IPL: The 'Voldemort' of cricket?

Once Harsha Bhogle who is a keen follower of the Indian Premier League, tweeted about how the cricketing world viewed the IPL as the "Voldemort" of cricket. I cried laughing at the comparison with the famous fictional character who is more evil than evil itself in the "Harry Potter" series.
Though I do think that this analogy is extreme, I certainly am not a fan of the 'hit and giggle' league.
Contrary to popular opinion, it is possible to be Indian AND an avid cricket follower but still detest the hype and hoopla surrounding the league. Some of the reasons for this are -

- It's not cricket, its an overdose of cric entertainment
IPL can ever be a proper cricketing contest between franchises. In fact cricket is secondary to commercial interests. Mix Bollywood, business persons, VJ's, all sorts of cricketers with talents and ages at the extreme ends, unnecessary on field interviews (let the blokes play for crying out loud!),  some outrageously garrish team outfits (eg. golden helmets and pads!) and add a sprinkle of cheer leaders and the resulting product is an overdose of entertainment which is quite nauseating to say the least. And yeah, this carnival of foolery runs for not less that 2 months.

- What about the Indian national team?
Don't understand whether the BCCI is blind or plain stupid. After successive 8 overseas test defeats, don't they realize that something is fundamentally wrong with Indian cricket? Instead of the BCCI, with the money that they have, directing their efforts on a more or less meaningless tournament, why don't they focus on finding and correcting the wrongs. Whether IPL is responsible for the Indian team's pathetic run is debatable but no one can deny the 'fatigue factor' that the tournament brings. I pity Dhoni from the bottom of my heart. I don't think the poor fellow and lot of the others have had a proper break since the last 5 years. Honestly, I also think that the BCCI should consider the fact that by paying such fat pay cheques (which are many times the pay of being a contracted player for the Indian team) to players leads to complacency and less of a drive to win matches in the national jersey. BCCI should get its priorities right. Period.

- Impact on quality of international cricket 
Foreign players will be lured by the big money and no one can really blame them. But a genuine cricket fan feels pretty disappointed and cheated to some extent when a Sunil Narine does not play in the WI vs Aus test series or AB De Villiers misses out on the limited over series versus Australia because of injury obtained in Champions League (gosh! so wannabe football) or there is no decider test between Sri Lanka and England so as to allow the SL players to attend the full tournament. Situations like a Morne Morkel bowling to Albie Morkel in the death over and 2 bitter foes from different countries playing in the same team are mildly entertaining but at the end of the day the whole tournament is pretty shallow.

If the BCCI is rolling in that much of surplus cash why can't it .....

- Invest in nurturing the fast bowling talent in India
The Indian bowling is in pits and it is really no secret.  To think that in other countries talented quicks like Steven Finn find it so difficult to break into the test team! And for heaven sake, don't blame the pitches for the lack of fast bowlers in the country. Pakistan also doesn't have bouncy pitches but look at the difference in the quality of fast bowling.

- Invest in converting the dead pan pitches into result oriented ones which could possibly revive test cricket in India. Make no mistake, everybody does follow it but near empty stands in test matches in a country where cricket is considered religion is not exactly an ideal situation.

- Make sure that the Indian team have adequate preparation before an abroad tour
Some of the members of the English team arrived in Sri Lanka about a month in advance for a two match series in Sri Lanka in order to acclimatize themselves to the conditions. That level of advance preparedness would maybe not be possible given the packed schedule and the BCCI's dogged determination to dedicate 2 months to IPL.

- Do something to address the loopholes of DRS considering that they are that aggrieved by the technology (which I will for the life of me never understand!)

- Invest in other sports in India - a long shot no doubt but with great power does come great responsibility and it would probably generate some amount of good will for a body headed by politicians (a class of people who are considered comparable to slugs in India)

IPL being a form of escapist entertainment will continue to enthrall the masses. In a country devoid of sporting glory and in which people wake up to some scandal or the other, the glitz and glamour does provide a temporary relief but the question to be asked is who is really benefiting from this and has the IPL changed the game of cricket for the better?

The Beatles - Relevant then, now and always.....

"Ladies and Gentleman.....(the curtains dramatically open).........THE BEATLES!!! (a midst the craze, hysteria and all the screaming). This was how the fab 4 from Liverpool, England - John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr were introduced to America  through the Ed Sullivan show on February 1964. The rest, as they say is history......
Almost 50 years has passed since then and its phenomenal that this band still continues to be relevant. Instead of praising them to high heavens directly which I am quite tempted to do,  my way of paying tribute to my all time favorite band is to debunk some of the myths that exist among 'non' - Beatles fans who haven't really listened to their music (please make note i am not using the word 'haters' because I refuse to believe that anyone in their right mind could possibly hate the Beatles!)

- The Beatles songs are very happy-happy, lovey-dovey, boy meets girl type without any depth
To all those who have formed their opinions on the band based on listening to only songs like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", my first question to you is - Have you heard "Eleanor Rigby" or "Helter Skelter"?
Yes, they started out with happy-go-lucky, feel good songs like "Please Please Me", "From Me To You" etc and yes, they got instant fame all over the world by introducing themselves through these type of songs. But if you manage to get past these songs and start listening to them album by album on a chronological basis, you will realize the way that they progressed musically that too in a span of just 6-7 years is simply extraordinary.
Not that I am apologetic for their initial songs that they made as a bunch of 21 year olds. I think that when you are in the mood of clean, light and innocent music, their first two albums - "Please Please Me" (1963) and  "With The Beatles" (1963) (especially the latter) are tremendous listening options.
To be honest, I don't know a squat about the technicalities of music. In fact I didn't even know what the significance of a 'bass' guitar was till I came to know that Paul McCartney played it. But I do know that their  sound was superior and incredibly advance for their times. That is one of the reasons that people like me whose grandparents are as old as the Beatles members are now, adore them!
Also, as a music fan in general, I feel that the beauty of their songs lies in the strong foundation of simple and heartfelt lyrics. The lyrics in most of their songs (especially the ones predominantly composed by Macca) have an undercurrent of optimism in them. This is probably the reason why people are so drawn and feel so connected by the simplicity and charm of their tunes. For example when I listen to the songs which talk about small everyday highs like coming back to a loved one after a tiring day or getting by with the help of  friends, I feel an overwhelming rush of hope and joy.


- Beatles are overrated 
I can understand this statement coming from people who have listened to only "Hey Jude"/"Let It Be"/"Yesterday" their entire life. I don't think they are overrated...in fact I think that they are grossly underrated. If you have listened to ALL their tracks you would have unearthed and gasped at some gems which never saw the light of day in the public domain.  If you don't believe my claim, listen to the albums "Rubber Soul" (1965) and "Revolver" (1966). Words fail me when it comes to describe these masterpieces. Also, it is worthy to note that they were in an era where there was no real help from technology in the beautiful art of making music.
I think about the hugely popular bands of my generation. Most of them don't even compose their own music, write their lyrics or even play their own instruments! The Beatles, with just 2 guitars, a bass and drums created magic that too in their early twenties. What insane talent is that? And of course their talent was backed up by the fact that they happened to be gorgeous looking...in short the entire package. Otherwise there is no way a group of guys aiming to be rock and roll stars would be able to do their stuff dressed in dapper suits and conquer the world in the process. The truth is that they revolutionized the music industry and set high standards for music in general.And oh! did I mention that they were AMAZING live performers, that is once you hear them over all the screaming of course!



- The Beatles songs are about love, love..................and only love
Yup very true that the word 'love' is mentioned in most of their songs and if I were entrusted with the responsibility of marketing Beatles songs, my main target audience would be the deep romantics. But again, love is a vast and universal emotion with so many aspects to it, which the Beatles managed to explore with such depth  and realness possibly a result of their own experiences in love.
I list some of the aspects and a few of the songs associated with it -
Thrill of new love -  "Do You Want To Know A Secret", "And I Love Her"
Lust - "I Want You", "Drive My Car"
Intensity, dependence and passion - "Oh! Darling", "I'm So Tired", "Help"
Emotional drifting apart in the course of time between once inseparable lovers - "I'm Looking Through You", "For No One"
Pain/Betrayal - "I'll Cry Instead", "No Reply", "I'm a Loser", "Honey Don't"
Jealousy - "You Can't Do That"
True Romance - "Here, There and Everywhere", "Something", "I Will"
Fear of getting hurt in love again - "If I Fell", "Don't Let Me Down"
Personally, the thing I love about this band is how they not only convey the positive dimensions but also the negative aspects of love. My biggest take-away from their songs is that - There are a few things in life worth getting hurt for....and love is definitely one of them.
But frankly the Beatles discography is more varied than most people give them credit for. This varied range I would credit to John Lennon who came up with psychedelic tracks like "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "I'm the Walrus", anthems like "Revolution", double meaning lyrics in "Happiness is a Warm Gun" and sheer poetry like "Across the Universe". So NO, they are not only about love.


- The Beatles were about Lennon-McCartney partnership and the other 2 were pretty useless in the scheme of things
The Lennon-McCartney partnership is one of the, if not the most prolific songwriting partnership in music history. But ignore/underestimate George Harrison and Ringo Starr at your own peril because they were brilliant in a much more low profile way. True that these two did not compose too many songs and let me take the opportunity of saying that the ones that they did were pretty darn good! But Harrison's lead guitar skills (I marvel at his solos in "Hey Bulldog", "Hard Day's Night", "Till There Was You" to name a few) and the classical Indian music influence he brought in were instrumental in contributing to the awesome way that so many of their songs shaped up. About Starr, Macca stated that Ringo's drumming was the 'central glue' which bound Beatles music. After all the bitter infighting that plagued the band during the late 60's, Ringo Starr remained the only beatle to maintain cordial relations with all his band mates. Makes you think that his positive role in the band dynamics must have been extremely vital in ensuring that the Beatles lasted as long as they did.
Even when Lennon and McCartney went solo, though FEW (i say this without hesitation) songs were great, you can always sense that the magic or the 'Beatles factor' is missing.
It basically boils down to this - Individually all 4 of them were supremely talented musicians, but collectively they were genius which was impossible to replicate.

- For a band that has such universal appeal, the members weren't good role models
Yeah, these guys did drugs, they cheated on their women and one of them pompously proclaimed that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus Christ (oh dear!). And probably all the unbelievable fame obtained at such an early age got to their head resulting in inflated egos which led to a heartbreaking and acrimonious split.
But ultimately, what remains is their musical legacy. We have/had brilliant musician(s) like Hendrix, Oasis, Rolling Stones just to name a few, who were inspired by them.

 As a person who was born long after the media circus surrounding the Beatles and years after John Lennon was murdered, I am thankful to God for their outstanding music which is and will continue to be one of the best things of my life.
To conclude, I leave you with the wise words of Ringo Starr in a Larry King interview -
"If anything is left, we (The Beatles) have left really good music....and that's the important part.".