Okay, so if you grew up in the 90s then the chances are all of your favourite artists are touring. There is Mariah Carey, Sheryl Crow, Celine Dion and Shania Twain. Robbie Williams and a few others are also touring. Of course, when artists tour this means that there is huge anticipation to secure tickets to their shows. There will always be people who miss out, but there are some ways that you can increase the likelihood that you will get tickets to see your favourite artist.
1 - Try to get tickets in the presale: Presales are basically limited sales for the die hard fans, or the people who are willing to go the extra mile. It's really easy to access them. Sign up to the mailing list of the touring company and see if you can get access to credit card or telco provider presales. If you're not with Telstra then here's a little trick. Buy a Telstra sim card, create an online account and use that to access the presale.
2 - Don't try to buy heaps of tickets. This one is trickier if you plan to go with a few people. If you can, it's best if you all sign up to the mailing lists and the telco provider presale. That way you can try and get smaller quantities of tickets. You may end up sitting apart from eachother but that shouldn't worry you as you can simply hang out together before or after the show.
3 - Camp out on the website before tickets go on sale. If you can then make sure you're on the website prior to the presale or general on sale. Most ticketing companies will start queuing people prior to the on sale so if you're already in line "before the shop opens" you have a much better chance of getting tickets. Make sure you do not refresh the page. Refreshing the page every five seconds can actually push you further back in the queue and reduce the likelihood that you'll get tickets.
4 - Create your membership a few days before the on sale. Okay, it's very unlikely that you wouldn't have purchased tickets from Ticketek or Ticketmaster previously. If however you haven't then you will need to create an online account. By creating an online account prior to the day of the on sale you can ensure that you're all prepared to purchase tickets.
5 - Look at a seat map prior to the on sale. If you can get hold of a seat map prior to the on sale. Doing so will mean that you know exactly what type of ticket you're after. For example, if you want to be in the first elevation then you will either need A or B reserve, but if you're okay with being at the back then that's the cheapest option - normally D reserve. If you've been to the venue before you will also have a good idea of what a good seat is. I made this mistake a few years ago when I saw Taylor Swift at ANZ Stadium in Sydney's Olympic Park. I'd never been to the venue, so I thought "okay, section 321R isn't too bad", and it wasn't too bad in all honesty, but I did spend most of the time watching the concert on the screen. I later saw Ellie Goulding, Delta Goodrem and Green Day at Qudos Arena. I was in Elevation 2 for the first 2 and Elevation 3 for the latter. I wasn't aware at the time but a side view is actually better (but beware of the side view right near the stage) than directly facing the stage. When you familiarise yourself with the seat map and the pricing categories you can quickly get in and get your tickets without mucking around.
For some shows Ticketek allows you to play around with the seat map. They haven't allowed this with either Shania Twain or Celine Dion so you'll have to try your luck.
These are a few tips to help you get tickets to a show you want to. If you have any tips of your own please let us know.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Concert Review: Alanis Morissette - ICC Sydney January 2018
If you’re anything like me you grew up in the 90s listening to Alanis Morrisette and to this day you still do so when it was announced that she was touring Sydney you just had to buy your ticket to this must see show.
Let me tell you, she did not disappoint. It was a stripped back show that opened with You Learn. As you would expect the majority of songs were from her standout record, Jagged Little Pill which was released in 1995. She did offer a track from her follow up, supposed Former Infatuation Junkie and a couple of songs from Under Rug Swept, Hands Clean and Precious Illusions.
When she sung Hand in My Pocket, Ironic and You Oughta Know the crowd joined in. It was obvious from looking at most of the members in the audience that they’d grown up with Alanis.
There was no Encore with Alanis telling the audience that she didn’t want to leave the stage.
The management at the ICC is appalling and security was over the top (with bags being confiscated) but the acoustics of the venue were excellent and as long as you had a good seat you could see everything.
It would’ve been great if she’d sung a few songs from Supposed Former Infratuation Junkie such as So Pure and Unsent, but given the album tanked it’s not surprising that she didn’t.
It was great to see an artist just focus on singing rather than over produced music, which Alanis did so effortlessly.
All in all this was a great show and I would give it a 4/5.
Monday, January 22, 2018
Difference in the reactions between Tony Blair having a son in office and Jacinda announcing her pregnancy
I really don't like getting involved in personality politics but obviously with the news that New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is pregnant it seems everyone has an opinion.
There are the well wishers who have congratulated Jacinda and then there are the naysayers who are appalled that in 2018 a woman should dare to have a political career AND have a child. How dare she?! Remember, back in the later 90s, former Prime Minister Helen Clark was criticised for NOT having children, as was former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
Most comments have gone around in a circle that Jacinda is a liar, that she deceived the public and that she should have waited. Firstly, her reproductive choices are none of our business and given she is 37 and could potentially be in for three terms or nine years, she actually couldn't wait. Those who have been following the story closely will also know that she and her partner, Clarke Gayford had stopped trying for a baby when like many couples she fell pregnant.
Now, I won't repost some of the negative comments but they have been truly appalling and quite honestly sexist and misogynistic. They've revealed just how nasty people are when it comes to women's bodies, and it's not just men who are being critical, it's women as well.
Some people are also trying to mitigate the enormity of Jacinda Ardern's choice to have a baby while Prime Minister but what they don't understand is that in the real world women face the choice between career and children everyday.
Jacinda had questioned these things prior to winning the election and prior to getting pregnant. That's not a betrayal. That's simply her doing what everyone does, questioning what she'd be able to obtain. She thought she couldn't have both.
Now, to prove just how different male politicians who have children while in office are treated, I have dug up an old story from when former England Prime Minister Tony Blair had his youngest son, Leo in office.
There was 18 years between these two news stories. That should indicate just how sexist society still is. Tony Blair's decision to take paternity leave barely got a mention whereas Jacinda Ardern is being criticised for daring to do what men have been doing for centuries.
There are the well wishers who have congratulated Jacinda and then there are the naysayers who are appalled that in 2018 a woman should dare to have a political career AND have a child. How dare she?! Remember, back in the later 90s, former Prime Minister Helen Clark was criticised for NOT having children, as was former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
Most comments have gone around in a circle that Jacinda is a liar, that she deceived the public and that she should have waited. Firstly, her reproductive choices are none of our business and given she is 37 and could potentially be in for three terms or nine years, she actually couldn't wait. Those who have been following the story closely will also know that she and her partner, Clarke Gayford had stopped trying for a baby when like many couples she fell pregnant.
Now, I won't repost some of the negative comments but they have been truly appalling and quite honestly sexist and misogynistic. They've revealed just how nasty people are when it comes to women's bodies, and it's not just men who are being critical, it's women as well.
Some people are also trying to mitigate the enormity of Jacinda Ardern's choice to have a baby while Prime Minister but what they don't understand is that in the real world women face the choice between career and children everyday.
Jacinda had questioned these things prior to winning the election and prior to getting pregnant. That's not a betrayal. That's simply her doing what everyone does, questioning what she'd be able to obtain. She thought she couldn't have both.
Now, to prove just how different male politicians who have children while in office are treated, I have dug up an old story from when former England Prime Minister Tony Blair had his youngest son, Leo in office.
This was the headline on the day that former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's son Leo was born. The key phrase is:
(source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/may/21/tonyblair.politics)"Blair, the first PM to father a child in office since Lord John Russell 150 years ago, will now go into 'holiday mode', the limited paternity leave he first revealed in The Observer last month. His diary has been largely cleared but he will still be at key events this week: a meeting of Labour's NEC on Tuesday, Question Time on Wednesday and the Cabinet on Thursday. Parliament then goes into recess.The first congratulatory call, other than those from close family and friends, came from, of all people, John Major. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy led the current politicians' congratulations, saying, 'I am absolutely delighted for Tony and Cherie. The most important thing now is that everyone respects their right to privacy and peace for a decent interval.' "
Amazing how supportive it was. This contrasts with the following commentary.
(source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11979125 - originally published in the Daily Mail)."Oh please! Giving birth months after winning an election isn't multi-tasking," she wrote."It's more a betrayal of voters. It's worse than Damian Green and those porngate claims! At least he could snap his laptop shut if World War III broke out. What will a new mum PM do? Hurry back from [the supermarket], wailing: 'I'm sorry I missed Armageddon, but we'd run out of organic Ella's Kitchen'?"
This is an extract from a blog that's in progress as we speak, but it's amazing just how much sexism is actually being leveled at Jacinda Ardern.
So my question is, why do we congratulate men for having careers and children; and yet we chastise women for doing the same thing? Why do we call it multitasking yet with men we don't?
There was 18 years between these two news stories. That should indicate just how sexist society still is. Tony Blair's decision to take paternity leave barely got a mention whereas Jacinda Ardern is being criticised for daring to do what men have been doing for centuries.
Saturday, January 20, 2018
Gender rights: The negative reaction to Jacinda Ardern's pregnancy
It's not often I defend the Labour Party because as I've started on multiple occasions, I am not a Labour supporter. I am very far right between National and Act, or if we were talking Australian politics I am a liberal or One Nation supporter (I don't yet have voting rights as mentioned in previous blogs).
I do however have to stand up and defend the Labour Party, or more specifically NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern because there has been a lot of criticism towards her for getting pregnant after becoming the Prime Minister in October last year.
A few comments have come up since the announcement that she and her partner, Clarke Gayford are expecting their first child and I want to address each one individually.
Comment: She lied to the public
No, actually she did not lie to the public. Prior to becoming the leader of the Labour Party she was interviewed in Next magazine and she said that she wasn't sure she wanted to lead the party because having a family was important to her and that she wasn't sure could cope with being a parent and being Prime Minister (there was always the assumption that if she became leader, Labour would go on to form the government, which they did in fact do).
She had also been questioned on the 1st of August about her intentions to have a family and she said that the interviewer, TV3 presenter Mark Richardson was out of line asking the question, which he was.
Comment: She shouldn't have taken the job knowing she wanted children
Hundreds, if not thousands of male MPs and Prime Ministers have children all the time and many MPs and Prime Ministers have fathered children while in office. Nobody has ever questioned their ability to do the job like they do a woman.
She addressed these concerns saying that her partner Clarke Gayford will be a stay at home dad. Therefore she is not actually going to be away from work for long. Six weeks according to the media conference that she held yesterday. This is less than general paid parental leave. In NZ the entitlement for full time employees is 18 weeks. She is only taking six weeks and has stated she will be contactable during this period. Where is the issue in this? You may also recall that National MP Nikki Kaye took a few months out from parliament in 2016 due to a breast cancer diagnosis which thankfully she recovered from.
Comment: She should go and be a mother and not be PM
This one doesn't even make sense. It assumes that only women can look after children and that is simply untrue. Although only a small percentage of men are stay at home dads there is nothing to suggest that men cannot raise their children. After all it does take two. Some say but what about breastfeeding? There are options for that. Jacinda has indicated the baby will be welcome in parliament and the house (I don't think it should be but I believe babies have no place in a workplace) so she can breastfeed. She has also got the option of expressing milk. Clarke and the baby will travel with her while she goes overseas and travels locally. She can do both. Men have been fathering children and working for hundreds of years. There is no reason to suggest Jacinda can't do it.
Comment: Winston Peters will be PM when he wasn't elected
This one is factually incorrect. New Zealand has MMP which means that no single party ever forms government. Coalitions made up of a major party and one or more minor parties is normal and always happens. When National was in parliament the deputy came from the National Party, however Jacinda Ardern signed a coalition agreement that meant NZ First leader Winston Peters would be Acting PM in her absence. This is normal. in Australia the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce comes from the National Party (a rural party). That is how the government is negotiated.
Those saying that Winston Peters didn't win his seat are showing ignorance. MMP means that there are two votes - the party vote and the electorate vote. Winston Peters and other NZ First MPs got in on the party vote. The idea behind MMP is that no singular party has absolute power. Because NZ has MMP it means that the major party does not ever get 50% which means they have to form a coalition with at least one other party and there is an expectation that the coalition partner will hold senior positions such as the position of Deputy Prime Minister.
To say Winston Peters will be the Prime Minister when he wasn't voted in is not correct. He was voted in by 7% of the population and effectively the Labour Party and the Green Party.
Comment: Jacinda should have waited until after she was PM to have a baby
Again, male Prime Ministers have been having children for years while in office. There is also only limited time for women to have children before their eggs dry up and the fact is, Jacinda's time was running out. She had been advised by medical professionals that she and Clarke may not be able to conceive naturally.
She is also not deserting the job. Taking six weeks maternity leave is well within her rights and the child will have a parent at home full time, plus the baby and Clarke will travel with her regularly so where's the issue?
Comment: She shouldn't have taken on the leadership role knowing that she was going to have kids
It is illegal in NZ to discriminate based on someone's intention to have or not have children. By all means don't support Labour but if you're not going to support Labour do it on their policy platform, not whether or not she will have kids. Again, nobody made a song and dance over John Key or Bill English being parents while in office.
Other high profile people such as Helen Clark have weighed into the debate saying that women should not be forced to choose between children and a career and that discrimination based on whether or not someone is going to have children is illegal. She is right. It has been illegal for a number of years. I have to wonder though, does former Prime Minister Helen Clark regret not having children? If she could go back would she have had children? Or was she unable to have children? She was criticised while in parliament for not having children but I don't think she ever said whether or not she wanted children.
Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said a couple of years ago that women can have it all but not all at once, and indicated that she had chosen politics rather than children.
The bottom line is, we don't expect men to sacrifice their careers for children, so why in 2018 do we still expect women to? On the flipside, why do we still think men are incapable of looking after children? I hope that Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford will be able to lead by example and that it will become more accepted for women to return to work immediately after having children, and that it will be more accepted for men to take on childcare responsibilities.
Just as it's sexist to expect women to stay at home and raise children, it is equally sexist to suggest that men are not capable of raising children while their wife or partner goes back to work.
I do however have to stand up and defend the Labour Party, or more specifically NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern because there has been a lot of criticism towards her for getting pregnant after becoming the Prime Minister in October last year.
A few comments have come up since the announcement that she and her partner, Clarke Gayford are expecting their first child and I want to address each one individually.
Comment: She lied to the public
No, actually she did not lie to the public. Prior to becoming the leader of the Labour Party she was interviewed in Next magazine and she said that she wasn't sure she wanted to lead the party because having a family was important to her and that she wasn't sure could cope with being a parent and being Prime Minister (there was always the assumption that if she became leader, Labour would go on to form the government, which they did in fact do).
She had also been questioned on the 1st of August about her intentions to have a family and she said that the interviewer, TV3 presenter Mark Richardson was out of line asking the question, which he was.
Comment: She shouldn't have taken the job knowing she wanted children
Hundreds, if not thousands of male MPs and Prime Ministers have children all the time and many MPs and Prime Ministers have fathered children while in office. Nobody has ever questioned their ability to do the job like they do a woman.
She addressed these concerns saying that her partner Clarke Gayford will be a stay at home dad. Therefore she is not actually going to be away from work for long. Six weeks according to the media conference that she held yesterday. This is less than general paid parental leave. In NZ the entitlement for full time employees is 18 weeks. She is only taking six weeks and has stated she will be contactable during this period. Where is the issue in this? You may also recall that National MP Nikki Kaye took a few months out from parliament in 2016 due to a breast cancer diagnosis which thankfully she recovered from.
Comment: She should go and be a mother and not be PM
This one doesn't even make sense. It assumes that only women can look after children and that is simply untrue. Although only a small percentage of men are stay at home dads there is nothing to suggest that men cannot raise their children. After all it does take two. Some say but what about breastfeeding? There are options for that. Jacinda has indicated the baby will be welcome in parliament and the house (I don't think it should be but I believe babies have no place in a workplace) so she can breastfeed. She has also got the option of expressing milk. Clarke and the baby will travel with her while she goes overseas and travels locally. She can do both. Men have been fathering children and working for hundreds of years. There is no reason to suggest Jacinda can't do it.
Comment: Winston Peters will be PM when he wasn't elected
This one is factually incorrect. New Zealand has MMP which means that no single party ever forms government. Coalitions made up of a major party and one or more minor parties is normal and always happens. When National was in parliament the deputy came from the National Party, however Jacinda Ardern signed a coalition agreement that meant NZ First leader Winston Peters would be Acting PM in her absence. This is normal. in Australia the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce comes from the National Party (a rural party). That is how the government is negotiated.
Those saying that Winston Peters didn't win his seat are showing ignorance. MMP means that there are two votes - the party vote and the electorate vote. Winston Peters and other NZ First MPs got in on the party vote. The idea behind MMP is that no singular party has absolute power. Because NZ has MMP it means that the major party does not ever get 50% which means they have to form a coalition with at least one other party and there is an expectation that the coalition partner will hold senior positions such as the position of Deputy Prime Minister.
To say Winston Peters will be the Prime Minister when he wasn't voted in is not correct. He was voted in by 7% of the population and effectively the Labour Party and the Green Party.
Comment: Jacinda should have waited until after she was PM to have a baby
Again, male Prime Ministers have been having children for years while in office. There is also only limited time for women to have children before their eggs dry up and the fact is, Jacinda's time was running out. She had been advised by medical professionals that she and Clarke may not be able to conceive naturally.
She is also not deserting the job. Taking six weeks maternity leave is well within her rights and the child will have a parent at home full time, plus the baby and Clarke will travel with her regularly so where's the issue?
Comment: She shouldn't have taken on the leadership role knowing that she was going to have kids
It is illegal in NZ to discriminate based on someone's intention to have or not have children. By all means don't support Labour but if you're not going to support Labour do it on their policy platform, not whether or not she will have kids. Again, nobody made a song and dance over John Key or Bill English being parents while in office.
Other high profile people such as Helen Clark have weighed into the debate saying that women should not be forced to choose between children and a career and that discrimination based on whether or not someone is going to have children is illegal. She is right. It has been illegal for a number of years. I have to wonder though, does former Prime Minister Helen Clark regret not having children? If she could go back would she have had children? Or was she unable to have children? She was criticised while in parliament for not having children but I don't think she ever said whether or not she wanted children.
Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said a couple of years ago that women can have it all but not all at once, and indicated that she had chosen politics rather than children.
The bottom line is, we don't expect men to sacrifice their careers for children, so why in 2018 do we still expect women to? On the flipside, why do we still think men are incapable of looking after children? I hope that Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford will be able to lead by example and that it will become more accepted for women to return to work immediately after having children, and that it will be more accepted for men to take on childcare responsibilities.
Just as it's sexist to expect women to stay at home and raise children, it is equally sexist to suggest that men are not capable of raising children while their wife or partner goes back to work.
Friday, January 19, 2018
Sexism and politics in 2018: Jacinda Ardern announces she's pregnant
The day is the 1st of August 2017. Labour leader Andrew Little has announced he is stepping down and Jacinda Ardern, then deputy, will become the leader.
Immediately she is grilled about her intentions to have a family. TV3 broadcaster Mark Richardson asks her on the morning show if she plans to have children. She is furious about the question saying that while she is happy to answer the question, it is inappropriate to ask it.
As you would expect from a leader of a major political party she was polite when answering the question but said that the question was inappropriate in 2017. To give you a heads up, it is illegal to ask ANYONE, male or female what their family intentions are. It breaches their human rights and can lead to undue discrimination.
Mark Richardson, who asked the question was criticised for doing so by thousands of people on social media and media comment sections.
You can see in the video that Duncan Garner says he had never asked a male politician if they planned to have children. It should be noted that Trevor Mallard, Jenny Shipley, Bill English and John Key all had children while in office. On the flipside, former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark were criticised for not having children.
Prior to becoming leader of the NZ Labour Party, Jacinda Ardern made it very clear that she was hesitant to take on the leadership role because she wasn't sure that she could juggle being Prime Minister with having children.
The world media responded to Mark Richardson's question in disbelief that she would be asked a question about her reproductive plans the day she was elected as leader of the Labour Party. You will recall that I blogged back then saying that her partner Clarke Gayford would be a stay at home dad.
Well, fast forward to January 19th 2018 and we have our answer.
Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford have announced that they will be having their first baby in June and that he will be a stay at home dad. Ardern will take six weeks maternity leave (the entitlement in NZ is 18 weeks) before returning back to work. It should also be noted that she has said in today's media conference that she will still be reachable when she is on maternity leave. NZ First leader Winston Peters will be Acting Prime Minister for the duration.
Now let's talk about the implications of Jacinda Ardern being pregnant. The majority of responses have been overwhelmingly positive with people being very happy for the PM and thinking that it is the reality - working parents can have kids. Meanwhile others are not as nice saying she must immediately resign. These people are likely bitter about the election result and looking for any excuse to have a National led government again. Full disclosure: I am an Act and National voter, however I also support gender equality and do not think that having a baby while in office should mean someone is excluded from the top job. Jacinda Ardern has been a role model from the moment she became Prime Minister given her youth.
Getting pregnant in itself isn't news, but getting pregnant while you're the Prime Minister of a country is a huge moment for women's rights in New Zealand and the country really does pave the way for other countries to follow suit, step up and take notice that hey here's a female Prime Minister who is having a child while in office.
Getting pregnant in itself isn't news, but getting pregnant while you're the Prime Minister of a country is a huge moment for women's rights in New Zealand and the country really does pave the way for other countries to follow suit, step up and take notice that hey here's a female Prime Minister who is having a child while in office.
In the 1990s girls were told we could do anything but the reality is somewhat different. Even Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop has said that she couldn't have it all. She chose politics rather than kids. Meanwhile former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark said that women should have the choice to have a career and kids.
Some people say that Jacinda Ardern cannot do it, but remember, she is on a $400,000 salary and has a very supportive partner who will play the role of stay at home dad. They will also travel regularly with her so they won't be separated from eachother for very long. We also need to remember that male Prime Ministers have had kids in parliament as well - John Key, Bill English, Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. None of them were questioned about their ability to work AND run the country so being a woman should be no different.
What about women outside of high powered jobs though? Well, working conditions should be more flexible with parents (male and female) able to work from home, flexible hours (as long as you get the work done by X it doesn't matter when or how you do it) and increased childcare centre hours (not everyone works 9-5, shift workers need to be considered).
For all the naysayers, this is a great day for women's rights and shows just how far the country has come since Kate Sheppard first fought for women having the right to vote in 1893.
Congratulations to both Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford. I'm sure they'll be great parents and will be able to provide well for the child.
I hope that businesses in New Zealand and Australia take notice that women are capable of working while raising children, and that men can take parental leave as well.
I hope that businesses in New Zealand and Australia take notice that women are capable of working while raising children, and that men can take parental leave as well.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Prince Harry gets engaged to an American and the world goes nuts
There's something we need to talk about and it's really quite important. I swore several months ago I was not going to get sucked into writing a blog about same sex marriage and that it was so low on my radar that it didn't even factor. Of course, I'm bringing it up now because of something related yet unrelated.
As you may have heard the news last night, Prince Harry and his girlfriend, Meghan Markle announced their engagement and upcoming Spring wedding.
Apparently it's a big deal because not only is Meghan 36, and he's 33 (Ashton Kutcher anyone!), she's also a divorcee (Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles, hello! Does anyone remember the negative press they got for several years?), she's also an African American citizen and once again, call the Police and lock the gates because she's an actress, an actress! Oh heaven forbid! This is a total disaster!
Well according to several newspapers, this is a very big deal.
I would like to take the time to correct the media and simply state the following:
After an 18 month courtship, which saw her meet key members of the Royal Family including Her Majesty Herself, the Queen, Prince William, his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge Kate, and many others, Prince Harry has proposed to his American girlfriend Meghan Markle. Ms Markle, a divorcee moved to London earlier this month after quitting her role as Rachel Zane on the legal drama Suits. This is a huge moment in history as Prince Harry was known for his bad boy ways in his younger days. Could this engagement mark the beginning of a new chapter in Prince Harry's life? Has he finally settled down?
That my readers is actually all that needs to be said. Whether or not Markle is white, black, yellow, purple is irrelevant. Cue Michael Jackson's Black or White:
The only thing that's actually relevant is that the Prince and the actress are engaged to be married. It's 2017, nearly 2018, and for the MSM to make such a big deal out of skin colour shows that there is still prejudice towards people of different ethnicities. Those only actually disappear when people stop mentioning someone's race. Meghan has done perfectly well on her own and forged an excellent career for herself before meeting the prince, so why even bring race into it?
Although Meghan Markle is an American, it obviously doesn't occur to mainstream media journalists that people move around the world in greater numbers than ever before, which actually means the likelihood of marrying someone who was born in another country is significantly increased, and therefore a non event. If the same sex marriage brigade are to be believed then the only thing that should actually matter is whether or not a couple actually love eachother and not their ethnic background. The Royal Family are just like any other family around the world. They have feelings and they have to live their lives as they wish. In many ways Prince Harry is lucky because he's 6th in line to the throne (once Kate and William's third baby is born) so he has more leeway than others. He is also the youngest in his blood line and as we all know, the youngest child often gets away with more than the oldest one(s).
Now that we've got that out of the way, the Royal Wedding is going to be in the Spring. It can't be before March or April at the very earliest because his brother, Prince William and Kate are expecting their third baby, so the family will already be tied up with the organisation of that. It's likely to be May or June which gives William and Kate the space and time to get used to having a third child, and the family to organise what will be a massive event.
Prince Harry has always been the bad boy of the Royal Family, so him settling down is a huge deal. He's previously been linked to his sister in law, Pippa Middleton and singer Ellie Goulding but finally settled on Ms Markle after an 18 month courtship.
So what does the marriage actually mean?
Well, despite some Australians and New Zealanders being republicans and wanting to leave the Commonwealth, the interest in the Royal Family means that we are less likely to become republics. People are still very fond of the Royal Family, and even though most people don't like Prince Charles or what him to be King, the Royal Family are still hugely relevant.
Forget for a moment that they are born into huge wealth and royalty, they do a lot of good and help hundreds of charities around the world. They inspire people and give them something to aspire to. Given that Meghan, Kate, the late Princess Diana and even Camilla were commoners prior to joining the Royal Family, everyone can aspire to become royalty.
It's expected that Prince Harry and Meghan will become full time royal representatives now that they are engaged and that their duties will increase when they are married.
Fortunately for us here in Australia, that will mean we can expect Prince Harry and Meghan to make a royal visit in either late 2018 or 2019 (most likely 2019), and that is very exciting, especially for us younger Royal Family followers.
The only thing that I wish is that John Key and Tony Abbott were still Prime Ministers of NZ and Australia respectively. They would've lapped up the opportunity to mix with royalty and genuinely care about the royal family. Prime Ministers Jacinda Ardern and Malcolm Turnbull have made it very clear that they are republications and want NZ and Australia to break away from the commonwealth. Key and Abbott were much better on the world stage than Ardern and Turnbull.
That aside, Royal Family followers are going to be doubly treated next year with both a new royal baby AND a royal wedding!
Hospitals around the world can expect the names Harry, Henry, Meghan, William, Kate, Charlotte and George to increase in popularity.
We can also expect Royal Family followers to go mad when Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announce that they're planning a visit down under.
As you may have heard the news last night, Prince Harry and his girlfriend, Meghan Markle announced their engagement and upcoming Spring wedding.
Apparently it's a big deal because not only is Meghan 36, and he's 33 (Ashton Kutcher anyone!), she's also a divorcee (Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles, hello! Does anyone remember the negative press they got for several years?), she's also an African American citizen and once again, call the Police and lock the gates because she's an actress, an actress! Oh heaven forbid! This is a total disaster!
Well according to several newspapers, this is a very big deal.
I would like to take the time to correct the media and simply state the following:
After an 18 month courtship, which saw her meet key members of the Royal Family including Her Majesty Herself, the Queen, Prince William, his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge Kate, and many others, Prince Harry has proposed to his American girlfriend Meghan Markle. Ms Markle, a divorcee moved to London earlier this month after quitting her role as Rachel Zane on the legal drama Suits. This is a huge moment in history as Prince Harry was known for his bad boy ways in his younger days. Could this engagement mark the beginning of a new chapter in Prince Harry's life? Has he finally settled down?
That my readers is actually all that needs to be said. Whether or not Markle is white, black, yellow, purple is irrelevant. Cue Michael Jackson's Black or White:
The only thing that's actually relevant is that the Prince and the actress are engaged to be married. It's 2017, nearly 2018, and for the MSM to make such a big deal out of skin colour shows that there is still prejudice towards people of different ethnicities. Those only actually disappear when people stop mentioning someone's race. Meghan has done perfectly well on her own and forged an excellent career for herself before meeting the prince, so why even bring race into it?
Although Meghan Markle is an American, it obviously doesn't occur to mainstream media journalists that people move around the world in greater numbers than ever before, which actually means the likelihood of marrying someone who was born in another country is significantly increased, and therefore a non event. If the same sex marriage brigade are to be believed then the only thing that should actually matter is whether or not a couple actually love eachother and not their ethnic background. The Royal Family are just like any other family around the world. They have feelings and they have to live their lives as they wish. In many ways Prince Harry is lucky because he's 6th in line to the throne (once Kate and William's third baby is born) so he has more leeway than others. He is also the youngest in his blood line and as we all know, the youngest child often gets away with more than the oldest one(s).
Now that we've got that out of the way, the Royal Wedding is going to be in the Spring. It can't be before March or April at the very earliest because his brother, Prince William and Kate are expecting their third baby, so the family will already be tied up with the organisation of that. It's likely to be May or June which gives William and Kate the space and time to get used to having a third child, and the family to organise what will be a massive event.
Prince Harry has always been the bad boy of the Royal Family, so him settling down is a huge deal. He's previously been linked to his sister in law, Pippa Middleton and singer Ellie Goulding but finally settled on Ms Markle after an 18 month courtship.
So what does the marriage actually mean?
Well, despite some Australians and New Zealanders being republicans and wanting to leave the Commonwealth, the interest in the Royal Family means that we are less likely to become republics. People are still very fond of the Royal Family, and even though most people don't like Prince Charles or what him to be King, the Royal Family are still hugely relevant.
Forget for a moment that they are born into huge wealth and royalty, they do a lot of good and help hundreds of charities around the world. They inspire people and give them something to aspire to. Given that Meghan, Kate, the late Princess Diana and even Camilla were commoners prior to joining the Royal Family, everyone can aspire to become royalty.
It's expected that Prince Harry and Meghan will become full time royal representatives now that they are engaged and that their duties will increase when they are married.
Fortunately for us here in Australia, that will mean we can expect Prince Harry and Meghan to make a royal visit in either late 2018 or 2019 (most likely 2019), and that is very exciting, especially for us younger Royal Family followers.
The only thing that I wish is that John Key and Tony Abbott were still Prime Ministers of NZ and Australia respectively. They would've lapped up the opportunity to mix with royalty and genuinely care about the royal family. Prime Ministers Jacinda Ardern and Malcolm Turnbull have made it very clear that they are republications and want NZ and Australia to break away from the commonwealth. Key and Abbott were much better on the world stage than Ardern and Turnbull.
That aside, Royal Family followers are going to be doubly treated next year with both a new royal baby AND a royal wedding!
Hospitals around the world can expect the names Harry, Henry, Meghan, William, Kate, Charlotte and George to increase in popularity.
We can also expect Royal Family followers to go mad when Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announce that they're planning a visit down under.
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Concert Review: Lorde - Melodrama Tour, Sydney Opera House, 22nd November 2017
Every so often an artist comes along who strikes a chord with people of all ages. In the 90s that was Mariah Carey and Madonna. For a while, Britney Spears was the Queen of pop, as was Beyonce and Taylor Swift in recent years, until Swift's reputation got damaged (Taylor Swift's reputation, and her latest album of the same name will be discussed in another blog).
It's very rare though that a singer from New Zealand will hit the international stage, which makes Lorde's ascent to the top even more magical.
It all started five years ago when Lorde, who at the time was living in Takapuna/Devonport on Auckland's North Shore uploaded an EP to the internet. Her debut song, Royals was captivating and propelled her to the top of the US charts and many other charts around the world.
Four years after her debut, Lorde released Melodramaa, which has since had the singles Green Light, Liability, Homemade Dynamite and promotional single, Perfect Places.
Naturally, international artists of Lorde's standing embark on world tours, and that's exactly what Lorde has done. Even though she could fill stadiums, Lorde chose smaller, more intimate venues, one of which was the Sydney Opera House, which has a capacity of 5,500.
She played two shows at the iconic venue, on the 21st and 22nd of November 2017. I was lucky enough to be at the show on the 22nd of November.
The support act was George Maples, an electronica singer from Sydney, who has just released her debut album, Lovers. She wasn't anything special.
As with all shows there was about half an hour between the time that Maples' set finished and Lorde's started. Looking around the venue there were literally people of all ages from 10 right through to 60. Lorde has mass appeal.
Lorde opened with Homemade Dynamite and as you'd imagine, she has stage presence and oozes charisma when she's out there on stage. Unlike other artists of her calibre, Lorde has a scaled back show, but it doesn't matter because you can't help but be captivated by her singing.
In between songs, she spoke to the audience. Early on in the show, she said that Sydney was the most beautiful place that she's played and she couldn't believe that she was actually playing at the Opera House. She was really taken aback by the whole thing. Now we all know that artists say that the city they're in is their favourite, but later on in the show Lorde said that whenever she's in Sydney she goes out on a boat and that it's the only other city that actually feels like her home.
The show was split into three parts, with three costume changes. Her first outfit was a black boho inspired maxi skirt and a dark grey sparkly top. She then changed a third of the way through into a blue dress that easily could have belonged on a commune. The final outfit was similar, but was red.
Musically, the best part of the show was the final third where she played all her biggest hits: Royals, which the crowd went crazy for and sung along to, Perfect Places, Team and Green Light, which she was emotional before singing and asked the audience to sing along with her.
After Green Light a couple of minutes of fireworks were let off, and then she departed the stage before returning for an encore of her song, Loveless from Melodrama.
All in all, Lorde cannot only sing but she can work a crowd and truly connect with her audience. There is no lip syncing during the show. Every song is sung 100% live.
The highlights of the show were when she sung Royals; and when she spoke about how she was so grateful to be singing at the Opera House.
The lowlight was the song chosen for the encore. If I'd been in charge of the set list arrangement, I would have ended with Royals, the song that got her entire career started.
Overall the show deserves 4.5/5 stars.
It's very rare though that a singer from New Zealand will hit the international stage, which makes Lorde's ascent to the top even more magical.
It all started five years ago when Lorde, who at the time was living in Takapuna/Devonport on Auckland's North Shore uploaded an EP to the internet. Her debut song, Royals was captivating and propelled her to the top of the US charts and many other charts around the world.
Four years after her debut, Lorde released Melodramaa, which has since had the singles Green Light, Liability, Homemade Dynamite and promotional single, Perfect Places.
Naturally, international artists of Lorde's standing embark on world tours, and that's exactly what Lorde has done. Even though she could fill stadiums, Lorde chose smaller, more intimate venues, one of which was the Sydney Opera House, which has a capacity of 5,500.
She played two shows at the iconic venue, on the 21st and 22nd of November 2017. I was lucky enough to be at the show on the 22nd of November.
The support act was George Maples, an electronica singer from Sydney, who has just released her debut album, Lovers. She wasn't anything special.
As with all shows there was about half an hour between the time that Maples' set finished and Lorde's started. Looking around the venue there were literally people of all ages from 10 right through to 60. Lorde has mass appeal.
Lorde opened with Homemade Dynamite and as you'd imagine, she has stage presence and oozes charisma when she's out there on stage. Unlike other artists of her calibre, Lorde has a scaled back show, but it doesn't matter because you can't help but be captivated by her singing.
In between songs, she spoke to the audience. Early on in the show, she said that Sydney was the most beautiful place that she's played and she couldn't believe that she was actually playing at the Opera House. She was really taken aback by the whole thing. Now we all know that artists say that the city they're in is their favourite, but later on in the show Lorde said that whenever she's in Sydney she goes out on a boat and that it's the only other city that actually feels like her home.
The show was split into three parts, with three costume changes. Her first outfit was a black boho inspired maxi skirt and a dark grey sparkly top. She then changed a third of the way through into a blue dress that easily could have belonged on a commune. The final outfit was similar, but was red.
Musically, the best part of the show was the final third where she played all her biggest hits: Royals, which the crowd went crazy for and sung along to, Perfect Places, Team and Green Light, which she was emotional before singing and asked the audience to sing along with her.
After Green Light a couple of minutes of fireworks were let off, and then she departed the stage before returning for an encore of her song, Loveless from Melodrama.
All in all, Lorde cannot only sing but she can work a crowd and truly connect with her audience. There is no lip syncing during the show. Every song is sung 100% live.
The highlights of the show were when she sung Royals; and when she spoke about how she was so grateful to be singing at the Opera House.
The lowlight was the song chosen for the encore. If I'd been in charge of the set list arrangement, I would have ended with Royals, the song that got her entire career started.
Overall the show deserves 4.5/5 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)