The Return of The Stones 11/17/23 BY: IAN SHERRY On October 20, 2023, The Rolling Stones released their latest album, Hackney Diamonds . The legendary band continues to make history… And now for a real-life interaction from my history class lecture hall: Random Kid #1: “Dude, the Rolling Stones just put out a new album” Random Kid #2: “Who?!” Random Kid #1: “I know, right! It’s not like a greatest hits or anything, just a new album. They didn’t even say it’s their last one, they literally just announced a random album.” Random Kid #2: “No, I mean like actually who is that?” Kids these days. The Rolling Stones, in fact, are (one of) the greatest rock band(s) of all time, and despite their median age being something like 78, they just released their 31st studio album. This raised an abundance of questions amongst listeners, the most important one being: will it be any good? Well let’s talk about it. Hailing from London, The Rolling Stones were key blazers in the British Invasion and consequently, the formation of rock as we know it. Dabbling in everything from American Blues to British Pop, they set the standard for what a talented band could and should attempt to accomplish across genres and decades. Now, with legendary frontman Mick Jagger sitting at 80 years old, we have to wonder what version of the Stones we’ll see. Personally, I was hoping for some blues. The Expectations The Rolling Stones are a well oiled machine that has produced decades of success. They’ve long since mastered the finer points of instrumental production, songwriting, and album construction. They have their own sound - several in fact - to rely upon when developing new material. And they bring their vast discography, deep experience, and a hall of fame reputation. But it’s time to address the elder elephant in the room: a lead singer who’s 80 years old and a collective group who cannot possibly be completely in touch with today’s musical landscape. This is a clear barrier, but not an insurmountable one. Johnny Cash recorded his legendary cover “Hurt” at the age of 71 in poor health. Although his singing on “Hurt” isn’t bold and exuberant, his sense of emotion is so powerful that it registers as one of his greatest vocal performances ever. All that is to say, physical vocal capabilities are not the end all be all - not by a long shot. Johnny Cash collaborated with Rick R ubin on that album. The legendary producer helped him structure songs around his ability, bolstering the instrumentals at the perfect times and saving the best of Cash’s voice for the right moments. They worked with what they had, and they made beautiful music. Should this set the standard? Perhaps that bar is too high, considering Cash and Rubin are two of the greatest musical minds of all time. However, The Rolling Stones ought to be measured in such elite company. As a reviewer, I feel faced with the ultimate dilemma: delivering an objective critique of an album/a rtist in a context full of subjective contradictions. For instance, The Stone s are one of the greatest bands ever, yet as octogenarians, do I hold them to their career-long standard? (I don’t normally check album review ratings from other sources, but I checked Pit chfork out of curiosity and that’s what they decided to do). Or do I hold them to the standard I would use for an elderly member of the local volunteer church choir? This is tempting, but the reality is Mick Jagger isn’t just singing on Sundays, he’s in The Rolling Stones. Or, do I hold them to the standard of late-career Johnny Cash? They’re different artists, and they aren’t working with Rick Rubin, but they could have. And maybe that should have. So, just as I might rate a debut on the scale of all debuts, I’m going to rate Hackney Diamonds on the scale of Johnny Cash’s final album. The Genre As I mentioned, I was hoping for blues. While The Beatles first met resistance for impersonating the American artform that is rhythm & blues, The Rolling Stones were more easily welcomed. Why? Well, I think they were just better at it. So, several decades later, I wanted a return to that blues-driven sweet spot that Rolling Stones made their own. Shouldn’t their consistently pure, unique instrumentals and personality-filled vocals still be replicable in 2023? Nobody since the heyday version of the Rolling Stones has been able to capture that unique blues sound like they did, and unfortunately as I listened to Hackney Diamonds , that standard has yet to be met. The best blues moments are fleeting and scattered at best. Track 6, “Dreamy Skies” , track 10, “Tell Me Straight” , and track 12, “Rolling Stone Blues” give us a taste, and they’re some of my favorites on the album. But, that’s only 3/12 tracks. Instead, the Stones seem to have made a conscious choice for safe pop-rock. Aside from their brief blues departure later in the album and 2000s impression-rock track “Whole Wide World” (a bad song), they leaned into the 80s. Though this isn’t my favorite era of rock by any means, they were able to deliver a recognizable sound, albeit safe and far from unique. Flighty group vocal choruses, repetitive but consistent song structure, and the occasional guitar solo. After a few songs I knew exactly what to expect. “Angry” is the first song of the album, and it does a good job of setting the pop-rock tone. It may be the best example of their general aim for the album, though it’s hard to tell at times. Meanwhile “Bite My Head Off” (track 4), which supposedly features Sir Paul McCartney , is a perfect example of their formula falling flat. The Bridge Structure is not a bad thing. Though it often receives a negative connotation, it is a helpful tool for delivering a solid end product. I’ve had moments of frustration reviewing albums this year, as artists move further away from traditional pop structure - Verse, verse, bridge, verse - only to lose their way with underwhelming results. The Stones have it down. When I review albums, I take notes chronologically, adjusting my opinion on a song as it unfolds, usually finishing with ¾ lines of notes per track. In those notes I’m always sure to make a note of a good chorus, verse, or bridge. After marking down ‘BRIDGE’ for six of the first seven songs, I realized I should just mark it at the bottom of the page as its own category. Whether it be vocal, piano, guitar, or some combination of the three, the bridge is often the strongest stretch of a Hackney Diamonds song. This is entirely undervalued in music today, so I’m glad to see The Rolling Stones reviving it. No matter how good of a hook you have, no matter how good your verses are, no matter how engaging a song is, the audience may not want to hear it repeat itself 3-4 times with no interruption. Therefore, in order to venture over 2 verses or three minutes, a bridge is a necessity. “Mess It Up” for example, is redeemed, to an extent, by its bridge. Frankly, so is the album itself. The Vocals Can Mick J agger sing like he used to? I don’t know, he doesn’t really bother. For much of the album, the verses are straightforward, and the choruses are basic. While that does fit into their sound of choice much of the time, it was an unnecessary sacrifice of personality. There is a reason Jagger is one of the most famous frontmen/women of all time. He has a swagger as a vocalist and live performer, and his abilities are rarely topped. He’s comfortable, creative, and assertive on the microphone. The Rolling Stones are a historically cohesive, well-rehearsed unit of instrumentalists, but so were the Grateful Dead . What vaulted The Rolling Stones into superstardom was the man in the middle. I don’t expect him to wail on a track like he used to, but that swagger that gives them such an elite feel as a band was lacking this year. There is no real excuse for this. Johnny Cash, despite his comparatively limited vocal capabilities, actually elevated his performative repertoire on his final album. Jagger should’ve been able to at least replicate his own. Instead we have a vocally clean, yet flat album. That vocal cleanliness, in a vacuum, is no sin. However, there’s something fishy about it on Hackney Diamonds . It feels polished, literally, as though every single second of every song was doctored post-recording. And this wouldn’t surprise me. Autotune, aside from its obvious vocally altering capabilities, is also used to smooth out sl ight imperfections in performances. On My Next Guest Needs No Introduction with David Letterman , Billie Eilish explains the practice of vocal comping. This is the recording of multiple takes, and splicing them together to create one perfect vocal performance. Whether the Stones were using one of these methods or something else, I’m not sure. All I know is there are noticeably unnatural portions of vocals on this album. In comparison, once again, to Johnny Cash, who leaned into his imperfections and weaknesses out of vulnerability, Jagger seems to have tried to hide his, at the cost of his own persona on the microphone. I’d give examples, but you can find them on almost every song. Let’s shift to the positives instead. The Strengths One step The Rolling Stones took to modernize their sound, which I actually appreciated, was the inclusion of features. While McCartney’s presence on track 4 is inconsequential, the other two features resulted in the strongest songs on the album. The first is “Live By The Sword” , featuring Elton John . This raucous track came out firing. Elton John is very present on piano, the pace is great, and Jagger's vocals feel more prominent. For the first time on the whole album I felt my foot tap. It’s a fun, well-executed song in their own style, in contrast to a song like “Get Close” , which has a similar aim but sounds more like The J. Geils Band than the Stones. Meanwhile, the best song on the album is more than just a fun time. Track 11, “Sweet Sounds of Heaven” , featuring Lady Gaga , is a total success. A classic Jagger lead-in sets a tone that strikes a perfect balance between fresh and vintage, especially as the Gaga accompanying vocals come in. She quietly harmonizes in the background, providing a lighter, more feminine edge to Mick Jagger’s most bold performance on the album. They combine to build the energy to a high point, then bring it down for Lady Gaga to handle the bridge alongside the piano, before building it up one final time to the finish. While the final build is a bit messy, it brings a genuine energy to the track and album that was desperately needed. Once again Lady Gaga proves herself to be an elite collaborator, and The Rolling Stones deliver an authentic performance that reminds us who they can still be. If there’s one thing I did have absolute confidence in, it’s this: The Rolling Stones’ ability to make an album. The first and last tracks were great choices, the album flowed fairly well and with a generally uniform sound, and it wasn’t too long. Despite the fact I didn’t enjoy every track, they all felt worthy of inclusion, in the context of the whole. That really goes a long way in my opinion. If your album flows all the way through and stands on its own as one cohesive musical composition, you can better hold the attention of an audience, even one that isn’t fully captivated. So that’s where I leave this review: on a positive. The Rolling Stones are one of the greatest bands of all time. The way the English language works, ‘are’ is the correct word. Because they still exist, they ‘are’ one of the greatest bands of all time, however everyone knows that they are now a different version of the band they once were: something closer to The Stationary Stones. All things considered though, Hackney Diam onds isn’t a failure. The vocals, while audibly tolerable, don’t really find an identity, at least not until the end, and the instrumentation is fairly safe. But, they took a chance on the features and landed two thirds of the record. And Stones successfully constructed a cohesive album, giving us songs with actual replay value in the year 2023 - 58 years after they first topped the American charts. So, summing it up as briefly as I can: it’s a mixed bag. Johnny Cash’s American IV: The Man Comes Ar ound is a 10/10. By the standard Johnny Cash s et in 2002, Hackney Diamonds is a 5.7/10.

Flowers By Ian Sherry 7/16/2025 Durand Jones & The Indications are a staple in contemporary soul, and Flowers is exactly as good as it should be. Along with Thee Sacred Souls , Durand Jones & The Indications are leading a small-but-steady wave of old-school soul that began rolling at the end of last decade. Composed of the excellent dual vocalists Durand Jones and Aaron Frazier, plus the band they formed in college, The Indications have certainty in their musical identity, given their control over its development and a keen awareness of their collective comfort zone. That doesn’t guarantee a successful project though - the next step is always the trickiest. Their last effort, Private Space (21) , is proof of that. Feeling the need to branch out stylistically, more prominently feature Aaron Frazier, and cover a variety of other bases, The Indications produced a solid record, but not their most cohesive effort. Since then, Durand Jones got a load of personal material out on Wait Til I Get Over (23) , and Aaron Frazier released his second solo project last year. The healthy relationship they’ve curated as co-creatives is richly evident in the band’s re-amped fusion this time around. Flowers ’ opening grooves aren’t standouts, but they establish the gentle trotting soul sound that became this record’s sweetspot. The fifth track, “Flower Moon,” is the best example of the initial safety-net-soul tunes, but the following “Really Wanna Be With You” is where the record takes off. Track 6 marks the album’s first noticeably gutsy undertaking. Staying within the already-established feel, The Indications began to focus on their more elaborate structural ambitions. Jones and co. are no strangers to a pre-chorus (or drawn-out songs), but this song features a sizable pre-chorus-chorus combo on two separate occasions in addition to a few strong verses. That kind of macho songwriting is very reminiscent of soul’s prime – but one name in particular springs to mind. If Durand Jones wasn’t intentionally channeling Isaac Hayes on this churning soul tune, Ike’s spirit was working through him. While The Indications don’t possess the firepower of a prime Memphis soul section, they clearly understood the assignment and with Jones pushing his vocal limits as the song’s frontman, the result is a standout track. Now Flowers is rolling. The album’s 7th track is the pinnacle of The Indication’s sound to date. “Been So Long” m akes excellent use of all the tools at the band’s disposal. Aaron Frazier is listed as the league vocalist, fitting for the songs initially dreamy feel. As the song progresses, however, Frazier fades more frequently into a host of mellow voices. That communal feel creeps up on the listener throughout the song, removing the focus from the primary vocalist and spreading it across all aspects of the music, from the subtly growing instrumentals to the lyrics of the 3rd and 4th verse (which are by far the catchiest on the album). Then, all too soon, the 3:16 has elapsed This band has a habit of getting stronger as they go. The balance between Frazier and Jones, which they wrestled with last album, has never been a combative issue to my knowledge, just a good problem to have when it comes to making cohesive creative music. The tentative middle ground between the two talented vocalists is an easy place to settle when it comes to using both to the best of their abilities; this album’s first 5 songs are evidence of that. However, as Durand Jones & The Indications dug deeper conceptually on the back stretch of the LP, the 2 talents began to find their perfect balance. Following the feel-good track 7, Aaron Frazier delivers a spot-on Smokey-like soul performance on “Everything.” Officially swapping slappers, Jones responds with a classic Indications-style socially conscious anthem in “Rust and Steel.” From there, Frazier and Jones share the performative load with ease, seamlessly combining efforts on the rangy soul track “If Not For Love” (which comes complete with a sick sax solo) and the well-placed closing track “Without You” . Flowers has left me with very few complaints, and believe it or not, I love not complaining! It was clear from start to finish that Durand Jones & The Indications had a firm grasp on their strengths, an awareness of potential weakness, and a concentrated will to create a product with those awarenesses in mind. The band’s muted sonic palate was a perfect match for all the album’s undertakings, providing the old-school feel and preventing the band from feeling thin in comparison to their soul predecessors. The songs feel intentionally arranged, and none are worth skipping. It’s an oh-so-satisfyingly complete album, and even without the old-school style, that makes this record a classic. Flowers is a 9.2.

30 Years of Definitely Maybe 9/16/2024 BY: IAN SHERRY On August 30th, 1994, Oasis released their debut album Definitely Maybe . 30 years later, sometime in the days approaching the anniversary of their flagship LP, the Gallaghers let news of their reunion trickle out. That makes this the perfect time to review this deluxe reinstallment of their debut. It’s the very nature of the reunion that peaked my interest. As I journalistically searched for the date of their announcement, it became clear that the news was largely the result of the pop culture rumor mill, with eventual confirmation from the formerly feuding Gallagher brothers. This brand of brit-pop shenanigans is reminiscent of another time. Who doesn’t look back fondly on those massive crowds that surrounded The Beatles , or the tabloid culture of prime American rock & roll? I love Oasis playing into the insatiable passion that humans have for both gossip and music, because it harkens back to that perfect balance between those passions and the pure obsession that fueled rock music in its prime. In fact, Oasis’ talent for retooling British Invasion era music and culture is responsible for much of their notoriety and critical acclaim. Often recognized as a beacon of real rock in a transitional era, it’s fitting that the first track on their debut record is titled “Rock ‘n’ Roll Star” . Staking their claim perhaps? In that very first song you can find a lot of album-spanning tropes, most notably the pace. They immediately establish themselves as a high-octane rock band, with wailing guitars that often act as the secondary focus, boldly supporting the lead vocals. Liam Gallagher mostly sits atop their wall-of-sound style instrumentation, occasionally stepping aside for older brother Noel on guitar, setting a clear pattern for most of the record. Their beefy sound falls just short of relentless, which, depending on the audience, can either capture the listener’s ear or prevent them from resonating with any one part of the song. Therefore, to make their music more digestible, it’s essential to create space within the song structure and the sound itself. Given that Definitely Maybe was a debut record, I’d say all in all Oasis does a solid job of creating breathing room, employing slight differences in pace between vocalist and the band, allowing brief instrumental interjections within the verses, and making the small yet consequential choices needed to customize individual songs. The Beatles-like backing vocals on “Shakermaker” and “Supersonic” are subtle, but by singing a single rising note, they change the landscape of the sound. The vocal filter and flourishing drums on “Bring It On Down” help separate the different elements of the song. Even the extended reverb on “Cigarettes & Alcohol” , which creates just a moment of space before jumping back into the sonically packed second verse, goes a long way towards avoiding the pitfalls of repetition, a tool they use routinely. That kind of attention to detail is what elevates this debut record above those of their talented counterparts. Oasis was indeed a talented band. Unrelenting guitar performances by the Gallaghers litter every song, Tony McCarroll serves as a strong, yet tame presence on drums, and the group’s ability to systematically assemble a complete product is evidenced constantly. For example they build the instrumental backing for “Shakemaker” one piece at a time, rumbling from the tapping of drum sticks to a heavy rock sound in an instant, a la Led Zeppelin . I am truly a sucker for a good instrumental build, however Oasis’ best band-work on this record lies in their breakdowns. On any given song you can hear them prioritize one element of the chorus, either instrumental or vocal, as they begin to subtract other components. The results can vary from rhythmically atypical, like “Rock ‘n’ Roll Star”, to catchy and repetitive like “Columbia” , with most tracks giving way to Noel Gallagher’s always-sturdy guitar. Their ability to start and finish songs effectively gives the record a tangible flow from one track to another, adding to the collective experience. While their instrumental palette on this record is limited in comparison to their later work, and that does put an undeniable limit on the versatility of the sound, their points of emphasis in the structure of the instrumentation make for a cohesive listening experience they’ll never quite replicate. Familiarity. In my 19 years of life I’ve come to understand if there’s one thing people like, it's what they already know. No wonder Oasis triumphed so immediately in the states. In the UK (I’d imagine) there were plenty of bands trying to strike the balance Oasis came initially equipped with, but in the US of A, they weren’t such a common breed. The evidence of punk rock’s unavoidable influence, which may have been overly familiar across the pond, could in theory, have gone unnoticed or felt more exotic here. In practice, a song like “Live Forever” certainly benefits. The most popular song on the record holds that title because of its familiar American Rock influences - hard to miss especially in the guitar solo. With this familiar instrumental foundation, the pure Brit vocal performance blends in seamlessly and Liam Gallagher comes across as an approachably quirky frontman, instead of tardy British invader. Familiarity can be a curse as well, one Oasis will become all too familiar with in the following years via the commercial excesses of “Wonderwall” and they had to wrestle with on this record as well. They establish their MO so immediately on the first 2 tracks that equally strong songs of a similar hue like “Columbia” or “Slide Away” can lose their luster. It’s a demon Oasis battles on this record and every release that follows, driving their development as a band, and in part fueling the heated disagreements that eventually got the best of them. Reviewing Definitely Maybe - 30th Anniversary Deluxe Edition retrospectively - and it really is a retrospective review of the original since the deluxe edition offers nothing more than cleaner mixes and instrumentally thinner versions of the same songs - it's impossible to ignore the evidence of Oasis’ final form. More tender and nostalgic songs like “Digsy’s Diner” and “Married With Children” get more popular in the post alt-rock era, and the band joins that trend with some of their biggest hits not long after. The slightly softened Oasis didn’t come without skillful advancements, with elements such as the piano on “Digsy’s Diner” emerging as strengths within their evolving sound in the late 90’s / early 2000’s. Like many debuts before and after them, Oasis would never be the same band they were in 1994. They’d never be more punk, more Manchester, than they were on Definitely Maybe ; just like Nirvana would never be more raw, more Seattle than they were on Bleach , and Led Zeppelin would never be more blues, more London than they were on Led Zeppelin I . It’s not as much of an issue as it is a reality, but this anniversary provided an opportunity to live in a different reality, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Definitely Maybe is an 8.7. Definitely Maybe - 30th Anniversary Deluxe Edition isn’t worth scoring separately.

OBSESSION, NEXT-GEN HORROR WRITTEN AND ILLUSTRATED BY: DAWSON SARCONA, 6/10/2026 Recent horror blockbusters have the box office in a chokehold, due in large part to the genre’s popularity amongst upcoming generations. The youthful zeitgeist is horror-acclimated, and Curry Baker’s Obsession is the latest and loudest proof of that. Obsession has no shortage of achievements after just three weeks in theaters. For a movie with a budget as low as $750,000, Obsession has blown its expected earnings out of the water as it’s now on track to reach $250M (or more) before the end of its theatrical run. Further, if you look at the weekend-to-weekend growth of Obsession, you'll notice that the lowest earnings are in its opening weekend, before growing 30% in week two and an additional 10% in week three, implying cult-classic momentum. The last film to behave as such at the box office was all the way back in 1982, Stephen Spielberg's classic E.T. So what is so great about Obsession? Well, to put it plainly, everything. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, I think we might be dealing with a near-perfect movie. Now, I will say, I have seen this movie 3 times in theaters, so I've gotten the privilege of looking back at it with the perspective of already knowing what happens. One thing that really stood out to me on my 2nd and 3rd watch was how well each scene served the story in getting us to the ending. Never before in my life have I seen a movie with such a tight script in which literally every single scene serves a distinct purpose. I genuinely believe that this film could not be cut any further and still tell the story it does so effectively. This is likely due to director Curry Barker's experience as a YouTube/TikTok sketch comedian. As a part of the Duo “That's a Bad Idea,” Barker mastered the craft of building short-form sketches and content. Due to the limited attention of viewers on these apps, Barker has gained an eye for what's necessary to keep the audience's attention and the story constantly flowing. These skills are put to expert use in the writing, directing, and editing of this film, all of which he did himself. SPOILER ALERT. The plot begins with a very simple concept: Bear makes a wish that the girl of his dreams, Nikki Freeman, “loves him more than anyone in the fucking world”. From here, Barker quickly distinguishes himself from the rest of the stories told under this Monkey’s Paw trope. As Nikki begins to become more and more obsessed with Bear, the story evolves into a horrifying tale of self-destruction and the extremes of co-dependency. I've always been a big proponent of horror’s effectiveness when it isn't explained. This is that to a T. Trying to assign logic to something supernatural often takes away the fear. Watching Obsession, it was very clear to me that Barker understood this principle. There is no explanation for how this wish magic works, or why it is that Nikki begins to get crazy and violent. Nor does it explain where the “real Nikki” goes during this wish. Instead, it just gives us little hints, moments of Nikki snapping back to reality, screams, outbursts, and indicators that something about this wish magic is cruel and terrifying. The use of ambiguity makes the movie so much scarier, and Barker has further gone on to say that he himself does not know and doesn't ever plan to create an explanation for these events. It's just spooky magic for spooky magic’s sake, and it works so well. Speaking of magic, Inde Navarrette’s performance as Nikki is something truly astonishing. Being able to play 2 distinct characters within the same movie is an accomplishment in itself, but being able to make them both distinct enough that the audience can instantly tell when either personality (Nikki or Wish Nikki) is on screen is something really special. The range of emotion Navarrette displays as both versions of Nikki is insane as a viewer, and it's because of her that this movie works. Every scary, uncomfortable, or flat-out violent moment in this movie hinges upon Navarette delivering, and boy does she deliver. This is hands down one of the best horror performances I've seen on the big screen, and the character will no doubt become a horror icon. While Navarrette is by far the breakout performance in this film, everyone who acts in this movie make great contributions. Michael Johnston as Bear does an excellent job grounding his character so we can see him constantly justifying his increasingly horrendous decisions. This allows for the slow-burning reveal that he may be the true antagonistic figure within the film. Megan Lawless and Cooper Tomlinson as Ian and Sarah are great supporting characters in this movie, and really help to make the friend group dynamic seem real and lived-in. Obsession is, without a doubt, my favorite movie of the year. The aesthetic, the lighting, the set design, the acting, the writing, the directing, all of it works so well to make this movie something really special. For me, Obsession is a 10 out of 10, and I am actively recommending this to anyone who is looking for a good horror movie. Baker’s arrival marks the latest in the YouTuber-to-horror director pipeline. Past creators like Jordan Peele (Get out, Us, Nope) and RackaRacka (Talk to Me and Bring Her Back) have taken this path to great success. YouTube has become somewhat of a crash course in movie-making, particularly for those who’ve grown up with it. Every few decades, Hollywood begins to die out and needs revitalization. We are in the middle of a major shift in the movie industry. Most moviegoers, including myself, now go to see the new film by their favorite director. The tabloid-driven Hollywood of the 90s and 2000s is fading. The directors, the creators, have become the new movie stars. I believe this is mainly because of the YouTube space. We have spent years with creators themselves, seen them grow, develop, and learn the difficulties that come with trying to make something that's your own. YouTube has become a training ground for creators and put them in the driver's seat. For these creators, it's not about pushing out a movie quickly to meet a quota; it's dedicating themselves to their art form. It's bringing Hollywood back to its roots and creating stories that are fun, entertaining, and expertly executed.

THE BOYS, IN FULL WRITTEN & ILLUSTRATED BY: DAWSON SARCONA, 5/28/2026 2026 marks the release of many new superhero projects, but in one case, it also brings the end of a 7-year superhero series, The Boys. As someone who was around age 11 when The Boys first released, I wasn't a day-one fan of this series. However, about three months ago, I decided to binge the whole series (and its spin-offs) for the first time. S eason One Season one of The Boys starts with a bang, immediately dropping us into a world that's, at first glance, not too different from other superhero universes we've seen on screen. But as the season goes on and we dig deeper into the world of The Boys and the Vought corporation, something crucial happens. This show begins to encapsulate the media dependency and celebrity idol structure of American society in a way I've never seen a TV show do. On its surface, The Boys is a story of a group of misfits, criminals, and ex-military members taking revenge against a group of corrupt superheroes. But the show is so much more. It breaks down American media, propaganda, and how powerful figures can control so much of what we see. Since the early 2000s, directors have been trying to figure out how to depict superheroes more “realistically” with Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder taking their own cracks at it, but in my opinion, none of them come close to what showrunner Eric Kripke achieved with season one of The Boys. With a cast of very lovable, and in some cases very hateable, characters this show perfectly balances its comedic moments with serious and scary ones. Plus, Antony Starr as Homelander, especially in the last few episodes, flexes his acting muscle in such a way that rivals Heath Ledger for the best villain performance of all time. Season one has it all: decent action, comedy, a love story you can root for, a pure-hearted protagonist, a revenge story, and an ending that satisfies the emotional arc of its characters while leaving us on an immense cliffhanger. Season one of The Boys is one of my favorite seasons of television ever, a 9.5 out of 10. Season Two While initially starting much slower than its predecessor, this season builds upon itself very well, leading to an explosive finale that perfectly knots any loose ends from the first two seasons. Season two introduces a new character, Stormfront, who is an excellent addition to the series as her relationship with Homelander compels further descent into madness. The best parts of this season are series highlights, and it houses some of the most intense and chilling Homelander moments. The characters continue to grow, and we get to see everyone fall into their roles more. When you start a series its your job within the first season to set up who each character is and why they are that way, but once you get to season two, you get to really play with these characters. We know all of the core characters, so now we get to see them interact with each other and watch their dynamics develop. Seeing Hughie and Butcher on a more equal playing field, constantly arguing over the morality of what they're doing, is a great development rather than the mentor/mentee dynamic they had in the first season. This season is funny, more action-packed, and a great part two that enhances season one’s story. That being said, it does have its faults, the first two or three episodes being a bit of a drag. They're necessary to set up the rest of the season, but I wish they had a little more going on. Also, for at least half of the season, Hughie is in a depression, which makes sense for the character but darkens the show as Hughie is the only unwavering light and the heart in The Boys. In the end, like I said, this season starts bleak but it picks up a lot with some amazing prizes that bring it to an a 8.5 out of 10 for me. Season Three This season is hyped up as the best of the series by most fans of the show, and while I'm inclined to disagree, it is still peak television. This season gives us a lot of good things like Hughie and Starlight finally together, the Introduction of Soldier Boy, and the infamous episode “Herogasm”. The majority of the most iconic moments in this series stem from this season, and for good reason. I love how this season explores Homelander as he grapples with being on his own. In both seasons one and two, he had a woman that he clung to and directed all his affection and attention towards, but as we see him deal with the loss of Stormfront, he begins to truly unravel. Homelander is at his best, or I suppose worst, in this season. He is utterly terrifying, and it seems like they laid out some scenes purely to show off Antony Starr's acting chops. Jensen Ackles as Soldier Boy is a great addition to the show. He is a constant flow of hilarious (yet very offensive) one-liners, and his interactions with Hughie and Butcher are great television. As opposed to the gloomy season two, season three feels the brightest to me. The Boys are employed by the government, so they have funding and (for the first time) aren’t hiding from the law, and that lends a sense of growth for them as a group. Hughie has my favorite arc this season, however, as he obsesses over saving Annie (Starlight). This results in a great feud between them that is resolved in an awesome moment during the season’s final battle. This show is really great at executing good action or shocking moments that also serve their characters on a really emotional level, and this season has some of the best examples. We also get the introduction of TEMP-V, which allows both Hughie and Butcher to temporarily gain superpowers. This is a great way to continue upping the stakes in a natural way and allow for these characters to get in more intense scenes without having to use plot armor to keep them alive. One of these intense scenes is a fight between Hughie, Soldier Boy, Butcher, and Homelander during the episode “Herogasm,” and it is definitely one of my favorite scenes in the entire series. It's so well choreographed and put together that it outshines almost any other fight scene in the show. Here lies the problem I have with this season: Episode 6 “Herogasm” feels like the peak of the season. It's a bizarre, wildly explicit episode that ends in this awesome action scene, and it completely outshines the actual finale, which left me disappointed closing out the season. Still, the battle between Homelander and Butcher gains an extra layer of complexity entering the finale as they now fight for Ryan's affection, and inserting that emotional backbone does add to the weight of the episode. So while this is not my favorite season of the show, it's close with a 9 out of 10. Season Four Similar to how season three seems to be universally loved, Four seems to be universally hated. Likely because it doesn't stack up to the quality of 3, and that harsh decline makes it seem worse than it actually is. This season makes a choice that works very well for some fans of the show, and alienates others. Season four loosens the reins on its commentary and centers the heart of the conflict around politics. I personally think this is a GENIUS move, and I love the way it is executed. But, I also understand the argument that some plotlines are too accurate, that it's no longer a fun escape. That all being said, we get some great moments this season, but they are fewer and farther between than in the past three. The concept of someone like Homelander dipping his toe into politics is a very frightening one, a pre-made propaganda machine. One of the characters that comes out of this plotline is Firecracker, who is a great addition to the cast and a smart foil to Starlight's character. However, what doesn't work is Butcher's season four storyline. Butcher is dying for a majority of this season and is hallucinating a past colleague of his that basically is the devil on his shoulder. So for the whole season, Butcher is just making increasingly poor decisions and is becoming harder to like. This really bothered me and felt like a disservice to his character, especially as it ends with him killing a mother in front of her daughter. There's just unnecessary tomfoolery in this season. Hughie being tricked by a shapeshifter version of Annie is one such example, but it resolves itself quickly to avoid bogging down the plot. I am a big fan of the way this season ends, with Hughie, MM, and Frenchie all being taken to a Homelander freedom camp, especially because it delivers one of the most gut-wrenching scenes for Kimiko. The ending montage of season four is another one of my top scenes from the whole show, and I was kicking my feet like a wee little superfan watching it for the first time. While this season has more negatives than any others, I do find myself really enjoying the political commentary and other aspects of the show, so it's still a 7 out of 10 for me. Season Five Season five of The Boys just ended this week, and with it, so did the entire series. A lot of people also seemed to have issues with Season 5, but I personally think the 21st-century fan hates how any good show ends. We saw it on the internet with Stranger Things, and now we're seeing it here. This season is a clear improvement from the 4th, while running with a lot of similar commentary. With Homelander and his goons now in positions of power within the government, we start the season in a country run to the tune of Homelander's every request. The people who don't follow him are put into camps and stripped of their freedoms. This is a chilling way to start the season, and it only gets worse from here as Homelander attempts to become a god. This feels like the natural final progression of his character. He starves increasingly for praise, so for him to want to be the literal center of a religion is the ultimate fix. All of the characters are well acted and written this season, including the issues with Butcher, which are completely resolved, leaving season four’s arc to seem even more useless. We also get more of Jensen Ackles as Soldier Boy this season, and while most of his plot lines are blatant backdoor pilots for the Soldier Boy prequel series, Vought Rising, he is still a very welcome addition, and his interactions with Homelander are captivating. This was the first season of the Boys I've been able to watch week to week, and I have really enjoyed being able to react to it as it comes out with the rest of the community. Waiting week to week has allowed for more tension to build and hype to grow in anticipation of how this show would end. One thing I love about this season is that it feels final. It isn't afraid to kill off characters; in fact, it leans into it, killing more than half of its core cast. It carries these values into the finale and gives us a final fight between Butcher and Homelander that will also go down as one of the best scenes in the show. Finally seeing one of the worst villains in all American media be taken down after years of evil is so satisfying, and for it to be done by the hands of Butcher, a man who has dedicated his life to killing Homelander, made it all the better. Further than that, though, my favorite scene in this whole season is the final confrontation between Hughie and Butcher. Since basically day one, Hughie was been established as Butcher's “canary”, the only person with a pure enough heart to hold him back and prevent him from taking things too far. Their entire relationship across five seasons perfectly culminates in this scene where, to stop Butcher from spreading the virus and massacring all supes, Hughie ends up killing him. It's the perfect cap to this show, one last punch to the gut before sending us off to the tune of “Piano Man” by Billy Joel. As the credits rolled, I found myself satisfied. Was it the perfect final season? No. There were some blatant issues, like prioritizing the setting up of Vought Rising and the chase for V1 that added little to nothing. However, The Boys gave us everything we needed from its finale and managed an 8 out of 10. I can confidently say that The Boys is my favorite superhero TV show. The characters are just so likeable, and the ability to break down America and its faults through the lens of superheroes and comic book characters is something I haven't seen before and probably won't see again for a very long time. Yes, this show can be overly gory, raunchy, and all around inappropriate. But it's a wild ride, which, when it comes down to it, is about hope and determination. The mantra of this show is that no matter how dark things get, no matter how many times we fall down, if we get back up together and fight for what's right, we will win. That's an important message for America and the world as a whole right now.

GOD DID NOT WANT THIS BY: Ian Sherry 9/19/22 DJ Khaled is one of the most polarizing figures in the music industry. His albums often read more like who's who in popular music than a regular old track list. His newest album God Did is no different. A music tycoon known for producing hits with established stars and dominating the billboard, DJ Khaled is a master of marketing if nothing else. He makes this clear in his newest album which has produced 10 songs that graced the billboard hot 100 including the 47 second intro from Drake. Big numbers and recognition on the billboard unfortunately don’t guarantee good music. In this case they certainly do not. DJ Khaled has a habit of ruining songs that had a real chance of being good with repetition and drawn out verses which he doesn’t bother getting trimmed. Perhaps it is because he relies so heavily on features and is hesitant to step into the other artists’ world. A reliance that is completely unnecessary by the way. It is possible to make a great album as a producer without overloading on features. Kenny Beats did so already this year with Louie, an album I highly recommend. Speaking of good beats DJ Khaled showcases his best one on the second track of the album. The title track “GOD DID” includes an interesting beat and a great verse from Rick Ross. Unfortunately, it also includes an extra thirty seconds of Jay Z which feels purely unnecessary. Perhaps the greatest torture on this song though, is the well executed feature from John Legend at the end. DJ Khaled didn’t stop there though. He also includes the track “KEEP GOING” which includes several decent verses from Lil Durk, 21 Savage, and Roddy Rich respectively. Unfortunately it also includes a repetitive beat that demands the same flow from all three rappers and by the time the third feature rolls around it is unbearable. These songs were close to being good, in a way that's sadder than a completely awful song because the potential is obvious. That being said, it only gets worse from here. There are plenty of songs on this album that aren’t worth listening to, in fact it's the majority, but there are also songs that are ludacris in general. The first is “USE THIS GOSPEL” which features Kanye West and Eminem. This song was released in 2019 on Kanye West’s hip hop gospel fusion album Jesus Is King, which received mixed reviews at best. Admittedly the original release of this song was excellent. It had a feature from one of the greatest rap duos of all time in Clipse and a sultry saxophone feature from Kenny G. This re-release is bad in comparison. It has a painful feature from Eminem and anyone listening, having heard the original, would be tempted to listen to the first one. The most annoying part is DJ Khaled had no hand in the original song, essentially defeating the reasoning for its new version. Kanye himself has released songs over beats he made for other artists following the original release, but at least he made the original beat. There is also a postmortem song from Juice WRLD called “Juice WRLD DID”. The entire song is Juice WRLD and it feels more like DJ Khaled flexing the fact that he has a song with the beloved SoundCloud sensation who passed away in 2019. Suffice to say there's a reason this song wasn't released while Juice was alive. The song is lyrically weak and the hook is repeated far too often because the verses themselves are short and lacking. If it weren’t for the tone of Juice’s voice it would be impossible to listen to. There are a few highlights on the album. There better be with this much talent. DJ Khaled has so many connections that he often slips into different styles of production within hip hop. “THESE STREETS KNOW MY NAME” is well executed even if it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. It has a beat that continually switches up and exciting features from Jamaican artists Bounty Killer, Skillibeng, Sizzla, Buju Banton, and Capleton. “IT AIN'T SAFE” is another good song. In this case he imitates the current southern rap style with hints of modern Detroit production. Nardo Whick and Kodak Black have solid features and the song glides as well as it can considering the style of production and lyrical flows that the pair of Florida rappers chose. “BEAUTIFUL” featuring Future and SZA and “BILLS PAID” featuring Latto and City Girls are probably the most palatable songs on the album. They don’t do anything groundbreaking but they are solid and I wouldn’t be surprised if they achieve the biggest streaming numbers in the long run. The first benefits from a smooth feature from Future and a perfect chorus from SZA. The second includes fun verses from Latto and City Girls over an upbeat soul sample from Eddie Kendricks. Overall this album is another bloated and overdone example of the pop rap DJ Khaled is able to reproduce every single time. Of course it has its high points, because of the sheer amount of talent, but it is ultimately dragged down by the repetition, ridiculous and cringy themes, and lack of musical creativity. I am sure it will make lots of money and be heard around the US for the next six months but it is important to separate the idea of commercial success from the essential resource that is good music. Someday I hope DJ Khaled can make this distinction. 1/10

GRAMMYS ON TRIAL 2/4/24 BY: IAN SHERRY On Sunday, February 4, 2023, the 66th annual Grammy Awards will take place at 8 pm. If you like good music, you may not like the Grammys. In fact, I’d tend towards the opinion that you absolutely should not. Anyone who’s ever watched the Grammys has experienced disappointment. They’ve experienced confusion as an artist strolls to the stage to accept the most prestigious award that applies to their mediocre product. That combination of disappointment and confusion leads to anger. Then, all of a sudden, music’s biggest night, the one that’s supposed to bring fans together nationwide, is steeped in division. Twitter lights up in outrage, TVs shut off, and people go to bed thinking next year will be better. People are mistaken, because in fact, the Grammys only get worse. Their archaic thought processes and categorizations grow weaker as music diversifies, and their failure to adjust in any significant way becomes increasingly offensive. Yet, they sit alone at the top of their critical field. If you’re interested, please join me down here as I throw rocks at the throne. One of the greatest criticisms of any institution is to say they’ve lost sight of their original purpose; the Grammy Awards are a perfect example. Elected officials often get lost in the game that is politics and begin to govern with the intention of securing reelection instead of serving the people. The Grammys have fallen into a similar trap. In order to maintain their unparalleled grip on the pinnacle of musical achievement, they feel they need to please an audience. Their word is final, yet if people are displeased their credibility comes into question. So, in order to maintain credibility and reserve the right to assert their opinion, they have to simultaneously appeal to the largest possible demographics while pacifying the frustration of undervalued fanbases. For this year’s attempt at saving face, Harvey Mason Jr., the CEO of The Recording Academy, added three sub-categories: best African music performance, best alternative jazz album, and best pop dance recording. While the surface-level intention here is good, it doesn’t make a dent. The Grammys' genre divisions can’t be fixed by adding niche awards here and there. If there is a category for Christian music why not other religions? If there is a category for Electronic music why does it only apply to the Euro/American EDM and hyperpop movements and not the majority-Black Techno and House movements of Detroit and Chicago? You’ll never get to the root of the problem by going one at a time. The result of their box-checking strategy is an uncomfortable and unbalanced relationship with not only the artists, but their audience as well. How is an audience supposed to accept the word of The Recording Academy as gospel when that word has been so obviously impacted by a variety of monetary influences and inherent biases? Criteria is the key word when it comes to exercises of this nature. An entity that is determining the best or worst of anything must have criteria in order to consistently deliver a decision. Discrepancies sew doubt into the minds of the audience, and I have many doubts running through my mind this year. Morgan Wallen is the newest rage in country music. In 2023 he was all over the charts, even holding the number one slot for 16 weeks with “Last Night” . His music dominated the country audience, but more impressively, he brought in non-country fans as well. I won’t pretend to count myself as one of them, but I do find it incredible that he will receive the same number of golden Grammy trophies as me this year (0). While his songwriters have a shot in the best country song category, Morgan Wallen himself is not nominated once. If the Grammys aren’t about the fans, at least not his, they must put more of an emphasis on critical success, right? Caroline Polachek must be nominated for album of the year. Wrong. Instead we sit in a weird in-between where popularity matters only within fanbases The Recording Academy values, where critical voices are used to defend certain artists’ inclusion but ignored to justify others. For instance, Ice Spice is nominated for Best New Artist, but not Sexyy Red . Both artists had massive presences on the rap charts and TikTok, planted their names amongst the top female rappers, made significant feature appearances, and received strong reviews from critics, yet only one is nominated. Sexyy Red is what we, in the tradition of complaining about the Grammys, call a snub. Yes, gathering around and complaining about the Grammys snubs is a tradition at this point. I’m sure The Recording Academy can feel this culture of negativity amongst their audience, though I’m not sure they care. As long as those angry people still tune in, what's the harm? A lot of work goes into crafting an audience such as this; we’re frustrated but we return without fail. They sell it and we buy it, and when there’s a dip in sales they find a way to pull us back in. In 2021 they charted by far the lowest viewership this century. The next year, they received praise from all corners of the entertainment industry when Jon Batiste won the 2022 album of the year. To follow that up, they put on a 50 years in hip-hop celebration last year, which received awards and resulted in a 30% spike in viewership from the previous year. So, how do they maintain an audience constantly threatening to wane? They lean into other demographics as needed. There is no 51 years in hip-hop celebration this year, in fact there’s no hip-hop nominated for any of the top three categories. Instead they sprinkled nominations in for Grammy darlings Kendrick Lamar and Jon Batiste , despite Lamar having a slow year in terms of production quantity and Batiste’s new album receiving lukewarm reviews across the board. This kind of token placement throughout the nominations is a common Grammy trope, and its used to justify Harry Styles’ Harry’s House winning over Beyonce’s Renaissance or Macklemore’s The Heist winning over Kendrick Lamar’s Good Kid, M.A.A.D. City (notice how they’ve been sure not to repeat this particular mistake). If you create the standard that a certain kind of music’s merit is limited, then its inclusion in any form is appreciated. Have you ever taken a moment to wonder why you never see hip-hop albums win Album of The Year? In fact, only two have ever done it. Is it fair to say that Lauryn Hill’s The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill and Outkast’s Speakerboxxx/The Love Below are the only two rap albums ever to sit at the top of their year, that even the best rap albums can’t, on average, stand up to the best of other genres, that rap is a lesser artform? No, that’s nonsense, yet that’s what the Grammys imply. The Grammys imply that Black music can be pigeonholed into one umbrella category, and somehow, that’s remained acceptable. In 2021 Black artists accounted for 44% of charting songs according to Billboard , yet a CNN article from the same year revealed only 24% of the nominees were Black. The vessel through which the Grammys bottle up Black artists is the Rap & Spoken Word Poetry category. While it's dangerous to assume an artist’s inclusion in a given category is based on anything other than merit, patterns imply intent not coincidence. Case and point: every single artist nominated in the R&B, Rap & Spoken Word Poetry this year is of African descent. Knowing that, it becomes a lot harder to remain under the impression the category has anything to do with music, not to mention the glaring differences in the art being presented within the category. However, the person who highlights this categorical foolishness the best isn’t even Black. Jelly Roll is a rapper and singer from Nashville. He spent more than a decade rapping, inspired by the Southern royalty rap of the 90s and 2000s. However, when he finally received his first Grammy nod it was in the Country & American Roots Music category. Just like there's no room for Lil Yachty in the Rock, Metal & Alternative Music category, there was no room for Jelly Roll in the Grammys definition of rap. After more than a decade, this was abundantly clear to him so he transitioned to a genre that fit his skin tone and accent in the highest critical context. That’s the kind of power these awards wield. They shape the landscape in which artists attempt to create music, and they enforce their racist mindset on the industry at large. That’s why Lil Nas X couldn’t release a pop/country song without backlash, Tyler, The Creator got his music pulled from the radio for practicing the same horrorcore rap that made Eminem famous, and Iggy Azalea climbed the charts by rapping in her best impersonation of a Black woman instead of her natural Australian accent. At the source of every institutional form of discrimination is an institution. In the music industry you can point to a number of villains, but none more public and pathetic than the Grammys. To The Recording Academy: allow me to remind you of your supposed purpose. You are the highest positive critical force in American Music. You have a responsibility to recognize the best of the best, based purely on merit, by creating categories which cover all types of excellent music and rewarding the best artist within that category. The purpose of categories is to ensure those who deserve to be recognized are accommodated, not to appease the fans, insert or cover your inherent bias, or reinforce the configuration of the pop charts. The pop charts, after all, speak for themselves. We don’t need you to base your decisions upon streaming numbers or radio listenership, Billboard exists for that very purpose. No, we turn to you because you are the all-encompassing, musically critical institution which best summarizes the feelings of the most reputable pundits and the people for whom the artists make art. You wield the power of public opinion, not the other way around. That power is unrivaled in the music industry, as streaming is the livelihood of the artists who you’re meant to empower. After all, their art is also a product. Instead, you’ve become the product. You sell yourself to the public every year. Everything you do, from the categories and the artists nominated within them, to the presenters and performers selected to put on your show, is all a part of the institution, the product, the lost cause: the Grammys. Of course, we can't completely abstain from the ceremonies. So, here's a list of the best amongst the nominees, who I think will win, and who should win regardless of the nominations for every category I feel inclined and qualified to pick.

Fool's Gold: Apollo's Debut Is Not By Ian Sherry 8/8/2025 On August 8, 2025, Lew Apollo released Fool’s Gold. This debut album is a celebration of individual creation within the blurred lines of this contemporary musical landscape. Lew Apollo was introduced and pitched to me as a “soul” artist. We take soul seriously here in Detroit, making such a label not only striking, but a direct challenge. An endless list of criteria scrolls Star Wars-style through my subconscious as my ears do the judging. In this case, “soul” is a precious label I cannot afford. Apollo’s self-produced pop sound is balanced, fresh, and on-par with industry standards, but it doesn't so much emulate the musical bones of soul music. In an effort to perfectly portray “Lew Apollo the artist,” a noun was used as an adjective: Lew Apollo is not a soul singer, but he is a singer with soul. In 2023, Apollo released JUNGLE . His debut EP had an interesting variety of pop-adjacent tracks, but I find its name to be its most relevant feature. Jungle, to most music fans, is a British band, whose poppy yacht-funk can drift towards modern (Indications-like) soul on any given track. Whether or not he did it intentionally, Apollo benefits from this namely intertwinement. His and Jungle’s likeminded approaches to bridging pop and aspects of disco or soul co-validate one another through quality and creative direction, and that’s evident from track 1. “No Room In Hell” is a prototypical result of this sound, and I’m here for it. The track’s bounce is enough to grab my ear, and the otherwise spacey instrumental is filled-in but secondary to Apollo’s well-engineered vocal editions. The following title track, “Fools Gold,” flexes the ability to easily rework the sound established in track 1. The gradual pace and slappy bass allow Apollo to meander his way into a dreamy vocal performance, floating on the verses no problem, into a catchy chorus with understated background vocal support, before making room as he often does on this record, with a humble but quality instrumental bridge. By this point, it was becoming clear to me that I was dealing with a legit composer. Lew Apollo has a thriving independence about him, from the persona outlined in his promo material, to the aesthetic he’s cultivated on socials and cover art. But, the kicker is that he produced this record himself. Many a genre-fence-sitter have thrived in the technological era of production. Think early Kanye West, Anderson .Paak producing Malibu on his Macbook, or Lew Apollo piecing together a chorus-bolstered, soul-appreciative third track of legitimate sonic scale… “Let The Light In” opens with a murky hook preview and some of Lew’s most striking lyrics thus far. After teasing the chorus, the track begins to pick up steam, bringing in more instrumental and background vocal support on the chorus’ second repetition, and continuing to find new gears through the track’s closing moments. Our tour’s next stop is track 7, “Addicted.” Talk about inspiration. Lew definitely went for a soul tune with modern juice on this reimagination of Bill Withers’ “Just The Two of Us.” Leaning respectfully-but-noticeably on that legendary 6-bar progression, Apollo drops in a heavy r&b track complete with an original spin on the hook’s bones, meaty bass dips, and a delicate bare-bones sonic atmosphere that he places himself at the center of. A win in my book. Now for the closer. Fool’s Gold’s ninth and final track was perfectly placed. Lew Apollo lays it all out there on “Feeling OK,” which stands head and shoulders above an already raw record in terms of vulnerability. Accompanied by only his guitar, Apollo limps his way through a relatable account of the challenges of day-to-day living. While the song doesn’t do a ton musically, his guitar is just enough to properly support him as he captures a feeling experienced by many through different but comparable experiences. He has one line specifically that he wanted us all to hear as his debut record came to a close: “if you can’t pick me up, then put me down.” I’m here to pick him up. Lew Apollo is an ambitious artist. A capable musical visionary. An independent well-rounded artist. And a soulful singer. Fool’s Gold is a 8.2.

Coverage Vol. 2 1/25/24 BY: IAN SHERRY I shouldn’t have done this one, it's too hard. One challenge of any cover is to maintain everything that makes the original great. This can be difficult considering you have to put your own twist on it and inject your own stylings, while attempting to replicate the personality and strengths of the original artist can interfere with that process. It’s a delicate balance, and that’s why covers are one of my favorite music industry phenomena. Today the point of emphasis is feel, and few artists benefit more from the feel of their music than T he Doors . Let’s talk about one of their best. Jim Morrison’s band charted its first #1 hit in 1967 with “Light My Fire” . It was clear from the very beginning of the legendary LA band’s discography that they had something sp ecial. Relying on keys and rolling guitars on top of steady drums, they were able to captivate a certain easily distinguishable sound, capable of bridging the gap between legendary groups like The Zombies and Grateful Dead . 1967 was a big year for music, with The Beatles changing direction on Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Band , Eric Burdon taking control of The Animals , and Motown and Frank Sinatra sharing the top of the charts. Perhaps most significantly, some of the most influential acts of the next decade began to emerge including Jimi Hendrix , Pink Floyd , The Velvet Underground , and of course, The Doors. The latter announced themselves in a historically and contemporarily unprecedented fashion. The 60s was a decade in which the average length of a hit song was just 2:59 , yet somehow, Jim Morrison and co. took over the number one slot with a song just over 7 minutes in length (and a decade later people thought “Bohemian Rhapsody” was long at 2 minutes above average). It was a new era in music, and The Doors arrived right on time. Naturally, other artists took notice. A hit song with its own feel, simple arrangement, instrumental solo, and a runtime waiting to be shortened, sounds like a challenge. Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a cover. Welcome to Coverage Vol. 2 Honorable Mentions Shirley Bas sey The Goldfinger Singer took the big band approach in her 1970 cover. While the vocal performance is strong and the band is impressive, it lacks the meticulous groove of the original and falls short of replicating or otherwise matching The Doors' signature feel. Stevie Wonder I’m stunned, dumbfounded, floored, flabbergasted to see Stevie Wonder sitting in the honorable mentions, but here we are. Stevie performs it like he does any other song of his late 60s era, and drops a harmonica solo in place of the original keyboard. To me, although he is the king of that instrument, it is too thin in comparison to the show of force by Ray Manzarek on the original. It’s as good as any other Stevie song from that time, and that’s a strong category, just not as strong as this particular competition I’ve thrust him into. Jackie Wilson While he supplied the most energetic vocal performance and perhaps the cleanest instrumentals, Wilson was overshadowed in other categories. The horn solo is great, but other forthcoming artists took an equally aggressive angle on the horns. On top of that, he misses the intended vibe of the song without inserting a formidable alternative. However, this is a fantastic rendition that narrowly missed out on a top four mention. You can’t go wrong on this list, I promise. NUMBER FOUR JOSé FELICIAN O On a list where cultivating your own feel is essential, Feliciano will always excel. I’d qualify his rendition as the anti-Doorsian approach. While his methodical delivery and gradual song structu re are most similar to the original, Feliciano conveys a level of warmth strong enough to rival that legendary Morrison brooding. That’s very hard to do. His performance is laid back for much of the song, as he paints it with nimble and complimentary play on his guitar. It is a pleasant invitation with just the right amount of emotion and an exciting freestyle finish. His choice to build performative energy more gradually than any other version of “Light My Fire” really reflects the message of the song. As his excitement and passion for the fire-lighter picks up the warmth and positivity is infectious, yet his original mellow vibe remains present. It's simple, but intentional, and perfectly executed. NUMBER THREE AL GREEN My favorite vocal performance on this list, Al Green’s swagger is undeniable. While you can argue amongst any of the covers yet to be named, he may have done the best job of making it h is own. Green’s legendary career is partially owed to his unwavering status as the smoothest vocalist around, but what makes his 19 71 record unique is its rough edges. Gets Next To You saw hits like “I Can’t Get Next To You” , “Tired of Being Alone” and “I’m a Ram” , all of which have sharp drums and horns. At times, Green doubles down on that ever-so-slightly abrasive sound by matching it with some of his raspiest performances ever, while still providing a healthy dose of his signature smoothness, to create an incredibly satisfying contrast. Sitting perfectly between upbeat blues and soul, it's my pick for the strongest album in his catalog, and he masterfully pulls “Light My Fire” into that fold. By speaking the first few lines, he opens a dialogue with his audience, pulls us in by delicately delivering the initial hook, and maintains total control as his intensity, volume, and confidence grow throughout the track. Once you’re hooked, Green doesn’t let you off the mat, but you wouldn’t want to get up anyway. NUMBER TWO The Doors The original “Light My Fire” is one of the greatest coming-out-parties in all of music. The Doors introduce themselves to the charts with un wavering pace, seven minutes of it. As I mentioned brie fly, the length was unprecedented, to say the least. So, in order to captiv ate this endurance deprived audience f or the entirety of their chart-topper, they had to do something special. I think the key to The Doors’ chart-topping accomplishment is the balance they struck. It pushed the envelope in more ways than length; a relentless keyboard solo and dynamic yet restrained vocal performance set it apart from its contemporary hits. It isn’t the best version but it h as by far the greatest le gacy. “Light My Fire” is one of the most important songs of its era, because it stretched a formulaic performance to its stylistic capacity and opened the charts up to the fast-moving, incredibly impactful, and ultimately self-destructive force of nature that was Jim Morrison. NUMBER ONE ETTA jAM ES Every other artist that covered “Light My Fire” avoided The Doors' murkiness in favor of their own sound and vibe. Their decisions are likely all based on the fact that beating a band like that at their own sonic game is risky to say the least. Etta James was not, could not have been, intimidated. So, she leads in with a heavy bass guitar that pushes the limit of the lower portion of the mix. To balance it out, she stays in the upper half of her vocal range, providing a clear and clean balance. The drums hold pace and the occasional guitar painted overtop fills out the sound. It’s simple and slow, like the original, but by cutting the instrumental solo, which every other artist attempted to replicate in some way, she brought it completely into her wheelhouse. Much like Aretha’s “Resp ect ” , her revision is hardly recognizable, and that is due to one crucial factor: Etta James herself. Yes, the instrumental adjustments are masterful, and cutting the solo does have an impact, but her vocal delivery is the biggest gamechanger. She pours every bit of swagger available into this song, much like Al Green, but her intentionally measured cadence shift makes a massive, albeit subtle, difference. She improvises her way through the song, delivering all of the written lyrics in quicker succession than the original. James’ slight alteration of every single line is largely responsible for over four minutes of difference, as she yanks the song back into contemporary song-length standards. The moral of the story: Etta James is untouchable, and if she covers your song, kiss it goodbye.

THE RUNNING MAN By Dawson Sarcona 11/15/2025 The Running Man, directed by Edgar Wright, is the latest in the boom of Stephen King adaptations from the past few years. That being said, this film immediately differs from its counterparts in one major way: This is not a horror movie. Regardless of how you know King’s writing, whether it's literary classics like Cujo, Salem's Lot, Carrie or big horror icons like IT or The Shining, King is known for creating truly terrifying stories. The Running Man, however, is different. This movie is a dystopian action story through and through. While it does include some intense and high-stress situations, the only “horror” that lies in this film is its disturbing resemblance to our current society. This film follows Ben Richards (played by Glen Powell) as he competes on a deadly gameshow that, if won, will result in him winning 1 billion dollars and securing a better life for his wife and daughter. The world this film builds is one of the more interesting put to screen this year. “The Network” (a literal TV network with a name devoid of creativity) owns the government and dictates the lives of everyone in the nation.Because of the way this world is set up, the message from Kings original novel stays relevant in 2025’s adaptation by Wright. The message is simple: the dangers of a world reliant on media and entertainment. Here is where King’s trademark “scariness” comes in. His depiction (aided massively by Edgar Wright’s film adaptation) of this parallel Earth is chilling because it’s not far off from our own. In a time where everyone is heavily reliant on their screens, the thought of a society where those screens watch back and keep tabs makes for a captivating watch. Moving away from the plot and broad strokes of King’s writing, Edgar Wright once again shows audiences why he's one of the most talented directors working right now. Wright has directed many cult classics (Shaun of the Dead and Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World, to name a few), but his status as a director otherwise seems to be underrated. Since I first saw his passion project film, Baby Driver, I've been a huge fan of Wright, and the talent he demonstrates filming compelling action in that film carries through in The Running Man. This movie is, action-packed by definition, full of fight scenes and stunts that rival some of the genre’s best films across the past year. Wright just knows how to properly direct a scene. Even in the moments with the least action, this movie maintains its momentum. In comparison to movies like Mission Impossible: the Final Reckoning, which left me bored from scene to scene, waiting for the next piece of action, this movie fully immerses its audience into the story. There was not a second during this movie that I felt bored or a scene lingered too long. If anything, there were some moments in the film where the pacing felt a little too fast. While it wasn't enough to take me out of the film, there were some moments I wish they’d spent a tad bit more time in. That said, for the most part, Wright uses his time in King’s world wonderfully and tells a wholly satisfying story. Wright isn't The Running Man’s only strength. Glen Powell delivers one of, if not his most compelling performances yet. There has been talk amongst the film/movie culture of Glen Powell taking up Tom Cruise's mantle as the next big action star. Before this film, I was impartial to this concept. But after seeing The Running Man, I can confidently say that he would be an excellent choice to succeed (and even surpass) Tom Cruise. Powell brings life to the character of Ben Richards and makes him very easy to root for, which is important for a movie like this. He balances the comedic range and physical demands of this role very well, and his on-screen interactions with most are very compelling. All in all, the only minor issue I see with this movie is some rushed pacing in the first act. I would rate this movie a 9 out of 10 , and would heavily recommend it to anyone looking for a fun and exciting theater experience. It’s Glen Powell at his best and further proof that Edgar Wright can direct a thrilling ride of an action movie!

Even More Gecs (10,000) BY: Ian Sherry 4/1 /23 On March 17, 2023, 100 Gecs released their sophomore album 10,000 Gecs. Following the release of their debut album 1,000 Gecs, the St. Louis native duo, Laura Les and Dylan Brady, has become one of the most polarizing and impactful groups of the last five years. Hyperpop is a genre born from a combination of internet culture, and the mistaken notion that music can’t progress beyond its current stylistic barriers. In many ways it is the Gen Z equivalent of the punk movement of the mid-70s that serves to demolish the assumption that there are no more musical worlds to conquer. The impact of 100 Gecs on their audience is immeasurable, and I suspect their influence will be felt more and more in the mainstream over decades to come because of their impact on the young, underground scene. Despite all of this, 100 Gecs has much to prove entering 2023. Like many of the albums I review, they face numerous questions, but, unlike other reviews, their questions include: Is this real music? Will they use real instruments? And most importantly, what is a gec? Because their first album often sounds like it was composed using a microwave, autotune, amber alerts, and a drum machine, these questions aren’t unreasonable. And while they don’t care much about answering anyone’s questions regarding stylistic choices, 100 Gecs did a good job of cementing themselves as the ambitiously creative musicians that their audience swears by. As a listener it’s easy to dismiss the chaos of 100 Gecs as accidental, but I can assure you it’s a choice. They have a plethora of influences which only became more obvious with this year's release. Being from St. Louis, midwest emo is a natural inspiration for them, but they do a great job of incorporating elements of punk, pop-punk, and ska on this record; and for a group that can be intentionally offensive to the ears on occasion, they incorporate their various influences tastefully and in different ways. For instance “Hollywood Baby” is a straightforward emo-pop song. They enter a genre which suffers from over-replication and put their own spin on it. It’s simple but enjoyable and it was received very well, making it a great choice for one of their leading singles. They also include “Billy Knows Jamie”, a grinding punk song with wailing guitars, a variety of equally intense vocal deliveries, and a death metal break (if death metal can be considered a break) at the end of the song. “Billy Knows Jamie” is a shift in mood and lyrical content as well as music and it showcases their ability to convey emotion even with their unconventional sound. One observation, if not critique, of their first album was their only two moods were ecstatic highs and lows that cried for help. Along with their music, the emotion infused in every song has become more diverse. “Dumbest Girl Alive”, the first song on the album, gives a taste of that emotion. It provides a window into the performer’s struggles with self worth and does so very matter-of-factly. “I'm smarter than I look, I'm the dumbest girl alive”. They aren’t asking for pity, they’re giving an honest assessment of their character, however concerning it may be. 100 Gecs not only makes music young people enjoy, they accurately represent a problem that many internet-era teens struggle with, and they do so on a catchy track. Maybe the catchiest track on the entire album is “Doritos & Fritos”. It is the first taste of the ska on the 2023 record, something they haven’t shown much before but are clearly comfortable executing. It has that signature upbeat baseline of the 90s genre along with verses that flow really well and choruses that are perfectly timed. The guitar solo bridge adds to an already enjoyable song by keeping the energy going while also providing a welcome pause in the vocal action. However, what makes this song great to me, is the attention to detail in the production. Their previous album certainly didn’t lack excitement, but it did fail to provide breathing room in a lot of the tracks. The mixes often blended together because of the countless minute soundbytes mashed into a beat. “Doritos & Fritos” does a great job of using lengthier instrumental clips and an added focus on layering within the mix, to create a really full sound while falling short of overwhelming the listener or spiraling into sonic disorder. This is encouraging as a fan because it shows not only an improvement in skill level, but a willingness to shift their style without conforming or losing their sound. In true 100 Gecs fashion, the most emotionally raw track is called “I Got My Tooth Removed”. It’s a silly fun little song that incorporates the best parts of “Dumbest Girl Alive” and “Doritos & Fritos”, with both masked and forefront emotions to go with an upbeat experimental ska sound. It starts with an emotional, instrumentally stripped down, vocal intro that establishes the conflict (tooth removal) before jumping into the loud ska jam. The pace is fantastic, and once again, their variety of vocal deliveries are essential, along with the horns of the chorus that keep it moving along without becoming repetitive. However, what I like most is the tooth removal narrative. It is a metaphor for the inevitable end to a toxic relationship and they don’t try to hide it. Their choice to design the song how they did reflects the attitude of someone who is hinting at something heavy, but choosing to bury it in favor of positivity. The metaphor is present throughout the song but 100 Gecs' rarely emphasizes their lyrics or vocals, so the narrative can be easily ignored, and that is exactly what they want. 10,000 Gecs is a definite improvement. Despite the success of their debut, they had lots to work on, and that’s what they did. They improved their vocal skill and diversified their deliveries. They employed more airy, smooth production and layering, which made for more palatable sonic highpoints. Their songwriting vastly improved. And, they spread their influences and inspirations over the course of entire songs, instead of a matter of seconds. 100 Gecs, as pioneers of a young genre in need of refining, had a lot of responsibility to deliver in 2023, and even with “Frog On The Floor” (a straight up dumb song) they did. And for those concerned they may have changed too much, allow me to point you in the direction of “757”, “One Million Dollars”, and “mememe”. If it’s not for you that’s understandable, but Gecs will always be Gecs, don’t worry. There’s still room for improvement, and when stacked up against other big-time releases their lack of seriousness on some tracks can hold them back. But their ceiling is higher than they get credit for and I think they proved that this year. 10,000 Gecs is a 7.75/10.

WALK WITH ME V 1/18/2024 BY: IAN SHERRY Smiles aren’t worth a thing anymore. Aretha Franklin holds many titles and distinctions, the Queen of Soul, Rolling Stone’s greatest vocalist of all time , and the best funeral featuring an Ariana Grande performance - to name a few. She grew from the shockingly powerful youth vocalist in her father’s church choir to the voice of the world’s foremost musical city, and she built a career steeped with superlatives along the way. June 10, 2017. My dad and I hop on our bikes and take a ride into the heart of Downtown Detroit to see Aretha Franklin. The Queen of Soul’s hot summer performance was free to the public and it attracted the perfect crowd. Lifelong fans from around the metro area poured in. As my dad led me through the crowd looking for familiar faces, which he correctly assumed was inevitable, there was a buzz I haven’t felt in any setting or any form since that day. I was young, which placed me in the minority (in more ways than one). Aretha’s audience mirrored herself. It was the generation that had to choose whether or not they’d flee when the city fell on rough times, and whose choice to stay was rewarded with a musical movement unparalleled in its time. As I rode up, chained my bike to a lightpost, and followed my dad into that crowd, I stepped into Motown. In that moment, ‘Motown’ became much more than the legendary record label or a nickname for the city I’d spent my whole life in. Motown is a people, and just as that understanding began to sink in, The Queen took the stage. Suffice to say, even at her age, she was still Aretha. Covering hits from all corners of her catalog with the help of a masterfully curated cast of supporting performers, she gave the crowd more than our money’s worth. One year, two months, and six days later, she was gone. Lumped into one massive and incredibly significant memory, I’ll never forget walking through my neighborhood after Aretha’s passing. As my family and I walked to dinner, her voice and music poured out of houses on every block. Listening to the neighborhood’s memorial serenade, I kept thinking back to that concert. Though it felt like just days before, with The Queen of Soul at rest, it had fully sunken in, to a level that can’t be easily smoothed over with time. Now, whenever I listen to the Aretha Franklin songs that live in the air of my childhood memories, the first thing that comes to mind, fills my chest, is that final loveletter she sang to her city on that summer day. It’s a difficult pill to swallow. Like any other member of that 2017 summer concert crowd, I am very familiar with Aretha’s work from the 50s through the 70s as well as her commercial resurgences in ‘85 and ‘98 . In that time she covered all the bases. Regarding emotions, she took her audience through it all: the anger and sadness of a breakup, the longing of romantic loneliness, the fatigued satisfaction of finally finding the right one, catching a break. She speaks to friends, lovers, exes, you, me, and nobody in particular. An untouchable songwriter, performer, and short-form storyteller, walking in stride with The Queen is a privilege that any member of her audience can experience. But there is one emotion, one mode, that she seldom lets show: pure unbridled joy. Now, as my dad aptly pointed out in a brief discussion of this article, 'she’s pretty fired up on “Doctor Feelgood.” ' A great point that I nudge to the side for two reasons. 1, With a discography as vast as Aretha’s, you're bound to stumble across almost any mood. 2, I hope you can imagine, I bear a fairly hefty weight each time I listen to the songs I was raised on, including “Dr. Feelgood”, which may well have played on the way to the concert that morning or as we strolled through the neighborhood a year later. So to the fault of nobody but myself, in order to share a purely joyful, burden-free moment with Aretha Franklin, I needed something new. Luckily, about a year ago, I stumbled upon a record that I’m sure did not play on those summer days in 2017/18, a record that finally flipped my emotional script when listening to The Queen of Soul: So Damn Happy . In 2003, admittedly after her final return to commercial / critical relevance, Aretha released So Damn Happy . The record did not gain any critical traction, which is understandable considering that stage of her career, however it's the cited reasoning I take issue with. In their brief but harsh, paragraph-long review, Rolling Stone gave props to the efforts of Mary J Blige on the production, but ultimately thrust Aretha’s 2003 effort aside because the vocals were ‘shrill’. They claimed the vocalist, who they declared the greatest singer of all time two decades later, didn’t belong on the 2000s contemporary r&b instrumentals. Why is that? I have a theory. The music critic community, into which I seem to have injected myself, has an unspoken responsibility to conform to fairly uniform taste. Meaning, even if a given writer’s individual taste doesn’t align with what is widely considered high quality work, there is pressure to recognize its merit. This year's best example of this tendency is the critical acclaim afforded to Sexyy Red . The newest culturally dominant female rapper, her style is unapologetic, and to me, unappealing. I am certain that I’m not alone in this opinion, however taking an anti-Sexyy stance at this point in her career is risky to say the least. Blowback could take any number of forms, including accusations of gender-based disrespect and being disregarded as someone who simply isn’t up with the times. (So if you’ll allow me to cover myself briefly), Sexyy Red is one of the most talented artists we’ve seen in generations; she is the future, no doubt. The reason for my digression is simply to highlight the fact that coordination is important, from sharing opinions on a given album to the validation of the most common musical tropes. Artists like Phoebe Bridgers have built a career on their ability to elevate their easily approachable sound with heavily emotional writing and performances. Bridgers could easily sit in the mainstream of pop like Taylor Swift , but she sets herself to the side through her complete commitment to all things melancholy. In doing so, she limits, or rather, concentrates her audience, creating a distinct although not overly unique sound, and placing herself in the favor of critics everywhere. It’s the same factor that elevates artists like Big Thief or Jeff Buckley who dip into the sad sack and happen to be some of my favorites. Effectively conveying emotion through music is an achievement critics recognize across the board, however, they seem to disregard one key emotion: Joy. This brings me back to Aretha. For my money, there is no song in her entire discography more joyful than “Wonderful,” from So Damn Happy . After years and years of listening to The Queen battle through heartbreak and romantic confusion, there’s nothing more refreshing than experiencing a new thing, a good thing, by her side. She brings us into “Wonderful” with a bouncy and simple instrumental highlighted by flourishes on the keyboard. As strong a singer as ever, she rips through verses with her own flare, pace, and attitude, leading her backup singers through the sing-along-worthy chorus. As the energy builds throughout the song, Aretha begins to riff more on the microphone until the emotional climax in which her excitement takes control and transforms into joyful, nimble scatting. The entirety of So Damn Happy dabbles in a lot of musical and emotional elements, which may be largely responsible for its low profile, but “Wonderful” puts them together more effectively than any other song on her 2003 record. It's a simple yet perfectly executed step outside her wheelhouse, which is something that is critically celebrated in nearly any other scenario. So why haven’t you heard of it? Why is the song that makes me happier than any other not championed by critics the way they do Big Thief’s “Change” or Jeff Buckley’s “The Sky Is A Landfill?” Why is the nagging sadness I feel when listening to the music I associate with that final concert valued more than the joy I feel at the hands of my new discovery? Why is it that pulling your audience up into your state of happiness isn’t as critically significant as dragging them into your misery. Is it an industry trend? Is it the assumption that suffering is more relatable to the masses? Is it the widespread use of music as a coping mechanism for the streaming generation? Is it a societal obsession with hardship and misery? Don’t ask me, I love being happy. Listen to “Wonderful” if you do too.