Shut Up And Listen 251

This week, I've been thinking about something pretty steadily. See, I've been trying to come up with a short comic story and have been thinking about how I want to approach it. I don't really have a story or anything, but, in this case, that isn't that important yet. I want to try something new and looking through some of my comic shorts, one thing many of them seem to lack is energy. Despite the fact that they were all written in short bursts, there isn't any energy to them. Usually, I just had an idea and an hour or so to kill and went with it. There wasn't a need, just a sense of boredom and curiosity. Nine times out of ten, I was just playing around with a concept, a style or a technique, so there wasn't any energy.

Energy is important to me. It doesn't matter how good something is, if it doesn't have this sense of energy behind it, I can guarantee that it won't appear anywhere near the top of my favourites list. Oh, I'll no doubt still like it and appreciate it as being good, but it will never be a favourite.

Of course, what is energy? How does one detect and measure it? I honestly don't know. It's one of those intangible things that you just feel. I can tell you that fast and loud music doesn't always have energy. And that big explosions don't necessarily equate with energy either. Nor does writing something very quickly and having a few mistakes in it that give the impression of sloppiness. Figured I'd tell you that because most of the time, that's where you'd think energy comes from.

The best example of energy I can give you is through music and why certain music captures me while other stuff doesn't. Is either Ryan Adams or Neil Young the best musicians around? No. They both have talent, but, come on, they're both probably in the upper middle class of musicians at best (okay, Neil Young may rank a bit higher, but I'm talking about skill and that, not just popularity and longevity). Despite this, they dominated 2005 in my mind. I listened to a lot of music, but theirs more than anyone else. Why did I listen to Cold Roses so much and Get Behind Me Satan only a bit? I mean, I really like Get Behind Me Satan and all, but it will never match Cold Roses or even Jacksonville City Nights (and I don't even like country music that much). Hell, why did I listen to On The Beach around twenty times more than The Beatles? And when I did listen to "The White Album," I ended up sticking with "Helter Skelter" and "Glass Onion" more than a lot of the "better" songs. The key, my friends, is energy.

Ryan Adams and Neil Young both have a shitload of energy in their music. Fast song, slow song, rock song, country song, it doesn't fucking matter, there's energy. Okay, not in every song, but in most. One of my favourite albums, lloR N kcoR is just energy. That's the only reason why I can think of to explain why I can always stick it in and love it. If I were stuck on a desert island and could only take one album, it would be that one because I never get sick of it. I loved it from the first listen right through to whatever the fuck listen I'm at now. Would I call it better than a lot of other albums I own, but don't listen to as much? Probably not, because lloR N kcoR is only better to me, because one of the things I look for is energy in some strange combination of other things.

I honestly think a lack of energy is what's missing from a lot of modern rock music. I'm sorry, but Coldplay has no fucking energy. Emo has no energy most of the time. Oh, it has a lot of fast music and whining, but not a lot of energy. (Passionate singing is not energetic singing, by the way.) There's too much time spent in the studio making everything just right. So much time that the energy is just sucked out. That doesn't mean do it in one take and fuck it if it isn't that good. It means make it good, but don't go overboard.

Is energy all that's needed? Of course not. Does the lack of it make something bad? Hell no. Some things just wouldn't work with energy. The graphic novel From Hell by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell has no energy. It's slow, it's dense, it's meticulous, it's methodical. There are maybe three moments where energy is seen, but it's a fucking fantastic read. Energy would kill it. Look at the movie adaptation. It has energy to it and it sucks. (Actually, a lot of Moore's work lacks energy and is, on the whole, quite good, while the movie adaptations have a lot of energy, but suck monkey balls.)

And here we are at the end and I realise that this column doesn't really have a point beyond the fact that I like energy, but can't really tell you what it is. That's some shitty content. Here's hoping the column has enough energy to carry it past that . . .