’s a relentless, driving quality to their songs, which got an initially unconvinced crowd dancing along- despite them perhaps not being the crowd that MayHeGo attempts to covet. This band has a style that people can really get behind; the fact they set foot on the stage to silence and left to claps and cheers is proof enough of that.

Area 11 made the same understated entrance, but this time it was to shouts, screams and outstretched arms. And, without a word, they started to play. Their signature blend of Western rock and Eastern influence pounded out of the speakers, and everyone in the audience jumped and cheered and sang along accordingly. And so it continued for the next hour, a journey through their more well-known songs from All The Lights In The Sky like the frenetic, pulsating Vectors and the anthemic Heaven-Piercing Giga Drill, their older material, and their most recent release, the Underline EP. Whether it was a song they'd known for years, or Override A, their newest song- which Sparkles* confessed they "weren't quite sure how to play"- the crowd was enraptured, reaching forwards, singing every word right back to the four guys onstage. And those guys responded, thrashing their way through the setlist- Taylor's arms a blur over the drums, Kogie assuredly providing the bassline for Parv to riff, solo and rock out to, and Sparkles* in the middle, confidently swinging and catching the mic, bouncing around the stage and delivering the strong, powerful vocals everyone in the audience knew and loved. And once their set was over and they'd left the stage, the chants calling for "one more song" brought them back out, something that Sparkles* stated they "hardly ever do".

Stepping out into the cold Edinburgh air after the show, I knew that this was one of the best gigs I’d been to. It was loud, it was powerful, it was fun. Area 11 may have started out on the internet, performing around a microphone, but in that room, stood playing their songs just a couple metres from an adoring crowd, it's clear that they have transcended it. The only way is up for this band- all the lights in the sky couldn't stop them.

Chart Wars

America is the most culturally powerful country in the world. It's not up for discussion, it's fact. Americans have popularised fast food, shopping centres, 'scripted reality' TV shows, 24-hour news channels, production line manufacture, jeans, consumer culture- pretty much every aspect of every person's life around the world has been touched in some way by the United States. Even language has been affected: students learning English as a foreign language aren't learning British English- rather, the American alternative. But nowhere is this phenomenon more prevalent than in the music industry.

Take a look at your music collection. How many of those artists are British? How many are American? Unless you are a massive musical Anglophile, chances are the latter outweighs the former by a significant amount. Now go into your local music shop, peruse the aisles, and compare the number of US artists to those from Britain, or any other country for that matter. See, it's not just you- the rest of the world is the same. No matter which country you're in, you're much more likely to hear Justin Timberlake or Green Day on the radio than you are Arctic Monkeys or Robbie Williams. And even when you do hear a British artist or band, chances are their style has been substantially informed by American culture, an effect most evident in the way nearly every mainstream British music act sings with an American accent.

Undertake a survey of the most recent song charts in both America and Britain and you'll find, unsurprisingly, that both favour artists from their respective countries. That's fair enough, you wouldn't expect anything different. What is different was the extent to which each chart contains songs from the other side of the Atlantic. In the British Top 10 for this week, there was a 50/50 split between British and 'foreign' entries, with American songs taking three of the five non-British places. It's all pretty equal. But then we have the top 10 American tracks, of which only three were performed by non-Americans- and only one of those three was by a Brit. It is clearly much harder for a British act to break into the American market than it is for the opposite to occur. Here, we are saturated in Pitbulls and Taylor Swifts and Rihannas, but across the pond only really big names like Ed Sheeran, Adele or One Direction can stand a chance of making even a dent in the charts- although, let's be honest, that last example's success is mainly down to American girls' apparent obsession with English accents and fringes.

Of course, you could argue that it's only logical that a bigger country would have more success stories than a country forty times smaller with a fifth of the population. In those many extra millions, there must be hundreds more people with the musical ability to make it in the industry. But I don't think that's the whole story. To me, there is one main factor that has facilitated American artists' success in Britain, and hindered Brits' attempts in the States, and it is this: America is in. It always has been in. Americans have been dictating pop culture since pop culture became a thing. That is why every Michael Jackson single, every Beyonce album, every dribbly noise Justin Bieber gurgles into a microphone, has received massive coverage in the UK- and, indeed, across the world. The problem is that America is also in in America. And whereas we have British acts to try and balance out the influx from the States, all America has is more Americans. They end up so saturated in themselves that there's hardly any room for anyone from anywhere else to break in.

It's not a massive problem- a lot of the American artists and bands that get exported over to Britain are very good indeed, and we can just dismiss the ones we don't like so much. I'm sure Americans are perfectly happy with the mix of music they receive as well, and thanks to the internet both sides can discover more of the other's talents than ever before. It's just that there's such a massive imbalance and, with everything America has given us culturally, it would be nice to be able to give more back every once in a while.

Gerard Way - Hesitant Alien

No-one can deny the impact that My Chemical Romance had on those of us who grew up in the Noughties. With their emo-punk riffs, their relatable themes and their eyeshadow, this was a band that resonated strongly with the large portion of the teenage population that deal with thoughts of loneliness, anger and depression. Some said they worsened those feelings- the British press in 2006, led by the Daily Mail, warned parents of the "emo cult" of self-harming and black clothes that their children were being sucked into, and labelled MCR as the main antagonist. Their first three albums (I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love, Three Cheers For Sweet Revenge and The Black Parade) certainly fit into that stereotype; songs about death, war, love and vampires- all set against an increasingly gothic background- conjured an image that matched their militaristic, Victorian-esque emo image. Then came Danger Days.

Released after a lengthy absence, this album saw the band take a new direction into a more strutting, electro-infused, ultimately mainstream type of rock. Then last year saw the unveiling of Conventional Weapons, an album recorded in the aforementioned absence- and in a period of artistic uncertainty for the group. It really was the 'missing link' between the totally contrasting styles demonstrated in Black Parade and Danger Days. The band's evolution was now clear, and would have no doubt continued were it not for their break-up in 2013. But break up they did, with Danger Days as their last 'sound'. And it seems that lead singer Gerard Way was a particular fan of this style, as he has largely adopted it for his solo debut, Hesitant Alien. Don't, however, press play expecting to hear My Chemical Romance. The voice is the same, as are some of the key musical aspects, but this isn't the band you once knew and loved. And I'm sorry to say this, but it isn't as good.

The album opens with The Bureau, a mess of distorted guitar and lolloping rhythm. As an opener to Way's glorious future as a solo act, it doesn't give one much hope. Then, after a slow fade into a dial tone which makes no sense in the context of the song, comes Action Cat. This is where that similarity to Danger Days first makes itself apparent, with the same blend of pop-rock and an attempt at 80's punk clamour. It does for the album what The Bureau should have done: it sets the tone, the feel, the energy. It's no wonder it was chosen as lead single. It feels Britpop, it feels punky, it feels good. At its finest moments, that's how this album presents itself- whether it's in the noise and spitting riffs of Juarez, or the reflective piano beat and soaring chorus of Brother, there are solid roots in 90's Britain and 80's punk, with some 70's glam rock thrown in for good measure. Way has endeavoured to combine David Bowie with Oasis with The Clash with My Chemical Romance- an excellent mix, by anyone's standards.

But that's the good songs. Some of the tracks on Hesitant Alien aren't that good. None of them are bad, but they just lack a certain spark. The sort of spark that MCR had in spades. Real attitude. For all its low-fi distortion and discordant chaos, the album as a whole is a bit of a poser, the musical equivalent of those girls who have 20/20 vision but choose to wear glasses anyway, because nerd-chic is, like, totally in. Songs like How It's Going To Be or No Shows are devoid of feeling. They try, bless them, but they perhaps try a little too hard. And none of the songs have any punch- at best, they feel like the more lacklustre tracks on Danger Days, content to drift by nonchalantly, unmotivated by the social change that their forefathers on Three Cheers and The Black Parade had the power to cause.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good album. Were it a solo release by a new artist, it may even be great. There are some wonderful tunes on there, and it's not going to be removed from my iPod any time soon. But there was no way that Hesitant Alien wasn't going to be compared to My Chemical Romance's imposingly excellent discography and, against those lofty heights, I'm afraid it really doesn't stack up. 3.5/5

"Do My Abs Look Big In This?"

(or 'Body Image From A Male Perspective')

'Body positivity' is a big thing. Don't believe me? Just ask Tumblr. Or you can read this brilliant blog post my lovely and talented friend Floraidh wrote on the topic. "Love your curves", we're told. "Love your lack of curves", we're told. "Love your breasts/tummy/hips/thighs", we're told. Promotion of being comfortable in your own skin, no matter how much body it covers.  It's lovely... so long as you're a girl. Because that's who it's all targeted at.

Do not get me wrong; I realise that the extent to which body positivity has been pushed towards the female population is due to the gender inequality that still persists around the world. Women have always been told how to to look, and that they look 'wrong' when they don't- or can't- conform and, therefore, they are now told that they can look however the hell they want. That's great, really wonderful. But males have body-confidence issues too, always have, and I'm probably not alone in feeling a bit left out.

It's probably because we, as a gender, are credited with causing the problem for females in the first place. Or maybe it's because ours is, admittedly, a less propagated issue, and therefore any attempt to fight our corner is slapped down because our problems are 'less important' than those of the long-beleaguered female population. But whatever the cause, whilst the girls are being showered with praises and confidence boosters about the way they look, males are trying to deal with their own body issues, largely without help.

Call a girl fat and it'll hurt her feelings. Call a guy fat and the same thing happens. The difference is that the girl gets a gaggle of other girls clustering around her, berating the insulter and comforting the insultee, whereas the guy gets... well, nothing. It is assumed that, because males were for so long the 'dominant' gender, that we have some kind of forcefield that absorbs insults and projects them out again as something manly, like high-fiving. Or a beard. The truth is that it always hurts to be insulted about your appearance, regardless of gender. But whilst the girls are told to love their bodies, we're told to suck it up.

Of course, I understand that the problems girls face are far larger than the one presented to us. We males are not subject to the same scrutiny, the same level of societal pressure. But that doesn't mean that we aren't subject to it at all. And yes, a vast majority of guys are guilty of constantly objectifying women. But that doesn't mean that we can't be objectified in turn. We may not get the same intensity as females, but we get it all the same, and it affects us. Stubbing your toe and having it cut off are different in severity, but they both bloody hurt.

Consider One Direction. Here we have five young guys, all at a high level of fitness, all naturally good-looking, all talented and funny and charismatic. Wherever they go, they have girls screaming their names, reaching towards them, desiring nothing more than to touch them. Look on a website like Tumblr and you'll see literally millions of posts about them, their eyes, their skin, their abs, their legs, their dimples. Some girls will physically squeak when they see a new tweet from one of them. It's true, I've seen it happen.

How are we supposed to not compare ourselves to them?

So many of us average-looking, unfit, acned guys see this group, and the reactions they cause in the opposite sex, and we cannot help but assume that that is the way we are supposed to look. We then feel bad when we realise that it's impossible because of our body type/build/type of skin/etc. For example, I myself have a big butt, and when I see pictures of 1D, Abercrombie & Fitch models and the like, I dislike that part of my body for not conforming to what is clearly seen as 'ideal'. Now, I've never been inside a girl's mind, and so I cannot know for definite, but I'm pretty sure that this is the same sort of thing they go through when they see Victoria's Secret models, or Beyoncé. The desire to be what society tells us is 'perfect', coupled with the knowledge that we cannot achieve such a goal, is not limited to the female brain. When girls walk past a billboard displaying a model lounging around in her underwear, the same thoughts occur as when a guy sees an aftershave advert featuring a chiselled, statuesque adonis.

I suppose what I'm calling for is recognition of the fact that guys can get down about their appearance as much as girls, that body positivity is not something to be preached exclusively to those with two X chromosomes. The two genders should be treated equally- it's not called 'gender equality' for nothing. And please, before anyone raises their "gender equality is about bringing women up to the same level as men" pitchforks, that argument is based upon the assumption that men don't ever feel bad about their body- an assumption that, as I've explained, is fundamentally flawed.

What we need is to lift both sexes up, to a level at which everyone is always happy about how they look. We need to reach a point where everyone is comfortable, not only about how they look, but also how they compare to others.
I know that it's an impossible dream, but as I look down my large nose at my shapeless stomach, big butt and pale legs, I can't help but think it would be nice.

Pork and Prejudice

(or 'Why Subway Is Allowed to Cater to the Muslim Community')

I've never been to Subway. My mum went once and got food poisoning, so that kind of warned me off eating there. I have, however, heard many people raving about how nice it is, so maybe I'll give it a shot sometime.

However, it appears that, were I to feel an intense need to combine eating pork products and visiting
companies named after public walkways in the near future, I would be hard pushed to find one- unless there's an eatery out there called Zebra Crossing or something. Yes, it's true: Subway is banning ham and bacon from 185 of its branches, in response to pressure from the Muslim population, and will now be exclusively selling Halal products in said branches. This is a bold move and, as such, has generated a great splurge of public opinion. A lot of which I don't agree with.

Many people have been crying out that it's unreasonable to do such a thing. The words 'pathetic', 'Christian country', 'piss take' and 'immigrants' have been thrown around. Quite a few people have reacted negatively. This is sad because- let's be real for a second- it won't make but a small impact- if any- on these peoples' lives when this change is put into action. Either they don't frequent one of the selected outlets (or Subway in general), or they do and they dislike the products that include pork, or the ham sub is the only thing that gets them through the day. If you are vehemently against Subway's move and you fall into either of the first two categories, then you can just piss off. This will not affect you in any way whatsoever. Get off the hate train at the first stop. If you're in the last group, then I hope you get better soon. I also rather think that you'd be perfectly happy with one of the other items on the Subway menu. It's not like they're banning all meats. Chill the hell out.

Aside from the tantrums caused by the loss of something that did no nutritional good anyway and did nothing to enrich lives, there have been some reactions that cause me deep concern. These are the ones involving jabs at Islam, and insinuations that Subway is somehow being weak by 'bending to the will' of the Muslim population. They are being anything but weak- in fact, it's a very clever move. I mean, can you imagine how much money they're going to make from Muslims who flock in because of this policy change? It's just about the best publicity they could hope for. And as for the commenters shouting that their country shouldn't have to change to cater to those not born there, they fail to recognise one of the great redeeming features of Great Britain: its acceptance, tolerance and generosity towards those of different cultures, countries and continents. We are a great humanitarian country. We take in everyone who needs our assistance, and allow them to stay as long as they please. This has been going on for so long that most of the people being labelled as 'immigrants' were probably born in Bournemouth or Dudley. Or Milton Keynes.

But the complaints that annoy me most of all are those that focus on the fact that Britain is 'Christian', and that a 'Christian' country doesn't have to accept changes from people not like their own. This is disgusting on a base level. First of all, I doubt many of the people saying this actually believe in a God- they just like Easter eggs and Christmas presents and think that's enough. To them, the cross is more of a fashion statement than a religious symbol. Secondly, what they imply about Christianity is that it is a gated community, whereas it is quite the opposite- the source material (The Bible, in case you weren't aware) is a book that preaches love and acceptance to people from all walks of life. And finally, Jesus himself- who was a pretty important part of the Bible, so I hear- regularly made it his business to accept people who were either different or disliked, from lepers to prostitutes to tax collectors. He probably would've even gone for lunch with estate agents if they'd existed. Now, I myself am a pretty staunch Atheist, and as such believe the Bible to be largely a work of fiction, but I can still appreciate the message it preaches. And I can also see the way that people are completely disregarding this major theme in the religion that they are ignorantly trying to use as a shield to cover their own indignant racism.

Here's the thing. If you can't accept the fact that Muslims live in Britain, then you clearly aren't British. You stand against everything your country- and the religion you claim it upholds- has stood for for many, many years. Why then, by your own standards, don't you go and live somewhere else? Somewhere that hates just as much as you, with as little justification as you? I hear North Korea's lovely this time of year.

Independence Don't

(or 'Why I'll Be Voting Against An Independent Scotland')

I'm sure you've seen or heard the news at some point recently. I'm one hundred percent sure that this has happened. You would have to be both deaf and blind or live in a cave to have not been exposed to news. So, seeing as this is the case, you don't need me to tell you that Scotland will be making a pretty big decision at the end of September with regard to its connection to the United Kingdom. In fact, 'a pretty big decision' is an extreme understatement, because the outcome of this referendum will unquestionably change many important aspects of how Scotland as a country operates. Either it remains a part of the UK or it becomes independent. It's a big deal.

As a Scottish citizen, I have the right to vote in this referendum, and I will be voting an emphatic 'no'. Independence would be an unequivocally bad move on all the levels. The Scottish have always been a fiery people, and some have long wished to separate their country from Britain, which it sees as an over-protective mother, not letting them spread their wings and take flight on their own. What they fail to see is that their wings wouldn't provide nearly enough lift to get them off the ground in the first place.

I'm sure you've heard the expression 'trying to run before you can walk'. Scotland trying to survive and thrive as an independent country would be equivalent to trying to run before you've been born. The requirement of all matters to pass through Westminster, as emasculating as it may be to the nationalists, provides the sole link- the umbilical cord, if you will- through which Scotland receives all the nutrients it needs. Among them: free healthcare; a stable, established currency; a presence in the EU, with all the trade benefits implied therein; and- perhaps most importantly to me, given my age and stage in life- free university tuition for its native population. Sever the connection with London and you sever the supply of many things that make the average Scottish citizen's life markedly easier and more comfortable. NHS? Forget it. An army? Only the regiments that belong to you. Scotland wouldn't even be a member of the EU anymore, which would mean immigration control on all traffic in and out of the country, including the other countries of the British Isles- a huge administrative and financial strain in and of itself.

And yet, Mr Salmond claims that these losses and repercussions will not be an issue. Somewhere in his half-baked and half-cocked plan, he says, are answers to all these problems and more. And yet the only solution that he has thus far revealed is to presume that the rest of the world is going to let him keep everything. On EU membership he proclaimed, "Well, of course they'll let us join!", to which the EU said, "LOL no". On national currency, he brazenly stated that "We'll be allowed to keep the pound!" The Treasury replied with "Not on your nelly". We can only assume that the rest of his 'plan' rest on similarly shaky grounds.

And yet his movement has gained significant momentum- enough, indeed, to make this daft referendum a thing. Several of my own Scottish friends and family, all of whom I consider to be logical and sensible people, are inexplicably- to my eyes, at least- behind the cause. This is highly worrying. If it were to come out at the end of September that more people were for independence than against, it would set into motion a series of events and plans that would, by 2016 (when independence would officially begin), have formed a noose for Scotland to compliantly fill with its neck. And then, when the chair is kicked out from underneath us, we'd realise our mistake and reach out desperately towards England, gasping and gurgling, imploring them to take our weight. And would they? Would they hell.

It's a heavy-handed image, but it does get my point across rather nicely- that an independent Scotland is incapable Scotland. So I'll be voting 'no', and if you are able to, I advise you to do the same. It's our homeland, and it'd be a real shame to watch it kill itself.