Be Heard, Be Seen

Invincible to Vulnerable

Arsenal Football Club

Arsenal Football Club is in a strange place. The once successful two-time Double Champions, the ‘invincibles’ of 2003/04 and Champions League finalists in 2006 have now slowly withered to a shadow of their former selves. Still regarded as one of the finest footballing teams in Europe; recent failures, poor performances and the inability to keep their best players have left many Arsenal supporters questioning the club’s ambitions. In addition, it’s left many footballing fans questioning their masterful and once untouchable manager Arsene Wenger. Since 2005, the Gunners have yet to finish a season with a trophy. Appearances in finals have been rare and this has been mooted as a major catalyst to the departure of many of their influential footballers which in turn has diminished the quality of the team. So what has contributed to the downfall of a once feared Arsenal team? Why has the club failed to keep hold of their star players? Is the once purist Arsenal philosophy of playing the beautiful game hindered their chances of silverware? Or does the club favour their finances over the success of the football team? Furthermore, is Arsene Wenger really to blame?

Firstly, let’s talk numbers. The move from Highbury to the Emirates Stadium in 2006 was a logical move for the club to solidify Arsenal’s status as one of Europe’s elite clubs. It would also be viewed as an opportunity to strengthen the club financially, bringing in more revenue from ticket sales. It’s become common practice for clubs with European ambitions and pedigree to either expand or find a new base for a larger stadium. Ticket revenue can be increased significantly. But such a move comes at a cost. The Emirates Stadium cost Arsenal £390m and their current debt of around £254m is being paid at a rate of £15m-a-year. This debt has been estimated to be completely paid off by 2031. Total revenue the club brought in for the 2011-12 season was £235m, £10m more than the previous year. Revenue amounts from ticket sales (£95m), broadcasting rights (approx. £85m) and commercial and retail sales (approx. £53m). Significantly, the 6.5% rise in ticket prices had little effect on ticket revenue from gate sales as this only saw an increase of a mere £2m. Furthermore, commercial and retail sales may have seen a 13% increase but Arsenal are still way below giants Manchester United, who are bringing in a cool £120m-a-year in commercial income alone. Much to the irritation of Arsenal supporters, the club raised a substantial £66m profit from selling some of their prized players in the last couple of years. Arsenal are perceived to be penny-pinchers when it comes to offering high wages to their star players; some citing this as one of the reasons they are forced to sell. Their wage bill would suggest otherwise as this rose by 19% to £143m last season; making Arsenal the fourth highest spenders on wages in the Premier League. Not forgetting the fact that Arsene Wenger is reported to be on a salary of £7.5m per year, which would make him the 5^th highest paid football manager in the world. So with all these costs, debts and incomes pouring in and out of the club; one of the vital questions on many Arsenal supporters’ lips is whether the club has significant funds to spend on transfers. Arsenal could realistically spend £50m on top players in the current transfer window (January 2013) and afford to pay top salaries of £100k +. With revenue from TV rights increasing in 2013-14 along with other financial deals; Arsenal’s income could reach the £300m mark in the next couple of years. Money is available, yet the attitude(s) on how to spend it may not be.

This season’s poor performances; most notably their League Cup defeat to League Two side Bradford City has placed Arsene Wenger and the club’s Chief Executive Ivan Gazidis and majority shareholder Stan Kroenke under more pressure than ever before to change their ways and deliver. Arsenal’s indifferent form, which is becoming all too frequent each season, is a direct consequence of the stubbornness shown from the boardroom and manager over the years. Arsene Wenger has persisted with his tiring philosophy of buying young footballers with potential for the future. This philosophy is effective when you can mix your young players with those with considerable experience; to give the team balance and an attitude to win when things are going against you. No matter how experienced your manager is, he’s not on the pitch. You’re only as good as the team you put out. Arsenal have become victims to the flaws in their own philosophy. Wenger’s persistence to nurture a young side over the years into a championship winning team has utterly failed. This is due to the fact that not all of his recruited young stars have either fulfilled the potential envisioned by the manager or there has not been enough experienced and established footballers being brought into the club. When the time does come to buy new players; old habits die hard and Wenger’s mentality has been to replace his flops or add to the squad by buying yet again young, cheap and mostly unproven footballers. It’s become all too repetitive at the club and things need to change. Arsene Wenger needs to change. The Arsenal board needs to change.  Arsenal have arguably missed out on too many winnable trophies by waiting for their team to develop. It’s not by coincidence that Arsenal have failed in signing some of their transfer targets. Wenger’s reluctance to embroil the club in bidding wars has resulted in the likes of Juan Mata, Gary Cahill and Phil Jones to join their rivals. It’s remarkable to think what players Arsenal could have brought but failed for one reason or another; Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Pepe Reina, Vincent Kompany, Jose Enrique, Peter Cech, Yaya Toure, Christiano Ronaldo, Didier Drogba. Take your pick. The Gunners have a lot to offer to any great footballer. It’s the politics off the pitch that have hindered them from signing the top stars. Of course, Arsenal have benefitted from their scouting system; they brought Cesc Fabregas to the club as a youngster and he has gone onto become a World Cup and European champion. They have also nurtured one of England’s brightest stars in Jack Wilshere, who has been brought up through the Arsenal Academy. What it ultimately boils down to is how much Arsene Wenger and the board want the club to succeed. To succeed, you need a foundation and a team of real quality. When it’s necessary to buy quality footballers, Arsenal Football Club need to stop being so stubborn and buy.

The discontent from fans is justified. They do not want the sole purpose of their season to be solely finishing in the top four of the Premier League. They want their team to be genuine season-long title contenders; not to fall short after the first three months. They want trophies. They want and need players of real, established quality being brought in to collaborate with their young nurturing talent. Furthermore, they must keep hold of their star assets. The club’s reluctance to renew contracts has begun to show the lasting impact it has had on the quality of the team. So much so, their North London rivals Tottenham Hotspur are now a bigger threat than ever to the club sustaining that all too important fourth Champions League spot. Arsenal season ticket holders are being held to ransom with no rewards in return. Not acceptable. It’s no wonder most Arsenal supporters are now beginning to question the direction in which the club is heading. Arsene Wenger has done so much for Arsenal Football Club; he turned them into one of the best footballing teams in Europe; a footballing philosophy which is still desired by many top clubs today. Whilst guiding them to three Premier League titles, four FA Cup’s and four Community Shield’s; Arsene Wenger masterminded Arsenal’s ‘invincibles’ in 2003/04 by going a whole season unbeaten in the domestic league. It would be hailed as one of Arsenal’s and Arsene Wenger’s greatest achievements. But it has been seven long years since Arsenal got their hands on another trophy. More importantly, Arsene Wenger has to shoulder part of the blame for their downfall because it is his mentality that is part of the reason why the club are at risk of being mere contenders each season rather than possible winners.

The Arsenal fans are most loyal to their manager and quite rightly so in what he has achieved at the club. But I’d have to put forward the question to those Arsenal supporters; as to whether or not they agree with Wenger that prioritising a top four position in the league over domestic cup competitions is justified? At Arsenal’s recent AGM meeting, Wenger was quoted in saying that his priority was to win the Premier League first, Champions League second, qualify for the Champions League third, win the FA Cup fourth and League Cup fifth. ‘For me, there are five trophies’. Funnily enough Mr. Wenger, qualification into Europe is not a trophy. A necessity for a club like Arsenal yes, but one which doesn’t present a trophy after qualification. Earlier in the year, Wenger stated ‘I love the FA Cup; I think it is a top-level competition and I will always fight to win it’. But the reality is that Arsene Wenger won’t ‘fight to win it’ as much as qualifying for the Champions League. Is that a mentality that is acceptable at a club like Arsenal? To prioritise a league position which will far from guarantee a trophy over the prestigious FA Cup? Arsenal are far too behind in terms of quality to win the Premier League or Champions League. Chelsea finished 5^th last season but successfully went onto lift the FA Cup and Champions League respectively. Let’s say Chelsea had won the FA Cup in May, lost in the final of the Champions League and still finished 5^th in the league; as a Chelsea supporter I’d have been disappointed but remained somewhat content. A disastrous league campaign can be rectified by having a trophy to show for at the end of the season; regardless of whether it is domestically or in Europe. Chelsea have managed to win the FA Cup four times in the past six years and to think it could be a well-respected cup competition that is prioritised as fourth in the list of five targets at a top club who is in desperate need to end a season on a high is beyond comprehension. You simply cannot tell your fans that you will try your best to win all cup competitions when as a manager you are clearly prioritising one over the other. It’s like saying the infamous defeat to Birmingham in 2011’s Carling Cup Final can be brushed away and considered understandable. Winning the League Cup that year may just have transformed Arsenal going forward and getting back to winning ways in cup competitions. More importantly, kept some of their star players. Winning trophies when the opportunities arise is evidence of success, ambition and demonstrates a will to win. Just to compete is however not. In my opinion, this is one of the key areas in which Arsenal Football Club has suffered, continues to suffer and where Arsene Wenger is to blame.

Since 2004/05

Arsenal

Semi-finals: 7  Won: 3  Lost: 4

Finals: 3  Won: 0  Lost: 3

*Arsenal have not finished above 3^rd in the Premier League since 04/05.

Manchester United

Semi-finals: 9  Won: 4  Lost: 5

Finals: 5 Won: 4  Lost: 1

**Manchester United have won 4 PL titles; finishing as runners-up on three occasions.

Chelsea

Semi-finals: 11  Won: 8  Lost: 3

Finals: 7  Won: 6  Lost: 1

***Chelsea have won 2 PL titles; finishing as runners-up on two occasions.

Liverpool

Semi-finals: 5  Won: 4  Lost: 1

Finals: 3  Won: 2  Lost: 1 

****Liverpool have finished as runners-up once.

Statistics don’t lie and what the above emphasises is that Arsenal have failed to win any of their previous cup final appearances in all competitions since their last win, the FA Cup in 2005. You may argue that on two of those occasions, they lost to formidable opposition in Chelsea and Barcelona. But their most recent defeat in a cup final was to Birmingham City in the Carling Cup. Birmingham were also relegated that same season. As much as Wenger has praised the spirit of his young team over the years and how maturity would one day make them champions; Arsenal fans are still waiting.

Chief Executive Ivan Gazidis and majority shareholder Stan Kroenke are also two men under heavy scrutiny from Arsenal supporters. Maybe more so than Wenger due to how funds for transfers have not been made available. All three men have a vision of Arsenal being a club that can pay for transfers and wages from its own finances; unlike the immeasurable amounts of money spent by the billionaire owners of their rival clubs. It’s a vision which is shared by UEFA in the format of Financial Fair Play. Arsenal’s current debts are their repayment costs towards their stadium; which are around £15m-a-year. Taking into account their total profit from the previous season and the expenditure on players’ wages, the Gunners realistically have around £50m to spend on transfers and wages. So why are they not renewing contracts for their most valued players? Has the board refused to keep their star players at the club? In Samir Nasri’s case, it seems so as Wenger was adamant that Nasri would not be sold to then suitors Manchester United. He ended up in Manchester, but at City. A year later and their talisman Robin Van Persie is sold to Manchester United; having not been handed a new contract. The same year, another key player in Alex Song is sold to Barcelona. More often than not, he now sits on the bench. Why are they so hesitant to spend money which they clearly have, on one or two key signings? Arsenal can be a successful football club on and off the pitch by continuing their self-sustainable business model. German giants Bayern Munich are a prime example of how to be a self-sustainable club which is successful on the pitch. Bayern Munich and Arsenal are very similar in terms of their business model. Yet what sets the two clubs apart is that Bayern Munich are not afraid to spend and have continuously been successful. Bayern Munich’s current squad boasts five players who cost £20m+ each. With around £70m profit being generated at the club over the last two years, the Gunners have yet to make one big name signing. More importantly, Arsenal have never spent more than £20m on one player. The bottom line is this; Bayern Munich have an ideology which mirrors that of Arsenal. But when problems need solving on and off the pitch, they are solved. Managers come and go at the Bavarian club but Bayern Munich are always willing to use their resources to strengthen the team in order to remain successful. Their nine trophies since Arsenal’s last is evidence. Maybe Arsenal’s failure to be successful in recent years is the result of not having enough decision-makers at the club to consult with Wenger on a sporting level. Bayern Munich have a Chairman, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge and a Sporting Director, Matthias Sammer; both ex-footballers. Arsene Wenger has no consultants; there’s Arsene Wenger and then there’s the Executive Board. We can only speculate whether relations between the board and Wenger are strained or not. Are funds being released to Wenger to spend or is Wenger just refusing to use them effectively? Maybe this is an area where Arsenal need to look at to improve the direction of the club going forward. Fresh ideas to revise ambitions can only improve the club.

Football today has changed; transfer fees and wages have increased considerably and this change can be attributed to the upsurge in foreign ownership and investment. Experts and fans are divided on the subject as it has widened the gap between the top teams and those at the bottom. Yet foreign investment has also improved underachievers and sustained continued success for those clubs who only occasionally tasted victory. Clubs have had to adapt to the large spending sprees in order to compete whilst the hike in transfer fees is something top teams have had to accept in order to acquire the services of the top players. Ever since Roman Abramovich brought Chelsea Football Club in 2003, the Russian oligarch has splashed out millions on players and managers. We can argue how fundamentally wrong this is but the fact remains that Chelsea have an ambitious owner who genuinely has a passion for success. An owner who is willing to take risks in return for reward. Chelsea’s trophy cabinet since his takeover is proof of his and the club’s collective ambition. Arsenal’s philosophy is one to be admired. They foresee a vision where the club becomes self-sustainable and competing at the top level. They want to distance themselves away from the mega-rich foreign owners and uncontrollable spending which is present in today’s game. However, Arsene Wenger’s ideology of how a club should be run is part respectable yet part driven by finances. This has started to become more apparent over the past few years; evidence is in how Wenger prioritises qualification for the Champions League over domestic cup trophies as this ensures larger revenues for the club. Former vice-Chairman of Arsenal Football Club David Dein understood that to attract the big players, you sometimes had to pay a little bit more than you desired. Although at a cost, never putting the finances of the club in danger. As much as Wenger has taken the Gunners to great heights, ironically he has all the attributes to now be considered a successful General Manager at Arsenal, in the way he goes about his business. This begs the question; has Arsene Wenger become less a manager and more of a businessman to the detriment of Arsenal Football Club?

The mentality at Arsenal has changed. Very few seem to want to change their ways in terms of prioritising the quality of the team over finances. Not that the quality of the football played has ever come into question; it’s the character and ambition of the club that has. Since that 2004/05 season, Arsenal have constantly been one step behind their main rivals. Although Wenger has been shrewd in previous transfer markets, Arsenal are crying out for a marquee signing, or two. Arsenal’s priorities should have always been to win trophies. Yes, they want to be a self-sustainable football club and do it all the right way but until the Financial Fair Play rules come into effect, Arsenal will not be able to compete effectively against their rivals. Furthermore the FFP regulations will not guarantee anything due to all the reported loopholes. Arsene Wenger needs to realise that Arsenal fans want a renewed ambition for success. They want their football team to once again show grit and hunger for trophies as they once did. But this lack of success all stems from the Arsenal bigwigs and their manager. Champions League qualification should be a cast-iron certainty for a club like Arsenal but their lack in quality in recent years has forced Wenger to approach it as a priority over other cup competitions. But that’s no excuse to count winnable trophies such as the FA Cup and League Cup as less of a priority. In my opinion, Arsenal have become a club that favours finances over the success of their football team. It’s about time they adapted to the current state of football or risk being nearly-something’s each season. As for Wenger? The pressure will continue to mount until there are clear signs of that same ambition he showed when he and David Dein formed an invincible team and an invincible club; transforming the Gunners into one of best teams in European football.

Roman’s Revenge

                                                                     Version 8.0

Eight managers in nine years. Eight managers who have all been sacked. A shocking statistic which now springs as little surprise to Chelsea supporters and the football world alike. As a loyal Chelsea supporter, the sudden change in managers is something I’ve come to accept under the uncompromising ownership of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich. The trigger-happy owner has reportedly forked out £37m in compensation to seven of Chelsea’s sacked managers; a sum which could rise to £50m with Roberto Di Matteo’s departure. Each year when there are signs of a slump in-form, there is trepidation amongst Chelsea fans that Abramovich may get the ‘itch’ again. This has certainly been the case in Di Matteo’s unfair dismissal. It stands alongside Mourinho’s departure in 2007 in terms of shock value. Every year we hear from the Chelsea hierarchy about the want for long-term stability and continued success at the club. With each new manager appointed, we are duped into the possibility of this being an appointment for ‘the future’, a footballing project deemed to change the style of play, instil a philosophy whilst deploying a fresher and younger squad in the process; out with the old, in with the new. Andre Villas-Boas’ appointment was duly served for this purpose; he lasted nine months. As has been the unorthodox recruitment policy at Chelsea, every manager that is hired is evidently on borrowed time as stability can only be proved if success matches the ambitions of the owner. If winning the FA Cup and Champions League with a dispirited squad isn’t considered a success, then what is? What the latest sacking proves is that not even Chelsea legends such as Di Matteo are exempt from the one-man firing squad.

Roman Abramovich had been flirting with the idea of giving Roberto Di Matteo the job as manager after AVB was given his marching orders back in March, albeit remaining somewhat hesitant. Winning the FA Cup and elusive Champions League wasn’t enough to fully persuade the Chelsea owner to give Di Matteo full reign at the West London club. Pep Guardiola had been approached after leaving Barcelona yet declined in favour of a sabbatical which meant Di Matteo’s resulting appointment was somewhat forced upon the owner. It’s clear Di Matteo wasn’t Abramovich’s preferred choice hence the continued pursuit of Guardiola. Deep down I think Di Matteo himself knew he wasn’t Abramovich’s first choice. A dark overcast shadow would always loom over the Italian and consequently made it an easy decision to sack Di Matteo. But Chelsea’s recent slump in-form nevertheless did not warrant a sacking. Their poor form in the Champions League should be questioned certainly, but Chelsea still lie 3^rd in the Barclays Premier League, having only lost one game less than Manchester United. Di Matteo has subsequently been sacked based on their previous six games. I’ll let you make your own mind up.

So what next for Chelsea Football Club? It’s no secret that Abramovich wants Guardiola at the helm. The ex-Barcelona player and manager has been touted as the man to take Chelsea Football Club to the next level; building a philosophy by playing expansive football, winning trophies and developing a team which is hungry for success, much like that of the Mourinho-era. Minus the ‘ugly’ football. Not an easy feat under the watchful eye of the ruthless owner. The problem that lies for Guardiola is how long Abramovich’s patience will last once Chelsea hit a dip in-form, a run of games without a win, tournament elimination(s). It would seem that even with a much sought-after manager such as Guardiola, someone who Abramovich has been courting for almost a year now, is even susceptible for the sack under the Russian’s rule. Could Abramovich honestly give Guardiola the vote of confidence which he failed to give the previous eight managers if results fail to go his way? Old habits die hard and all that. More to the point, Chelsea are not Barcelona and will never be Barcelona. Their philosophy has been carved out over many years; even the greatest managers in the world would struggle to implement even a slice of that ‘style of play’ instantaneously. An ideology can be put in place but a project such as the one Abramovich has wanted for so long will take years to fully develop. Financial backing aside, patience is a character trait that has yet to register in the thought process of the ambitious owner; patience breeds stability. Stability breeds trust. The chances of Abramovich acquiring the services of Guardiola look promising; he has been courting him for almost a year now, with Abramovich even attempting to talk him out of his sabbatical before Di Matteo’s dismissal. However, there is an underlying issue to all this sweet talk; what if next summer Guardiola says no to Chelsea? Food for thought. But what Abramovich wants, he usually gets. Then again, Mourinho could also prove to be another option next summer, depending on his success at Real Madrid come the end of the season. He’s made no secret of his desire to return to England and he would be welcomed with open arms by the Chelsea faithful. But rehiring Mourinho would also mean Abramovich admitting to his own mistake, something which I believe he does not like doing.

Speaking of mistakes, the apparent anger amongst Chelsea fans over Rafa Benitez’s appointment as Chelsea manager on an interim basis is beyond excessive. The former Valencia, Liverpool and Inter Milan manager was being talked about as a possible option after AVB’s dismissal earlier in the year, before the job was given to Di Matteo. He had expressed his availability and willingness to return to top flight football with a top club, ‘I am looking for a club that can challenge for trophies so Chelsea is one of these clubs’. Bookmakers had made him favourite to succeed Di Matteo earlier today and the club has finally announced Benitez as interim manager, much to the dismay of many Chelsea supporters. Having won the UEFA Cup and La Liga with Valencia; the last manager to win the Spanish top division besides Barcelona and Real Madrid, he’s also a Champions League winner with Liverpool, having taking them to two Champions League finals. Chelsea supporters can have no gripes regarding his experience. Tactically he is considered by some pundits as one of the best around. Surely even Chelsea supporters have to see the significance he could potentially have in steadying the ship at the club with his discipline and tactical nous. As well as trying to bring a certain amount of success to the club in the remainder of the season. I can understand why Chelsea fans are against the idea of Benitez at the Bridge; he is ex-Liverpool and was embroiled in a rivalry with Chelsea and then-manager Mourinho which reached its height whilst in charge at Liverpool. Oh and not to forget, he only lasted six months at Inter Milan. Chair of the Chelsea Supporters Club Trizia Fiorellino has joined in on the debate by stating that Chelsea supporters ‘will not accept’ Benitez as Chelsea manager, temporary or full-time. The reasons as to why seem petty and personal. Supporters have the right to defend their club when it is being attacked by opposition managers yet we have to look at it from a footballing perspective. There’s only so much a manager can do in six months regardless of the name and Benitez would be as good as any other appointment at this time. He may even get Torres playing again! On the other hand, if Chelsea are only appointing Benitez on an interim basis, then why didn’t they just keep Di Matteo on until the summer and judge him on his success or failure at the end of the season? After Manchester City on Sunday, Chelsea have a run of nine league games which are all predominantly winnable. With their imminent departure from the Champions League, Chelsea would still be competing on five fronts; the league, two domestic cups, the UEFA Cup and the Club World Cup. Not as doom and gloom as it has been made out by the sacking of Di Matteo.

Fans should be reminded that most backed Luiz Filipe Scolari because he was a World Cup winner. He failed to impress and lasted seven months. Carlo Ancelotti was also backed; the highly decorated Italian manager was a two-time Champions League winner with AC Milan. Much like Guardiola, Abramovich had wanted Ancelotti at Chelsea for some time and saw him as the man to lead them to European cup glory. He was fired after winning the domestic Double for the first time in the clubs history. Then there’s Villas-Boas who won the Treble in Portugal with Porto and thus became the youngest ever manager to win the UEFA Cup. With great prospects for the future, Abramovich bought him out of his Porto contract and offered him the managerial position at Chelsea. He lasted all but nine months. The majority of managers Chelsea have hired under the Abramovich-era have been brought in based on their reputation and in most cases, experience. Yet all have in one way or another failed to live up to the unrelenting demands on the Russian owner. Rafa Benitez is arguably the most high profile name to be put in charge at Chelsea since Mourinho and Ancelotti and judging by his past success and experience, deserves to be given the chance. His experience and tactical knowhow deserves at least that much. Let’s hope his reluctance to get involved in club politics serves him well, unlike his eventual downfall at Liverpool. But unlike at Liverpool, he can be sure of having the financial backing in January if needs be.

PFA Chief Executive Gordon Taylor expressed his disappointment in Di Matteo’s sacking this morning by stating how ‘stability breeds success’ judging by the record at other successful football clubs. In Chelsea’s case though, it is the exact opposite. The constant sacking of managers has actually resulted in Chelsea being successful; four of the past eight managers having won silverware. So in some strange respect, some could argue Abramovich’s unorthodox system is working. Then again, what would you define as success at a football club? With Rafa Benitez now appointed as interim Chelsea manger until the end of the season, six bad games and he’ll be under immense scrutiny from the Chelsea supporters. The same supporters who he will have to win round immediately as he’ll be coming into a club where many of the home fans loathe him. As a Chelsea supporter, I’ll still be lamenting Di Matteo’s departure after what he did in the summer of 2012 but with a keen eye on Benitez’s performances over the season; even if it is only for a season. Another manager sacked, another hired. Just another season at Chelsea Football Club.

Rain Room

                                                             The Barbican, London

‘Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land… With a wall of water on their right and on their left’ – Exodus 14:15-31.

Ever imagined how you could control the rain? Imagine you could walk through rain and not get wet. Thanks to the new and exciting Rain Room exhibition at the Barbican in London, you now get the opportunity to witness how it feels to be in the midst of a downpour and remain completely dry. The Rain Room is such an astonishing yet confounding experience to hear about when mentioned; but the mastery of the science and technology behind the experience itself can only be truly experienced by visiting the exhibition.

The team behind the Rain Room are former Royal College of Arts students Stuart Wood, Florian Ortkrass and Hannes Koch, who are part of a group of designers called rAndom International. Set inside a 100 sq. metre room, a torrential shower continuously falls and visitors can then proceed to walk through and see how it feels to control the rain. The experience is so unique and thought through, that it not only begs the question of how they came up with this idea but most importantly, why? Visitor participation has been a key ingredient in every project rAndom International has created in the past. The group are responsible for past experimental projects such as the Audience (2008) and the Swarm (2010) and have continued their incredible catalogue of work into 2012 with the Rain Room.

How does it work?

Special movement sensors track each visitor’s movements. It’s this sensory monitoring along with the 3D depth cameras which turn the individual water valves on and off which prevent you from getting wet. It really is a technological wonder. The realism of the experience is uncanny as you can actually feel the moisture of the rain in the air whilst staying completely dry. The Rain Room exhibition is more than just a visual masterpiece. It is also about an individual’s response to the experience. The trio of designers and researchers describe their latest work as “a social experiment; we wanted to give people the cocooning experience of being immersed in a 3D rain room and watch their reaction”. They certainly succeed in their ‘social experiment’ as once the rain begins to repel your body; it gives the impression that you’re carrying an invisible magnetic force field, helping to protect you from the onslaught of rain. The Rain Room unites technology, science and social science to all in all assess human behaviour when confronted by the empowerment of controlling nature. Visitors ultimately become performers. The atmosphere is surreal, to be so close to rain without actually getting wet is beyond comprehension. One of its creators Hannes Koch describes the experience as different to having an umbrella due to the sound of rain hitting an umbrella is eliminated. This creates an ambience of contemplation and calmness as you stroll through and watch a shower of rain fall beside you.

The Rain Room is such an incredible piece of ingenuity that really has to be experienced in person to believe it. The feeling of empowerment mixed with curiosity and intrigue are all emotions that one feels as you experience the Rain Room. This exhibition is recommended to all; an unforgettable experience. Who else can say they walked through rain and never got wet?

*The Rain Room exhibition is open from 3^rd October 2012 till 3^rd March 2013 at the Barbican Centre in London. Admission is free.*

Taken 2

Film Review

He’s trained Batman. He’s mentored Obi-Wan Kenobi. He discovered Darth Vader in the adorable Jake Lloyd. He’s Aslan, the King of Beasts. He’s Zeus. He’s also Oskar Schindler and on occasions, a retired CIA agent who goes about killing everyone that gets in his way in saving his kidnapped family. In fairness, there’s not much to say about Liam Neeson really. Taken 2 is a sequel to 2008’s impressive and frantic crime thriller Taken in which a retired CIA agent Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) tracks down those responsible in kidnapping his daughter in France. Taken 2 picks up from where the first left off; Neeson’s character trying to maintain a relationship with his daughter, whilst the father of one of Mills’ victims from the first movie vowing to take revenge on the former CIA employee; this time his ex-wife and himself being kidnapped. Is it as gripping and thrilling as the first instalment? No. Far from it. What made the first film a great success was its cult following. The suspense and excitement of the chase, Neeson’s relentless ability to take down anyone and everyone who stood in his path; it’s these qualities that made Taken such an engrossing film to watch. The sequel has its own flashes of brilliance, albeit rare ; such as the scene where Neeson’s character tracks his own kidnapped position, handcuffed in a basement, all by relaying instructions to his daughter with the help from a map, a shoe string, a mobile phone-type gadget and a couple of grenades. But apart from that, it’s the same cat and mouse story; a predictable one-liner followed by a bunch of criminals being chased and killed, and saving his loved one in the process.

Taken was one of those films that just didn’t need a sequel. Well not as dire as this one. The reason being its predictability factor. Its success however, meant that Neeson would inevitably return and much to cinemagoers expectations; Taken 2 fails to live up to its predecessor. We know what Neeson’s ex-CIA character is about, we didn’t need a reminder. A more thought-out story may have given the film a bit of leverage yet it fails to thrill in the same fashion as the first. Taken was no Man on Fire yet in terms of its story, emotion and drama it could draw comparisons. Taken 2 is a popcorn movie, nothing more and nothing less. A successful sequel it is not but it’s still worth a watch to see Liam Neeson continue to ‘do what he does best’. Oh, and also for that map scene!

Civil Partnership vs. Same-Sex Marriage

                                                          Religion vs. Equality

The controversial debate of changing the status of civil ceremonies to marriage has once again flared up in recent months, over the UK government defending plans for same-sex marriages to be administered. Most recently US President Barack Obama got involved when he openly supported legalising gay marriage in the US, the first President to do so. Now to some people the difference between a civil partnership and same-sex marriage may not be much; same-sex couples who consummate in a civil ceremony are essentially deemed ‘married’ to those unaware of the terminology. But when it involves the government and The Church of England, the differences are huge.

The Church of England argues that many are misinformed about the true definition of marriage, heavily emphasising the difference between a religious ceremony and the institution that is a marriage. They remain ‘committed to the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman’. However the government wants to allow same-sex couples to marry which opposes the traditional beliefs of the Church, which could serve to be detrimental to the relationship between the two in the future. Currently the Civil Partnership Act of 2004 gives same-sex couples similar rights and responsibilities as those in a marriage; tax, inheritance, benefits etc. The difference between a same-sex marriage and a civil partnership is that in terms of religious views, same-sex marriages cannot be supported by the Church. When a gay/lesbian couple wants to certify their relationship by a civil partnership, legislations forbid ceremonies from taking place within religious practices. Religious readings, music and hymns, commonly used in marriage ceremonies are also prohibited.

Here in the UK, the issue lies within the fact that the Church feels undermined by the government’s support of legalising same-sex marriage. The fact of the matter is that once a civil partnership becomes a marriage, sacred traditions of the Church are thrown out of the window. They believe that marriage is a consummation between man and woman; this does not include same-sex couples. The dilution of marriage as an institution would in fact be a consequence of any proposals in favour of same-sex marriages. However there is the case that the acceptance of same-sex marriages will give gay couples international recognition and further implement change in legislations to allow this across different nations, for the sake of equal rights. Barack Obama’s recent public support of same-sex marriage evidently caused mixed emotions, especially in a nation where the mere acceptance of same-sex partnerships seems to be a much sterner test than here in the UK. Public reaction in the US suggests that the nation is split in its views of same-sex marriage. It was commendable how Barack Obama struck out at issues of equality in his support of same-sex marriages. His speech outlined the responsibilities of society to accept the choices of individuals and that nobody is ‘treated less than full citizens’ in terms of their legal rights and personal choices. Many have said that Obama’s support of same-sex marriage could hinder his political support amongst voters for the upcoming presidential elections in November. But this issue is bigger than just votes. As Obama states, it’s ‘an issue of fairness’ amongst citizens. Being gay should not detract an individual’s human rights or ability to fit in with society. Nor should it mean one rule for gay couples and another for a man and woman. We are all different. Regardless of sex, race or faith, we all have the capacity to make choices within our social surroundings. We live in an ever changing society and should not be judged or condemned on how we choose to live our lives. Yet the stark reality is, we still are. The Church of England stands strongly committed to the ‘traditional understanding of the institution of marriage as being between man and woman’. But how can an institution such as The Church of England stand so firmly on choices individuals decide to make in regards to same-sex couples, which today is accepted by many but themselves? It’s a tad hypocritical; The Church of England having been an institution that is arguably one of the most corrupt institutions still in operation. One which still is corrupt no doubt. How about we condemn them of their disreputable actions that have been reported over the years?

Religious figures seem to be the ones who are strongly against the idea of same-sex marriages, but this new legislation is a case of giving religious institutions the option to partake in the act of uniting a couple under marriage if they choose to. The sense of equality within today’s society should no longer be such a questionable act. Yet the truth is inequality remains present in issues of race, gender and partnerships. The push for civil partnerships to be accepted as a marriage is not just a question of equality but also respect and acceptance. It’s worrying to find such issues being a huge obstacle to cross even in 2012. But when has racism ever been completely eradicated from society? When have gays been wholly accepted across the world? It’s about time religion evolved into the 21^st century.

‘A man is either free or not. There cannot be any apprenticeship for freedom’ - Amiri Baraka.

Inspire A Generation

This is an afterthought more than anything; post-Olympic blues starting to kick in and thoughts of not ‘what could have been’ but of ‘what will be’ after one of the most memorable Olympic Games in recent memory came to an emphatic close on Sunday. A culmination in which showed the world how we truly did lay down the roots to inspire a generation, showcasing along the way British culture the only way London could; by putting on a show to live long in everyone’s minds.

After watching Jessica Ennis, London 2012’s ‘poster girl’ win Gold in the Heptathlon during the middle Saturday of the Games, a lifelong goal had been achieved. As spectators and supporters we were proud, congratulatory and inspired. On the same night Mo Farah would also win Gold in the 10,000 metres and then replicate this feat in the 5,000 metres a week later; going onto become only the seventh Olympian to do the double. We were elated, the stadium was rocking and once more we were inspired. How about Bradley Wiggins? Winning Gold in the Cycling Time Trial; weeks after having become the first Brit to ever win the prestigious Tour De France. A moment of true grit and determination, heart and yes, inspiration. These are just three names out of many others who won Gold for Team GB, producing the best medals tally for Britain in over 100 years. The lasting legacy which these Olympic Games in London were to fulfil was to inspire a generation. London had come so far from the devastation of the London riots of the previous year. One of the lessons we should take away from London 2012 is that when we’ve looked for role models for the younger generation, for too long we’ve been looking in the wrong place. More to the point, at the wrong people. I’m musing at the thought of how athletes such as Jessica Ennis or Mo Farah should be celebrated as bigger and more positive role models than the likes of Wayne Rooney.

After their respective Olympic triumphs you just have to listen to how these athletes conduct themselves in humility and honesty. Irrespective of their success or failure, the hunger for further success or to accomplish their previously failed goals is apparent. There’s an understated drive for more. For more personal triumph; to exceed their previous successes. They’re proud to represent their nation. It’s their humility amongst everything else which attracts us to have an emotional connection with these athletes. All the publicity that these athletes were exposed to prior London 2012 and during the games has had little effect on how they conduct themselves in their sport, or after they are victorious. There’s no celebrity status, no £250,000-a-week salary. There was never a moment during these Olympic Games when a competitor’s failure to win a medal or meet expectations resulted in their frustrations being thrown back to their biggest supporters. I’m referring to Wayne Rooney at the 2010 World Cup in South Africa where he directs his anger at the booing crowd after a lacklustre result against Algeria. Is this the type of role model we need for our young generation? Someone who cannot take responsibility for his own poor performances and to avoid criticism, places it onto the paying public who have a right to express their own opinions. A footballer who questioned his own club, a football club regarded as one of the biggest in the world over their lack of ambition just so he could pocket a huge pay rise. Let us not get driven away from the fact that football is a team sport and the fan culture of this sport is unlike that of athletics. But once you attack your own supporters, you attack that young child who is inspired by you and wants to be just like you. Our young generation need role models like Jessica Ennis, Mo Farah and Chris Hoy who are proud to represent their nation and want to better themselves even after reaching the highest point of their careers. Our young generation do not need role models who are negatively displayed on the front pages of our newspapers on a weekly basis; someone who will openly attack their employers for a bigger pay cheque. How can we ask any aspiring athlete to relate to someone who earns over £200,000-a-week and cannot be trusted to perform to his/her highest ability on the field of play every game? The Olympics is special in the fact that every four years, these athletes will give a 100% in order to reach that podium and receive a coveted medal. Rest assured, as soon as London 2012 had ended, many of the same athletes would have been focusing and begun preparing for Rio 2016. These are the role models we need. It’s not just a matter of conducting yourself professionally on the track and field; it’s also how you conduct yourself away from the sport. How many times will we see Mo Farah or Jessica Ennis in the newspapers with controversy surrounding their name?

London 2012’s success will be unparalleled in terms of exceeding expectations. The feel good factor these games inflicted is unblemished and we can hope that it has restored interest in sports that will help the younger generation seek out their ambitions in a controlled environment, away from the ills and negativity of the streets. It’s time we as a nation started to propel the need for better role models and begin to detract from the ‘star names’ because of their celebrity status. A modest and gracious character will speak to a generation with the same humility they possess than a multi-millionaire footballer who seeks to be associated with a good cause to enhance their public profile. I wonder how many athletes have publicists? It’s time we directed the youth to the people who really matter to emphasise that no matter where we come from or our background, we all can make it through dedication and hard work. The true role models were the ones who made the 2012 Olympic Games such a success for Great Britain. It’s this success that will have a lasting legacy on our youth because through Jessica Ennis, Mo Farah, Chris Hoy and the rest of Team GB along with other successful nations; London 2012 truly did inspire a generation.

‘Success should be determined by the achievement of goals and not just about how much money we make’ - The Lost Voice.

A Dark Knight Falls

Denver, Colorado Shooting

Another massacre in the US makes headlines as 12 people are killed and 59 injured as gun-toting James Holmes open fired at a movie theatre in Denver, Colorado during a showing of The Dark Knight Rises at midnight on Friday 20^th July 2012. What was supposed to be a joyous occasion for cinemagoers attending the showing for the much anticipated Batman movie turned into a living nightmare as the gas-masked wearing shooter showered the auditorium with gunfire amidst the smoke of gas canisters. The movie had literally and unexpectedly come to life as shots were being fired on-screen as well as off it. When captured, James Holmes would refer to himself as the ‘The Joker’; Batman’s nemesis from the previous movie. So what transforms a shy and reticent 24-year old former PhD student into a deranged, calculated, murderous rampage?

James Holmes, an intellectual neuroscience student from the University of Colorado-Denver may be more knowledgeable in explaining his state of mind and what drives someone to transform into a merciless murderer. But what we are clear about is the weapons he used in the massacre that occurred on Friday; the weapons that were obtained legally by the assailant. We should remember that this isn’t the first time America has had a tragedy of such proportions and I’m apprehensive in my belief that it will not be the last time we hear of a horrific crime as this. The Columbine High School massacre of 1999, The Virginia Tech massacre of 2007 and even the Trayvon Martin killing this year can be categorised as suspicious when we take into consideration the state of mind of all those responsible. The FBI named James Holmes, a local resident of Aurora, Denver as the suspect of the Denver shooting. But James Holmes is just another name. As is Seung-Hui Cho, 23 (Virginia Tech), and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, both 18 (Columbine). What is striking is that the aforementioned suspects were all under-25 when they carried out their heinous crimes. Furthermore, I believe that the current gun laws in the US will ensure that there will be many more young names added to the list of unpredicted massacres to take place.

James Holmes is said to have attained 4 guns from local metro gun stores LEGALLY and over 6000 rounds of ammunition obtained over the internet. With no previous criminal record aside from a speeding fine, what motivates someone into such a homicidal rage? Especially someone as educated and unsuspecting as James Holmes. Whether it was a psychological issue within the assailant or a nihilistic campaign, little is known. The only clarity we have is the ease at which James Holmes was able to acquire the arsenal of weapons and ammunition used in that Aurora movie theatre that night. The American government has to take sole responsibility at how any individual can obtain firearms so easily. The Denver shooting is a prime example of the blood that can be shed when weapons of such calibre are placed into unsuspecting hands. Tony Starks is not just a fictional character from a comic book; there is probably a ‘Tony Starks’ in every continent that manufactures weapons and firearms but it is the governments who authorise the issuing of these weapons to the public. Money talks. The American government must come to the realisation about their gun laws sooner rather than later. The gun culture in the US is widespread. Most households are in legal possession of firearms, especially in rural areas of the country where hunting is rife and the ownership of a gun is deemed normal. However the accessibility of guns in inner cities of the US is a different issue where gangs and criminal behaviour is common and the risk of casualties by firearms is high. To state that anti-gun laws would fail to discourage criminals to acquire guns at such ease is wholly not accurate. Those in favour of pro-gun legislation are naïve to think that changing the current gun laws will have little effect of the acquiring of firearms in the US. Yes, the ideology that those who seek evil will do so at any means is true; individuals will find a way to break the law. But why insist on making it easier for them to do so with firearms so readily available? For someone to purchase guns from a store as they would groceries is unthinkable in today’s society yet it is made possible in the US. Then we wonder why tragedies such as the Denver shooting took place. Tougher laws are required because criminals and individuals with criminal intent are being encouraged to commit horrific and unexplainable crimes such as the Denver massacre through the availability of guns to the general public. All of these acts of violence are self-inflicted which can be prevented in the future if the US government revise their gun laws.

Children of today’s generation grow up knowing only war. War is all around us; it’s on our TV’s, it’s in our cities and it’s on our streets. We’re surrounded by conflict and war. The conflicts of the world and of our own society reach as far as the music young teens are listening to and more importantly the video games they are playing. Video games with guns. Guns which are readily available like groceries from a convenient store once they are old enough to procure one. So how surprised can we really be when young teens/adults commit shocking, incomprehensible acts of violence as did James Holmes in the Aurora movie theatre on Friday, with no disregard for the innocent children, teenagers and adults present? Maybe psychological monitoring could help in controlling the behaviour of teens most likely to commit crimes as they get older. Young soldiers who serve in the army may benefit from a form of counselling in order for them to adapt to society in order to overcome their experiences of conflict and war. There are many direct and indirect influences that can play a part in someone wanting to carry out a vicious act of violence. But there are times when it is not so easy to suspect an individual of such malicious thoughts, as is the case with James Holmes. But the mere fact that the access to firearms is so simple played a major part in the crime committed in Denver. The gun laws in the US will now be heavily debated once again, as they have been before. The extent of which the US government work to change their current gun laws for the safety of its people is another question.

Let us not lose sight of the barbaric crime James Holmes committed on Friday 20^th July 2012. He made the decision to enter the movie theatre with the intent to kill and harm as many people as he could, regardless of age. His motives are unknown. However, the government also played a part in his quest; when they gave him the right to legally purchase the firearms used in the slayings of the 12 innocent people, a number which could’ve been more. They say there’s no reasoning with criminals. Of which the most hardened of all are the ones who run the country.

‘America’s too busy fighting terror around the world when they should really be focusing on fighting the terror that exists in their own country’ - The Lost Voice.

Watch The Throne: World Tour

Monday 21^st May 2012
The O2, London.

       ’I guarantee this will be the greatest concert of your life’ - Kanye West

On Friday 18th May 2012 The O2 in London saw two of the biggest names in hip-hop, Jay-Z & Kanye West begin their epic Watch The Throne World Tour. When the two decided to collaborate on their critically acclaimed Watch The Throne album, it was evident that the enormity of this project would be as large as their continuing presence in hip-hop. It would be more than just an album. It would be a benchmark for others to compare to. It would be a celebration; a celebration of not just their legend but their continuing influence on music. One could expect an album as grandiose and elaborate as its cover, designed by Givenchy’s Riccardo Tisci. It was on this opening night Kanye West confidently announced the sort of experience the 20,000 strong audience were about to expect, ‘the greatest concert of their lives’. After rave reviews in the US, it was time for the UK to experience one of the greatest hip-hop live shows in recent memory to have hit these shores. Over five nights the pair would grace the stage in this prestigious arena; condensing each of their back-catalogues into an unforgettable 2-hour show. How they would fail to disappoint. Five nights of ‘Flashing Lights’ and a live show that would become ‘The Blueprint’ for hip-hop live shows which proceed, here’s the story of just one…

The opening to the show will go down as one of the best to be seen in an arena concert in many a year. As the Pink Panther-esque Watch The Throne trademark instrumental rings out around the arena, the haunting orchestral opening of their first single ‘H.A.M.’ reverberates around the The O2, prompting both Jay-Z and Kanye West to appear at either end of the arena to a chorus of cheers. When the Flux Pavilion sampled ‘Who Gon’ Stop Me’ follows, the production values and visual brilliance of the show can immediately be recognised as two 20ft cube stages rise from the ground with each artist on top. Snarling dogs then appear on all four sides of both stages; after a slight pause the beat drops and the risen stages light up with illumination showing a shark nonchalantly swimming in pristine blue waters, lighting up the darkness of the arena. Throughout the show the two stages would rise at various intervals, accompanied by stunning projections of lasers and visuals; most notably the aforementioned shark, a red ambience as Kanye performs ‘Runaway’ and ‘Heartless’ respectively, and the green glow around Jay-Z’s blacked out hooded figure as he performs ‘On To The Next One’ which even seems to include clouds projected above his head.

The huge production costs of this tour are evident to anyone who has or will attend the upcoming shows. With an album and everything that goes with it as grand as Watch The Throne, it certainly pays off. It was even reported that the duo had disagreements before the tour across the US had even begun last year. Jay-Z wanted to keep costs down in terms of production value whilst Kanye West, renowned for pushing the boundaries, wanted to focus on achieving an unforgettable experience, disregarding cost. But it seems the latter prevailed and the show is testament to the vision and creative genius, most certainly of Kanye West added to both of their showmanship.

With a set-list that tops almost 30 songs; the two rappers’ catalogue of music is nothing less than domineering and crowd pleasing to the London audience. Kanye West audibly capturing most of the crowd’s excitement as he shifts through anthem’s such as ‘All Of The Lights’, ‘Can’t Tell Me Nothing’ and ‘Heartless’ whilst Jay-Z’s classics ‘Where I’m From’, ‘You Don’t Know’ and most recent hits as ‘On To The Next One’ stir the crowd into a head-bopping and raving frenzy. The use of lasers and strobe lights are to be admired; a mix between a Coldplay concert and the glow of Tron, visual brilliance. It’s a merging of creative minimalism and deliberate extravagance; praise which has to be given to the set-design and production along with its execution. It’s a perfect marriage between two creative masterminds on and off-stage. The minimalism which contradicts the pulsating, raucous energy of the show is clearly on display through performances of the RZA-produced ‘New Day’ and Jay-Z’s street anthem ‘Hard Knock Life’. The two songs allow for Kanye and Jay-Z to get intimate with those in attendance; seated side-by-side at the foot of the main stage, almost as if they were rolling back the years and rapping on a stoop. It’s a moment in which the two can catch their breath and prepare the crowd once again for a showering of hits, lights and visuals which continue to take your breath away. None more so than one of the performances of the night; the opening song from their Watch The Throne album ‘No Church In The Wild’. When Louis Armstrong’s ‘What A Wonderful World’ begins to play accompanied by visuals of post-Hurricane Katrina, segregation in the Deep South, Ku Klux Klan member’s and burnings of the Cross, it essentially acts as a prelude to a cinematic performance of ‘No Church In The Wild’. The symbolism and message being conveyed is as strong as the eerie and dark performance; under a backdrop of exclusive footage from their apocalyptic music video which was shot in Prague. The footage, what can only be described as a riot; riot police, rioters, burning buildings and violence plays along in tandem with the thundering and marching bass of the song, whilst high above the stage the religious symbol of the cross lights up along with a fireball which is shot down continuously throughout the performance. It really is one of if not the, showpiece moment of the night.

Concerts and tours are remembered for moments like these. Some artists have the catalogue of music for a big arena show but visually they disappoint. It’s a matter of remaining long in the memories of music-goers, to one day look back and say ‘I was there’. Kanye West and Jay-Z certainly provide that memory, and in abundance. Forbes magazine reported earlier in the year that the Watch The Throne tour had grossed a staggering $48.5m over 35 concerts in the US alone, which is almost $1.4m a night. Their World Tour is estimated to pull in even more due to their appeal and demand and on evidence, it is worth every cent. The duo’s tag-team performance will go down as one of the greatest shows in hip-hop and music alike, with only a handful of artists around the world capable of matching the enormity of such an act. With an extensive set-list, each song provides a new experience and visual excellence. The stage design is minimal but memorable, especially with the two giant rising stages. Furthermore, the rousing conclusion of ‘N****s In Paris’ being performed 5 times back-to back (11 times in Paris which equates to almost 45mins of the show) is a personal gift from the duo in a show that keeps on giving. Kanye, you were right.

5 Most Anticipated Hip-Hop Albums of 2012

Here’s a list of 5 of the most anticipated Hip-Hop albums of 2012 according to BeHeardBeSeen. Some names you may be familiar with, others not so much. The likes of A$AP Rocky, Big K.R.I.T. and Kendrick Lamar have all made a lot of noise in 2011 through mixtapes and a host of collaborations. This year they will all release their debut albums and consequently build upon their recent acclaim. Nas will be releasing his tenth studio album whilst Kanye West’s G.O.O.D. Music label will release their first compilation album. It’s looking to be a hot summer for music!

Where Is The Love?

The Producer

Can you honestly say that you know who was behind the success of your favourite song, album, or even artist? How many producers could you name who are not already established household names themselves?

Here lies the problem. Music producers are often the forgotten pieces of the puzzle when discussing songs and albums. When a song gains mass attention and is heard all over the radio, little credit is ever given to the producers who are as much responsible for the song being a hit than the artist themselves. Not only is this disrespectful but it also belittles producers when music listeners discuss and argue their favourite songs off an album but have no idea as to the origins of the song, who produced it, which samples were used etc. More attention needs to be given to the producers, especially on music channels. How labourious would it be to include the name(s) of producers alongside the details of a song? One of this year’s biggest hits, Drake’s ‘Take Care’ with Rihanna, is a prime example of where the producers name and the producers creative input is ignored and it is the artist(s) who get the credit from fans and listeners.

Did you know that Drake’s ‘Take Care’ featuring Rihanna was produced by British producer Jamie xx, member of Mercury Music Prize winning indie band The xx? The beat itself is taken from Jamie xx’s 2011 collaborative project We’re New Here with the late Gil Scott-Heron. The original is entitled ‘I’ll Take Care Of You’.

Jamie xx & Gil Scott-Heron - I’ll Take Care Of You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mqf2mV6zEQ

Another Drake song entitled ‘Dreams Money Can Buy’ proved to be a hit amongst fans when he uploaded the song onto his October’s Very Own blog in 2011, yet how many of them have heard of Jai Paul? Jai Paul, British songwriter and producer has been generating a healthy buzz since introducing himself to the music world. But those who have heard Drake’s rework of Jai Paul’s critically acclaimed ‘BTSTU’ will still be oblivious to the origins of the song or to who Jai Paul is.

Jai Paul - BTSTU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEjYt2qNwmg

There are so many other examples of successful records where the producers have not gained the recognition and adulation that they are entitled to. Q-Tip’s most recognisable solo hit ‘Breathe & Stop’ was produced by the late, great J Dilla; long debated as one of the greatest hip-hop producers of all time. Until now, how many would be able to admit that they knew of J Dilla and the impact he has had and still remains to have on music? How many people realise J. Cole is an MC as well as a producer? He’s crafted songs for the likes of Wale, Kendrick Lamar and Fashawn amongst others. The majority of his mixtapes and debut album Cole World: The Sideline Story have all been produced by J. Cole and this has not retracted from the quality of the end product, turning him into one of the brightest stars in hip-hop today. J. Cole is as talented a producer as he is an MC, yet his skills as a producer will inevitably be overlooked due to unknowledgeable listeners. Again, much of Drake’s success as an artist and his sound is down to his producer Noah “40” Shebib. The producer has crafted a distinguishable sound for Drake for which his success has been built upon.

Take nothing away from the artists; they are the ones who ensure the music becomes a hit at the end of the day. But the producer is the driving force, the producer is the foundation; without the producer, what is an artist?