THE ODYSSEY 8/5/2026 - Dawson Sarcona - Ian Thomas Sherry The following is a transcribed and edited conversation between CG reviewers Ian and Dawson about Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey DAWSON: Just starting off, Ian, I know you've read The Odyssey before. Were you a fan of the casting and the performances? Do you think they kind of held up to Homer’s version? IAN: Yeah, well, starting with the story. First of all, you had to tell me the bard was Travis Scott, but I thought that was fantastic, the way that they included that, 'cause that's the way it was told for so long. They hit all the points, obviously. And I thought that the plot moved along pretty well for such a long thing to adapt. You know, I just watched O Brother, Where Art Thou. It's so loose to call it an adaptation of the Odyssey - I mean, I get it's a comedy, but this (Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey) is right on point and moves along. And yeah, with the casting, I had some favorites for sure, but I'm gonna kick that back to you. Were there any favorite castings or performances for you? DAWSON: I mean, there's a lot of performances getting gassed up from this movie, and I feel like rightfully so. Anne Hathaway did a really good job (as Penelope). And I like the direction Nolan took her character too. But my favorite, and this is the basic answer, 'cause it's the main character, I really like Matt Damon's performance. Really enjoyed just the energy he brought to it. I've seen him in a lot of other action movies like the Jason Bourne films, and they're really boring to me, so this kind of solidified to me like - oh, he actually knows how to do this stuff, because I found his performance very captivating and I like the complexity that he brought to the character. Though Nolan has a bit of… I wouldn't say an issue, but he does this thing with all his characters where he kind of.. makes them extremely noble and tries to make them the most, you know, complex ‘I'm gonna take accountability for everything’ characters. When from what I've heard, in the original Odyssey Odysseus is kind of just like a trickster and is kind of a little bit just like… IAN: -He’s not so apologetic.- DAWSON: Yeah, so I think that that was a good change and I think that Damon portrayed that well. And I also really thought Robert Pattinson shined in his role. I would have liked to see more of his character just being a douchebag because he was good at it. IAN: He is. I went with my sister, and she was raving about how good he was as a villain. And yeah, I totally agree. And like Dawson said, Anne Hathaway was great; she was strong in her performance, you know, that's important in this day and age… So what did you think of Tom Holland’s Telemicus? DAWSON: So, Tom Holland was... Well, he didn't have a bad performance by any means, but I would like to see that they gave him more to do. I am a fan of him as an actor, and I feel like - I say this wearing a Spider-Man hoodie, but I still think No Way Home was one of his best performances, and I would have loved to see him allowed to bring that emotion in this movie. It just wasn't necessary for the character, so like I get it, but it (the performance) was kind of middle of the road for me. IAN: I think part of that is the character, like he's limited; he never even gets to step into the throne room in any aspect, leadership-wise, and his main function in this film was to move the plot along with the cutting back and forth. And I thought that was pretty easy to understand, given I already knew the story, but still it flowed pretty well, so I thought he did well. I enjoyed his performance. DAWSON: We’re there any castings that were distracting for you? IAN: Charlize Theron as Calypso, that was a little strange. Only because I didn't feel like it was well enough introduced, but that situation was eventually explained. It's supposed to be mysterious to an extent, but I also don't know how accurate it is, her living washed up on the beach. That's not how I interpreted reading it. - What about yourself? DAWSON: Yeah, I can agree with that. She just kind of felt like an empty character, just kind of a plot device. And I know that she has more acting chops in her, so maybe it's just more of a writing issue. But yeah, her and Benny Safdie, as Agamemnon, I felt very like he stood out most specifically, probably. With the helmet off, he just kind of gives off, for lack of a better term, dorky energy. IAN: He did. DAWSON: - They spent so many of his shots in the movie, framing him as, like, very imposing and cinematic and a guy that you don't want to mess with. Then like, they have Odysseus speak to him, and he's very soft-spoken and kind of friendly with Odysseus, which I’m not sure if that's how it was in the book, but I would assume that maybe it was not. IAN: I would have expected the character to be, furious, you know, and to have some sort of facial wound from being killed - a crazed warlord that sacrificed so much, and was caught up in his own home, I think, he would probably be more bitter and angry. But we're kind of splitting hairs here, I think, overall, that (oracle scene) was pretty great. DAWSON: This is probably his (Nolan’s) biggest accomplishment. I mean, I think that's fair to say. It's the first movie ever filmed completely on IMAX, which means it was also filmed completely on film, like traditional film, which is not something you see a lot nowadays. And watching it, seeing all the love and care put into it; it's just very clear. Especially when it comes to the practical stuff that they do with the Cersei scene in the pig transformation and in the Cyclops stuff. For perspective, there was a guy in full Cyclops makeup, and then for other scenes they had a full 60-foot Cyclops puppet that they built for the characters to interact with. So it’s stuff like that could have just been blue-screened and CGI-ed, but instead they took the time and really actually made it to the best they could, that is a testament to how much not only Christopher Nolan cares about movies, but how important that stuff still is to making a great movie - and you can really tell when you're in that theater, especially the IMAX theater. IAN: I thought the way that the Cyclops moved was really awesome; it was otherworldly, and it made the whole scene a lot better. That's one of the more famous scenes I was wondering how they were gonna execute it, what it was gonna look like, you know, and it was like a mutant child type-thing, which makes perfect sense because I believe it's a giant and Poseidon’s offspring, so it was pretty wild, and it was the same with Cersei. They could have had her wave a wand and poof them (Odysseus’ men) into pigs, and nobody would have batted an eye, but the idea to kind of go the horror direction, that ended up being one of the more memorable scenes in the whole film to me. DAWSON: I learned the other day that Ithaca, the island that they used for that, is a real island and that's a real castle, and they got permission to film there, but they weren't allowed to build anything, so like they couldn't build a road to get their film supplies up there. So they had to literally airlift and then, by hand, carry like thousands of dollars of equipment up this hill every day to film there. And I think that's just another cool example of the people who worked on this movie really putting in the effort, and I think it shows in volumes when you see it. IAN: This is interesting because it looks really genuine, the castle, and it looks pretty untouched and like weathered. I also thought the plucking of the bow- that was a great moment. They planted that seed early on, and it was pretty cinematic when it did it in the end, so I thought that was pretty cool, and I'm not sure I remember that from the book; I think the book is moreso about being able to execute the challenge, just stringing it and shooting, so I think that was pretty cool. DAWSON: Yeah, and I noticed a few things about that on my rewatch too of like how much that is woven into the story, and it's stealthily. There's a lot of stuff, Nolanisms, just a lot of really interesting details that are just sprinkled in there. Like, for example, a few that I can remember are: there's a song on the score called "Sirens," and it's the song that plays when Odysseus hears the sirens' song, and he's strapped to the, you know, pull in the ship and is listening to it. - IAN: - And it's at the same time; it's just the song on the score that we hear while he's listening to them. - DAWSON: - Right, yes, exactly, thank you. But that song is titled that, but it's technically like him and Penelope's theme in the movie because the only other times we hear it are when he and his wife are together. And so when he talks about the siren song being like “a song of like everything you've ever wanted and everything you ever wanted was something you had and lost,” I think that's just a really cool way to musically tie it into, like, when he hears that song, he's hearing something about Penelope and Telemicus. And going back to Telemicus, another thing is, any time they are viewing his flashbacks of his family, Telemicus is not facing the camera. It shows like a kid facing away from the camera, which is something Nolan does in like all of his movies. IAN: Now I'd like to get to my last big question if you don't have anything else. DAWSON: No, I don't think I have anything else. IAN: So The Culture Gyre is based on a concept, the gyre, which is a shape. Imagine two funnels facing into each other so at one end you would have an open circle and then a point in the center which would be the point of the other funnel going the opposite direction; would you consider this movie to be closer to “the point,” the thing that everybody in film is driving at, or would you say it's pushing an edge in the grand scheme of the film? DAWSON: I think it's interesting with Nolan because he is something - he's someone that all filmmakers kind of strive to be like; he is kind of anointed, almost anointed himself as like filmmaker royalty because he is, I believe, the president of the filmmakers' guild. So a lot of people, they kind of view him as like the one above all, and to be honest with you, he still has duds, he still has movies that fall through, so going into this movie I was excited, but I was not 100% certain, kind of like you are saying. I think the concept for this movie is kind of on that outer circle; it's something that you know a lot of people can do, and a lot of people have made adaptations of the Odyssey, right, and it's a general idea a lot of people have, but it's not necessarily always executed properly. There are so many ways that it can be done, and I think what's great about Nolan is he can kind of bring it into that inner focal point, like that thing that everyone's striving towards, because of the way he's able to direct things. And I think a lot of this comes down to the people going to the movies now who are so much more invested in cinema. I think just because of the nature of social media and how it's heightened everybody's opinions on things you're either going to the movie because you love this movie or you hate this movie, right? Like, there's rarely ever an instance now where someone's like ‘I have no thoughts on this’ and that's compounded by social media with people sharing those opinions. So he's kind of being built up and built up, and I think the fact that Nolan keeps pushing forward shows he's not the type of person who's building up this reputation for himself and just kind of going with the flow. He hasn't plateaued yet. He keeps pushing the bar farther for himself, and you don’t know what his next movie is going to be or when it's going to be, but he's been pushing out movies every three years. Which is a crazy production turnaround, especially considering the scale of stuff he's making. So my long-winded answer to your question is, yes, I think that this movie, especially in Nolan's way of approaching film, is pushing for the center of the gyre. I think the future of film has to be like this; it has to be more people who care, people who are doing things practically and who are trying new things with reliable stories, even if just because there's only so many stories that can be told. I would say the same about Obsession this year by Curry Barker, right? The one wish willow. The monkey paw- that is a story that has been told countless times by countless people, but he sat down, and he found a way to make it fresh, and he put a lot of love and practicality into it, and it was probably the second biggest movie of the year so far in terms of box office success. So yeah, I think right now the future of film, the focal point from that poem is this notion of bringing more originality to movies, and we need to do it out of love and care and not for the purpose of making money for a studio. And it's in the details, but careful detail. IAN: I agree. DAWSON: Yeah, and you know, obviously studios care about money, but I think people - I think studios right now are kind of finding that if they prioritize originality, it benefits them more in the long term.

GRAMMYS: IDEALIZED BY: Ian Sherry 2/3/2023 On February 5 the 65th annual Grammys will be held in Los Angeles. As usual it's no surprise that this year's Grammy nominations have been somewhat controversial. When evaluating an incredibly broad field such as an entire genre of music, narrowing candidates down can be difficult, however, they always manage to do worse than I expected. This year’s disturbing choices include the nomination of the song “abcdefu” by Gayle – a TikTok song that I used to be happily unaware of – as well as DJ Khaled’s bloated and overplayed album God Did, Jack Harlowe’s bland attempt at a reflective album, and a whole plethora of baffling exclusions. Now it's time to make up for their incompetence and soothe the frustrations of the die-hard music fan. I picked the most worthy artist from each category, and then I picked the artist I believe should win regardless of whether or not they were nominated. I am sharing my rationale for the four most prominent awards and providing listings for any remaining categories I feel qualified to pick. I am primarily selecting who I think is deserving to win, but I’ve included predictions as well. Enjoy. Record of The Year I will admit, right out of the gate, this is the hardest category to pick. The difference between song of the year and record of the year is that SOTY is more focused on songwriting and message, while ROTY is evaluated purely on the musical composition. This makes for an extremely broad category, so I am not upset by the ROTY nominations. My selection from the Grammy nominees would be Beyonce’s “BREAK MY SOUL”. It is an upbeat genre crossover powered by the incredible talent that is Beyonce, and it deserves the praise it receives. My personal selection is “born yesterday” by Quadeca. His 2022 album I Didn’t Mean To Haunt You is a favorite of mine and this song encapsulates the emotion and musical metamorphosis showcased throughout this landmark release. Either way you can’t go wrong, and in a strong musical year like this, you shouldn’t. Best Of The Nominees: “Good Morning Gorgeous” - Mary J Blige My Pick: “Born Yesterday” - Quadeca Prediction: “BREAK MY SOUL” - Beyonce Album of The Year I think there is a clear issue when none of the AOTY nominees delivered the best album in their given discographies. The only new album you could argue for is Beyonce’s RENAISSANCE. So, Beyonce is 2/2 to start. However, as much as I loved this album, it is not my choice for album of the year. While RENAISSANCE has many great tracks, some stick out in a bad way. By contrast, Wet Leg by Wet Leg is an album with no weak songs. This British duo took the Indie music scene by storm in early 2022, and for good reason. Their debut project is a masterclass in consistency, creativity, swagger, and sonic flexibility. I could go on and on about what makes Wet Leg great, but what’s more impressive, is I can’t come up with a reason they aren’t. This is the album of the year and if you haven’t heard it yet you need to. Best Of The Nominees: RENAISSANCE - Beyonce My Pick: Wet Leg - Wet Leg Prediction: RENAISSANCE - Beyonce Song of The Year The Grammys made it easy on me here. In a category that leans towards the songwriter, Kendrick Lamar is always a great candidate. His song “The Heart Part 5” sent a major message to his fanbase and the industry as a whole. He seamlessly addresses many societal issues which he considers fundamental and he does so in a concise fashion accompanied by a powerful music video. Fittingly, he samples Marvin Gaye, one of the greatest voices of commentary in our country’s long cultural history. The way Kendrick has performed over the last decade, I believe it's his time to enter that conversation as well, and a well-deserved win this year would only add to his recognition and multifaceted influence. Best Of The Nominees: “The Heart Part 5” - Kendrick Lamar My Pick: “The Heart Part 5” - Kendrick Lamar Prediction: “The Heart Part 5” - Kendrick Lamar Best New Artist To me there is a clear winner here. Wet Leg is Grammy-nominated and any other pick feels ludicrous to me. My one note is this: they will not pick Wet Leg. The clear trend in this category is selecting the most popular, mainstream, semi-new pop/hip hop artist available. There are plenty of well deserving artists that have lost or been fully excluded from nominations. Just in the last ten years, all of the following artists lost: Frank Ocean, Kendrick Lamar, James Blake, Anderson .Paak, Lil Uzi Vert, SZA, Greta Van Fleet, H.E.R., Black Pumas, Rosalia, Phoebe Bridgers, Kaytranada, and Baby Keem. And, those are just the artists that were nominated. To be fair it's an incredibly broad category, but the trend clearly points to this year's winner: Latto. Oh well. Best Of The Nominees: Wet Leg My Pick: Wet Leg Prediction: Latto If I haven’t lowered expectations too much, please enjoy this year's Grammys, and the following categories I have selected. POP Best Pop Solo Performance Best Of The Nomi nees: “About Damn Time” - Lizzo My Pick: “Sunshine” - Steve Lacy Prediction: “As It Was” - Harry Styles Best Pop Vocal Album Best Of The Nominees: 30 - Adele My Pick: MOTOMAMI - Rosalia Prediction: 30 - Adele DANCE/ELECTRONIC Best Dance/Electronic Recording Best Of The Nominees: “BREAK MY SOUL” - Beyonce My Pick: “BREAK MY SOUL” - Beyonce Prediction: “BREAK MY SOUL” - Beyonce Best Dance/Electronic Music Album Best Of The Nominees: RENAISSANCE - Beyonce My Pick: RENAISSANCE - Beyonce Prediction: RENAISSANCE - Beyonce ROCK Best Rock Performance Best Of The Nominees: “Wild Child” - The Black Keys My Pick: “Taking Me Back” - Jack White Prediction: “Broken Horses” - Brandi Carlile Best Rock Album Best Of The Nominees: Lucifer On The Sofa - Spoon My Pick: Lucifer On The Sofa - Spoon Prediction: Lucifer On The Sofa - Spoon ALTERNATIVE Best Alternative Music Performance Best Of The Nominees: “Certainty” - Big Thief My Pick: “Certainty” - Big Thief Prediction: “Certainty” - Big Thief Best Alternative Music Album Best Of The Nominees: Wet Leg - Wet Leg My Pick: Wet Leg - Wet Leg Prediction: Fossora - Bjork R&B Best R&B Performance Best Of The Nominees: “VIRGO’S GROOVE” - Beyonce My Pick: “VIRGO’S GROOVE” - Beyonce Prediction: “Here With Me” - Mary J Blige Best R&B Album Best Of The Nominees: Candydrip - Lucky Daye My Pick: age/sex/location - Ari Lennox Prediction: Good Morning Gorgeous - Mary J Blige RAP Best Rap Performance Best Of The Nominees: “The Heart Part 5” - Kendrick Lamar My Pick: “Walkin” - Denzel Curry Prediction: “The Heart Part 5” - Kendrick Lamar Best Rap Album Best Of The Nominees: It's Almost Dry - Pusha T My Pick: It's Almost Dry - Pusha T Prediction: Come Home The Kids Miss You - Jack Harlow

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nicki Minaj, Again 12/22/23 BY: IAN SHERRY On December 8, 2023, Nicki Minaj released her first album in 5 years: Pi nk Friday 2 . Nicki Minaj embodies a unique position in today’s music landscape as one of the most simultaneously overplayed and underrated artists of all time. Like her pal Drake, her popularity often overshadows her technical ability, and her sound. Both artists are dismissed as one-dimensional based on the portion of their work that hits the charts. This is understandable, considering both artists produce stylistically unattractive moments on almost every album. However, if you really dig into Drake, you’d hear a decent rapper. Not my favorite by any means, but decent. Similarly, but to the extreme, if you really dig into Nicki Minaj, you’d hear one of the most skilled rappers of all time. Her influence on rap as an industry is immeasurable. From her mainstream sexual branding to her marketing and release strategies, to her pure skill and style on the microphone, she sets the standard for any rapper wishing to straddle the lines of hip-hop and pop. Minaj, in my book, is the undisputed queen of rap. This year, she was tasked with expanding her legacy after years away. Nicki Minaj, as good as she is, has never been the strongest at crafting a well-executed, complete album. This holds her back from certain elite conversations. Her flows and bars are consistently elite, but her thematic focus and song curation occasionally fall short. This isn’t to say she hasn’t made good albums, in fact she has some classics. But their status benefits greatly from their chart-topping hits and far-reaching influence. Even if they weren’t perfectly crafted masterpieces, Pink Friday , The Pinkprint , and Queen defined their respective eras of mainstream rap and have aged gracefully due to Minaj’s looming presence and unshakeable relevance. However, until the recent release of Pink Friday 2 , Nicki Minaj hadn’t made an album since 2018, raising the question: can she deliver in a culturally significant way? Although Minaj is still relevant, five years removed, she’s a clear notch below her prime popularity. Mainstream rap is heavily reliant on being in style, and she hasn’t been this far on the outside since she secured a feature on Kanye West’s “Monster”. That was in 2010, this is 2023. The Samples Danny Brown revealed sometime in the last 10 years (time flies when you can’t find the date of the video) that when constructing his critically acclaimed album Atrocity Exhibition , he expended so much of his production budget on securing the rights to samples, prior to rollout and other post-production expenses, that he initially lost money on the album. An up-and-comer at the time, Brown’s inexperience with fiscal management and industry norms, coupled with his enthusiasm for the music, led to him being broke when his 2016 record was released, and consequently, he stayed in the red for the years that followed. While I’m certain Nicki Minaj wasn’t scrolling through Danny Brown content on Instagram, she seems to be very aware of her capacity for luxurious samples. She lets you know immediately with “Are You Gone Already” , which samples Billie Eilish’s “when the party's over” . Off the top of my partially focused head, I can’t think of any other song that samples a song that charted so recently. If you read the Genius annotation, this is pitched as a collaboration between Eilish, Minaj, and FINNEAS, but in reality it’s a remix of the pop hit with a partial lyrical alignment between the rap verses and sampled refrain that sets the tone. Meanwhile on “Pin k Friday Girls” and “Super Freaky Girl,” Minaj attempts to assemble poppy anthems around “Girls Just Want To Have Fun” and “Super Freak,” respectively. A common criticism of rap, uttered by many including Prince, is that sampling is a way to construct your ‘music’ entirely around someone else’s work. This implies that a rapper jumps in the studio and begins vocalizing over a slightly restructured version of someone else’s original. Anyone who’s listened to intricate sample-work, (check out The Alchemist), would understand this is an inaccurate, outmoded take. And now you’ll have to brace yourself for an immediate contradiction. On all three of the aforementioned songs, Minaj only makes slight alterations to the original song, cutting verses and adding drums and bass. She even lazily chipmunks Blondie’s “Heart of G lass” f or the chorus of “My Life” . The basic repackaging of all these former hits allows Nicki Minaj to lay down different personas over a canvas that was painted for her. This is a fine strategy on paper, but so is fouling Shaquille O’Neil every time he touches the ball. It’s just not what we’re here for. Danny Brown didn’t have the money to spend, but he spent it anyway on creative sample selection, which he wove into one of the most unique individual album soundscapes in hip-hop history. So after five years away, Nicki Minaj had plenty of money to spend, and she chose to spend it on a random shuffle of chart-topping hits. The Flows Switching to the positive, Nicki Minaj has one of the most multifaceted vocal delivery skillsets of all time. She can rap in a variety of speeds, moods, even accents. At this stage in her career, sustaining an elite level of vocal expertise is easier said than done. Legendary rappers like Eminem or Q Tip, for example, have been rendered vocally unimpressive in recent years. In other words, it’s possible to age out of your flows. Minaj hasn’t. Pink Friday 2 ’s second track, “ Barbie Dangerous,” comes out firing as the jumping-off point of the album. She works with pace and precision, setting a high standard that she maintains for the majority of the album. Whether it’s going bar-for-bar with J Cole (he’s on a tear) on “Let Me Calm Down,” embracing Lil Uzi Vert’s 2023 sound on “Everybody,” bringing in the island sound on “Forward From Trini,” or parading her early-career princess persona on “Pink Friday Girls,” Minaj delivers on expert rap performance after another. That kind of versatility is invaluable. It often allows Minaj to act as her own feature, considering her seamless shapeshifting from verse to verse. Frankly, that’s what holds this album together. The Givens If you listen to Nicki Minaj, this album is nothing new. We know she can rap, and if we’re honest with ourselves, we know she can’t sing. She does it anyway, often singing on her own choruses and refrains despite her access to a plethora of alternative options. This is a stylistically misguided choice that rappers like J Cole also fall victim to. However, unlike Cole, she often compiles mistakes by failing to supply sufficient instrumental backing on songs that emphasize her singing. But, like I said, I knew it was coming. I also knew this album would bring a mixed bag of features. J Cole and Lil Wayne deliver on tracks 6 and 7, while Drake and Future flop on tracks 9 and 19. I also knew there would be a mix of moods, which could be interpreted as aimless or diverse. “Fallin 4 You” is one of the best executed, vulnerable songs of Minaj’s career, while “Bahm Bahm” mirrors Minaj’s classic energy-infused club-radio formula. I knew the album would be defined more by its hits than skips. I knew the Barbs would make sure the album charted regardless of merit. I knew what to expect, and although I hoped for something else, (more out of desperation for the unpredictable than dislike for the usual), I was right. Nicki Minaj made another album, and it’s much like her others. Its mainstream relevance is measured in comparison to her past releases, but in proportion to her current cultural standing. The album scores points for it’s highlights, “Red Ruby Da Sleeze” and “Super Freaky Girl,” to name a few, but loses points since those singles were released 9 and 16 months ago respectively. Pink Friday 2 gave me so little to expand upon that I spent most of my energy analyzing Nicki Minaj’s mindset around sampling. So, to bring this review to a conclusion in a fittingly generic fashion, here’s a cliche to summarize the experience of Pink Friday 2 : For every push in one direction, there’s a pull in another. My disappointment stems from predictability, yet the inalienable positives of the Nicki Minaj sound push this album slightly into positive territory. I think the blank stare with which I’m listening to and writing about this album is the best summation of its quality, but I’ll give it a score nonetheless. Pink Friday 2 is a 5.3/10.

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.

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.

Blog Post #7, 10/30/2025 DSO Instagram Link This is a post from Detroit Symphony Orchestra's account. They have a spinoff organization called Detroit Harmony that works to provide kids with free, donated, and shaped-up instruments. This post is a video that opens with the message that their instrument drive is taking place. It shows some people moving instruments, getting to work, which gives a sense of progress immediaetely. Then they show a cute kid and interview him a bit. It helps massively to see a happy benefactor of a cause. They talked to his mother as well, and she was able to nicelty articulate how much the entire experience means and what a gift it has been to their household, where her son regularly practices now. He's a young violinist who finds such peace in his intrument that he's unsure if he's been practicing for a month or ten years. That clip sealed the deal for me. Great post by a great cause. Blog Post #5, 10/23/2025 The benefits of using social media seem to be endless. The networking is unlimited. Those who have a knack for gaining a following can reach a far wider audience than they ever could in person. It allows for many different types of content and subject matter. It houses all different opinions for those who care to hear a mix. However, it is all very targeted. That mix is curated to you. Anyone who achieves social media fame has proven their valor as a social media user, but not necessarily anything else, which can lead to false authority. My experience with TikTok is none. I resisted getting any social media for a long time but got dragged in eventually. In my experience, it has not led to any genuine connections. The vast majority of information I consume is one-sided and uninformative or else not new. It is not an effective current source of news. It is a responsibility if I want to upkeep certain friendships as they are, and if it weren't, I likely would not use any social media at all. I do not know how I will adapt to an era where social media mobility is as essential a skill as typing. Blog Post #4, 10/16/2025 I found a spliced-together interview of a Palestinian activist on Al Jazeera's website. The interviewer was not featured in the video, it was made up entirely of the unnamed man's analysis of the hunger crisis in Gaza. I thought this formula brought tons of attention to the message being delivered with no people or even identities to distract from his words. The man was center camera and there was no b-roll, but clearly it was captured via video chat, which makes proper shooting difficult, I suppose. Maybe I can move the interviewee to a few different places so that I can change the angle I'm filming them at, as well as the background. Then I can drop in some extra b-roll and film in between answers. https://www.aljazeera.com/#flips-6382652228112:0.008799Links to an external site Blog Post #3, 10/12/2025 (ammended) I went to Cadillac Mich. to see the 50-year anniversary of Kiss coming to town. People lined the streets perusing the storefronts, which were largely Kiss-themed for the occasion. As I walked around town looking for pictures they came to me naturally. I was lucky enough to catch one person pointing at the 'Kiss face painting' sign that I was photographing. That kind of action shot is satisfying - I know what to chase now. There were banners and memorabilia everywhere, and I hope my shots properly capture the hooplah 50 years later. Blog Post #2, 9/28/2025 1. Jeff Weiss taught us about the many moving parts of Wayne State athletics and how it blends with media. I learned about the database of athletes' info and all of the pictures that are linked to the players. I think that's really awesome for the players and their families to see them on an official college site. 2. This photo is from a Sports Illustrated article announcing that the Tigers clinched the playoffs. The photographer got a great angle of this close play at home, showing that Baez is safe, implying a Tigers score and win. I think moving around to get different angles is important, this one is not the typical view of a play at home, which makes it cool in its own way. The photographer also got the name on the jersey, which is a good goal for shooting sports photos for easy identification of players. Blog Post #1 9/21/2025 1. The similarities between the two codes that stuck out to me are as follows: both codes emphasize the need for real-life accuracy in your work. As a journalist, you are a source of trusted information, so you must make sure it is accurate. In the SPJ one rule encourages reporters to regurgetate information rather than summarize it or phrase it in your own way. You are not a first hand source, so even if your source is a bit diffficult to understand, your job is to bring their message to the people not recreate it a publish your own version. The same goes for photographs. You have a responsibility, according to NPPA, to show life exactly as it is. Editing photographs for photonews is creating an illusion, a lie. By reporting to the public exactly what you oberserved, they are able to make their own free-minded interpretation rather than being guided or manipulated by the producer of the article. 2. https://nypost.com/2025/09/19/opinion/dumbest-kirk-conspiracy-theory-political-violence-double-standard-and-other-commentary/Links to an external site. This New York Post article is from the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's killing. The article presents a few ethical issues. First, the political bias is highly evident, and although this is a partisan publication, it would've been possible to present facts in a more neutral way. The author compares Charlie Kirk to George Floyd and complains about the lack of fanfare surrounding Kirk's death in comparison. That is probably unneccesary for the article and potentially offensive for a number of reasons The article also includes the word 'dumbest' in the title immediately highlighting a bias against any imfomation presented. In this quote, "After the death of George Floyd, major universities offered “support” for students in “deep distress over the incident,” notes Catherine Gripp at The FederalistLinks to an external site. Following the murder of Charlie Kirk, however, “the Ivy Leagues have been comparatively silent.” None of the elite colleges “released a unique public statement condemning or even addressing Kirk’s assassination,” as they all did after Floyd’s killing. For example, Douglas Elmendorf, then dean at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, “posted a message lamenting Floyd’s death and its implications,” while Yale “shared university resources following Floyd’s death.” What a contrast: Now “universities across the country” are having to dismiss “professors for inappropriate comments about Kirk’s murder,"" the author refers to Floyd's passing as a 'death' and Kirk's as a 'murder,' and the quotes used in this exerpt are short and cleverly built into an already formed opinion and presented less as news facts but pooints to support an argument. This is an immediately political issue, a political killing, so sides are bound to be taken. But, the media's responsibility to present facts. If the point of this article were to compare the aftermath of Floyd and Kirk's killings, stats and facts would've been better evidence than the opinionated quotes regarding only Floyd and vaguely discussing teachers losing their jobs over comments about Kirk. It's not only shallow in info, but shady. If this article was meant to clarify and debunk some of the chaotic, non-productive dialogue surrounding Kirk's death, their reponsibility as a reporter would be to simply and accurately display the facts, allowing the reader to piece together a clear, factual narrative.

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.