Drawing & Why It Means So Much To Me

My interest in drawing started when I was around 10 years old at middle school. One day, I was drawing something - I forgot what it was- and when one of the teachers looked at it, they said they liked it. After that, I drew other things and by then the other kids in the school took notice. 

I took art and design at high school, but then, I spent most of my time in hospital and had an operation on my abdomen/belly and spent a couple of months recuperating. I didn't do much drawing, but when I had fully recovered, I started drawing again. At the end of high school at 16 years of age, I ended up with a grade E or F.... in art and design. 

I consider myself to be a self-taught artist; I have taken life drawing classes in college but it was on a part-time basis. Other than that, I learnt how to draw myself just by doing it, without supervision. I believe the skills and what I had learnt during my time on the courses has helped me develop my drawing skills, overtime. 

As much as I would love to be a real artist and make money out of my work, I do not make any profit from my drawings, as I don't put them on sale. I don't sell my drawings, and I have no intention to. Art and drawing for me, is a personal thing that goes beyond putting a price of a creation on a canvas or piece of paper. 

I love drawing so much: for the challenge it possesses, for the pride I take in my work, to improve on my skills, for the joy of artistic expression, & for creating something that is mine.

I feel as though drawing is such an important part of who I am and my personality, that I fear that by selling it, it would lose its sense of worth and passion that I have put into creating it in the first place. 

Arguably, in my opinion (and people can feel free to disagree on this), drawing is the most original -yet under-appreciated art form known to man over the likes of dance, music, acting, painting, photography. I mean, those art forms are amazing in their own right. But drawing has been around for so many years and is still practiced today, and still to this day and age, it is criminal that it doesn't get the appraisal and media coverage it deserves. 

Without drawing, the art world and the world in general, would cease to see people's creations in art galleries and museums, in advertising and movie posters, comic books, video games, CD and DVD covers, as well as on social media and networking, and apps such as Instagram. 

I enjoy drawing people and characters the most; predominately video game and cartoon characters and celebrities. I would describe my style as 'semi-realistic', but I want my work to look more detailed, polished, refined and realistic. I want to try and make each drawing look better than the last and to improve each and every time. That has been my intention since I began drawing at a young age, and yet that will never change for me. I really want to get better and better, and I know I can go one step, or two steps further than I usually do when I draw. 

In terms of my approach, I start doing the outlines in pencil, then go over them in black biro, and after that erase the pencil lines. I like drawing with a biro, because to me it is like a pencil but more darker. The type of biro I prefer drawing with is one with a thinner tip or a bic fine. I just like how thin the lines look when I draw with it.  

When I draw, I focus so much on making sure the drawing turns out right and looks right. I know that often I tell people to do the best they can, but with art, and my art especially, when I draw a real-life person, I want it look like him or her and/or as the photo on the internet or magazine. I am 'zoned in' in getting their noses to look right, their lips in the right shape, the face isn't too large or small. The only aspects of the face I don't dwell too much on is the hair. Hair can be time-consuming to draw, and when you do it, you end up making sure each line is perfect and correct. If i were to spend 2 hours or more drawing hair alone, I'd lose interest in my work altogether. 

Drawing faces is my speciality; I just enjoying drawing them because a) they vary to a degree and b) facial expressions express a wide range of emotions and feelings that I want to capture on paper. I regard it as one of the most challenging and interesting things to draw. The human face is one of the most intricate things to get right, inasfar as posture, accuracy, detail, composition and perspective goes. 

Sadly, I'm not one of those people, who can draw from memory. I am not an illustrator. It is a unique skill to have though and I commend people who do it really well. I have to constantly refer to the photo or image. But I don't see it as a negative thing, rather it enables you to see the little details that one may have trouble depicting on canvas, without the photo. 

And yes there have been times when I ended up scrunching up that drawing and chucking it in the bin, because it looked 'wrong' to me. But that's the challenge art poses, & one I am not going to give up on. 

I take a lot of pride in my work and how it looks that I go to great lengths in making sure it looks 'right' to me, and that when others see it, it looks 'right' to them.

I noticed that with age, as I get older and the more I draw that my drawings and my drawing style develops and changes little by little, with each stage. I remembered the way I drew characters, people when I was 10, and they looked so much different then. I wished I still had those drawings on me today just to contrast and compare with my current drawing skills.

My favourite artists are Shinkiro, Greg Horn, Alex Ross and Gabrielle Dell'otto. Those would be my 4 favourites. The skill levels they all possess individually, is incredible. They each bring something different and unique to the table and plus, their styles captivate and speak to me on so many levels. 

I don't want to become a better artist, for the sake of being better than all the other artists. Rather I want to become a better artist for myself. That is the biggest challenge of them all. It's a personal one as well, but still big. I want to improve for me and myself only. 

As for the term 'professional', it tends to get labelled as a person who has worked in the industry or area for a long time on a paid basis, but that isn't (necessarily) true. I wouldn't call myself a professional, because it could be taken in the wrong context, and seen in a 'cocky' manner. I am 33, but considering I have been drawing since I was 10 years old, does that make the word professional redundant? No, not at all. I can live with the term artist, without 'professional' in it. 

If I was to offer advice to anyone who wants to draw or to get better at drawing, it would be, to keep drawing, as much as you can and when as you can too. Doesn't matter if you have no intention in getting a job as an artist. That or if you are not taking up art in college or school. You can do art as a past-time, to keep you occupied when you are not working. Keep doing what you are doing, post it on social media, and then people will soon take notice. 

People often say 'I can't draw'; they say they can't, but I say they can. You can. Anyone can draw - you just need to be able to see, visualize things, elements really well to replicate it on paper. 

Also, never compare yourself to other artists - you're making art by yourself, you're not making it for other people. This is not a competition or contest deciding who is the greatest artist in the world. Art is not (as) subjective as others make it out to be - what one person thinks of his/hers art, that piece of art they created is their own creative style, take on the concept, idea. Which is unique. The aesthetic nature of art may be the same, but how we experience it differs with each person. When we see art for ourselves, we sense it, feel it and that his/hers style speaks to us on many different levels. 

By comparing yourself and saying 'my art skills or drawing is terrible', you're only putting yourself down and discouraging yourself from drawing. I never compare my art and art skills with any other person - I acknowledge and embrace my style and continue to develop it. In my mind, it doesn't exist. The whole 's/he is better than or worse than me' argument is something I never bring up. Because it is so discouraging and does no wonders to any artist. 

Instead, I offer praise, words of encouragement and congratulate them on their efforts. For me, it is about effort, moreso than technique. As long as they try and give it a go, that's important. 

Take no notice of the criticism people make towards your art, or even still, see the constructive criticism or feedback as a form of 'tough love' and help it spur you on and to improve on your drawing skills. 

When I draw, especially things that interest me, it brings me joy, happiness and it further prolongs my interest in the art form. 

The more you draw, the better you will get. And who knows, you may get a few positive comments out of it too. 

*You can find my art on Img.ly  

Comment: Marvel's Attempt At Killing/Sabotaging The X-Men, Not X-Cellent

Source: Marvel.com

Comic book superheroes attract 2 different sets of fans: the first being general movie-goers, who don't seem to care if they are made by Marvel or another studio, nor care much about the back story. And secondly, comic book and superhero fans, who care for those franchises and characters & for the comics and movie versions of those comics. In addition to what goes on in the comic book world at DC Comics, Marvel and other publishers. 

Back in the days before Marvel comics were big and hugely successful as a entertainment conglomerate, they were on the verge of going bankrupt.

To prevent this from happening, they struck deals with Fox Studios and Sony Entertainment to make Spider-man, X-men feature- length movies. 

In order to maintain those rights and to keep the money rolling in, Sony and Fox need to and could only use the characters they were licensed to use. They could not use Marvel's other characters, because it is beyond their control to do so. This could explain why X-Men fans never saw Gambit and Jubilee in the main X-Men team on-screen (yet). 

But when the Marvel entertainment-verse expanded to movies, we got the Avengers, Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man and Captain America. X-Men with Fantastic Four was and has ever since been Fox's properties since the late 1990s. 

Of course, if the ball was in Marvel's court, they would ideally want to seize full control of the rights, and this could only happen if Marvel's superhero properties flop badly and fail to generate box office success. 

This cynicism, is further heightened with anonymous -yet shady practices of creators being told not to create any new X-Men characters for its comics. 

Like many X-Men fans, I do feel as though Marvel are short-changing us by using the X-Men as a cash cow and trying to keep the brand alive through its comics line, but this time, making them not as relevant as before. 

Because the comics are not as widely read as they have been for a long time, nor have the sales been great, I reckon therefore Marvel are using it as an excuse to promote the X-Men less through other business ventures. Just because they don't have the movie rights to X-Men. 

And the announcement of the Inhumans movie, was in my opinion an attempt by Marvel to say we have a new version of the X-Men, and that we don't care for this series as much as we used to. 

What Marvel are doing at the moment, is considered disrespectful to so many X-Men fans on many levels. 

Besides, that company must be pretty stupid, if they believe X-Men fans are oblivious to what has been going on this year and in the past couple of years. Many of them are angry over the way the X-Men has been mistreated and tossed aside, in favour of The Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy. Not to mention the rubbish story-lines existing in the X-Men comics recently. 

Marvel took a gamble on Guardians of the Galaxy; after that it became a box office success and now they are taking full advantage of its success, and through Inhumans, it is expected to do the same thing. But I can't really see lightning strike twice. I'm on the fence as to how well the movie will turn out, but I am also unsure about this group's 'replacement' for the X-Men. 

As for the movies, I'm not saying the X-Men movies are terrible: I really enjoyed X-Men: The Last Stand and Days of Future Past. 

If X-Men was made by Marvel studios, yes we would get some light-hearted scenarios, but the casting and characters would be almost faithful to and reflective of the comics and the timeline for which the comic canon is based on the movie. If however, X-Men continues to be in Fox's hands, the storytelling would remain deeper, darker and the underlining themes that were evident in the animated cartoon of 1992 (which was also made by Fox) would still be there. And this especially, is what separates the X-Men from many other comic book franchises. The themes, subject matters about the mistreatment of mutants by mankind and inequality, is reminiscent to that of racism, human rights and stuff like that. 

It is what drew and attracted fans to the series, as well as the varied characters. 

Having said that, Marvel can still make an X-Men movie as dark and serious in tone as Fox does, but less dark and as I said earlier, it would have more familiar X-Men mutants. The team would be more diverse and with 3 or 4 new faces thrown in. 

It is difficult for fans to put their finger on whether Marvel's (mis)treatment of the X-Men (franchise) in the past couple of years through the comics reverberates towards their failure to acknowledge the success of those movies. Conspiracy theory is far-fetched, yes. 

This is more of a comics issue, as opposed to a movie one; the Hollywood movie industry operates completely differently and separately to the comic books industry.

Examples included: 1) When Marvel decided in 2005 to throw in a story-line where the Scarlet Witch (of the Avengers) altered reality and taking away the mutants powers that resulted in the death of many mutants. 2) When in the Avengers x X-Men crossover, 5 of the X-Men members were turned into villains & the Avengers destroyed the X-Men. 

X-Men characters have turned heel before, such as Cyclops and when he murdered Professor Xavier. But this idea of making Storm, Wolverine etc as bad guys, angered X-Men fans and rightly so. It was a ridiculous idea pitting these two groups against each other and blatantly so, in order to rub salt into the fans wounds. X-Men fans in particular. 

In all, this all sounds rather fishy. Perhaps the X-Men aren't in the same league any more. What with The Avengers & Guardians of the Galaxy earning the plaudits from its fans and comic book movie fans and the X-Men's successors, the Inhumans coming up on the scene via a up and coming live- action movie. 

The irony of this whole situation is, that the X-Men are a band of mutant superheroes who just want to be treated with the utmost respect - yet Marvel, the very company who created those characters and this universe, in the last few years have shown and paid little respect to those characters and to its fanbase. 

For Marvel, the X-Men is the b*stard stepchild of their superhero line-up. 

Talk Is Cheap Turner Broadcasting: Why I Am Suspicious About The Rebranding of The Boomerang Channel

''the people that program Boomerang have been asleep on the job for over a year. The line-up just sits there for months on end without any change. the channel which used to showcase the wonderful series from Hanna Barbera has become a dumping ground for newer Cartoon Network series - series that certainly aren't old enough to fall into the whole boomerang mindset of vintage programming. It's my hope that the rebranding will bring back these evergreen properties that I used to watch as a kid but I am not holding my breath. I will probably downgrade my satellite feed and get rid of this channel if the rebrand doesn't add more of these series. Other than Scooby Doo, The Flintstones and Tom and Jerry, they haven't run anything that has me watching anymore.''

- hanna barberian


''It sounds to me that Turner does not know what to do with both Cartoon Network and Boomerang. They're trying to pick at straws, and try to find home runs at every swing. Cartoon Network has lost its identity long time ago, and no one has dared to bring the original Cartoon Network back, or respect its roots. To have Boomerang revamped and not fully be the channel people came to respect and enjoy (even more than CN right now), you might as well call animation networking dead on cable. Seriously. *drops mic*''

- Tres Swygert


Good god, why can't Turner ever get it right?

Turner broadcasting announced that Cable network Boomerang is being rebranded as an all-animation kids and family network beginning next year. 

The statement says:

The re-launch of Boomerang as a second flagship channel is a testament to its global appeal. We are extremely proud to see this channel move into its next carnation - with a look and feel that conveys its quality and contemporary position. This represents a further step in our strategy to build on the success of our international kids network - Gerhard Zeiler, president of Turner Broadcasting System International.

In other words, it is going to be Cartoon Network #2. And yet why have a clone of Cartoon Network, especially if it is going to be showing the same cartoons the former channel will have anyway? 

Turner did say though that Boomerang will have Tom and Jerry, Looney Tunes, The Powerpuff Girls and Scooby Doo - which was expected from many of us. As well as other Warner Bros, Hanna Barbera, Cartoon Network and MGM Studios animated cartoons. By this it should include Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Top Cat, Yogi Bear, Flintstones, The Jetsons but I am hopeful -yet not keeping my hopes too high for the likes of SWAT Kats, Pirates of Dark Water, Johnny Bravo, Animaniacs, Freak-a-zoid and Tiny Toons, Thundercats, Alvin and the Chipmunks to be included too. 

Turner wants Boomerang to be as big as a brand as CN, but I don't see that happening, and most certainly not through this makeover. 

Someone at Dreamworks Classics who own PBJ needs to obtain Turner's or Boomerang or CN's monopoly, so they can access their back catalogue of shows they haven't touched since Boomerang first broke out as a separate channel. If Boomerang won't air those shows, then other animated -based TV networks should come in and apply for and have them. 

WB aka Warner Bros now owns the licensing rights to the Hanna Barbera classic shows, since Hanna Barbera folded as a company, so seeing as they have these properties, if they are not going to air Yogi Bear, Jonny Quest, The Flintstones, Top Cat Jetsons etc, other classic animated based networks such as PBJ ought to do so. 

Back in the late 90s, the original Cartoon Network (CN) was the home to Hanna Barbera and MGM shorts such as Tom and Jerry and Droopy. Then came along Boomerang which had its own slot on CN. Cartoon Network would air current kids shows, whilst Boomerang would offer more 'old school' cartoons. The Boomerang channel's age bracket was baby boomers and people aged in their late 20s upwards. Then it became a fully fledged standalone channel in 2000.

This isn't the first time Turner broadcasting have revamped a channel - TNT used to be the home for classic movies from the early 1940s - late 1970s/early 1980s, as well as wrestling, up until it exclusively catered towards drama shows such as ER, Smallville and Law and Order to name.

Unfortunately, this relaunch doesn't give me much faith that Boomerang will become a better channel. Boomerang, as far as I see it, has jumped the shark once more. It was once home to classic cartoons, but now it seems some of the places to see them, are YouTube and Teletoon Retro. For the latter you need to be based in Canada.

It's like Turner can't seem to find fault with what they are doing, that this continuous pattern of rolling out recent shows alongside past shows, they think this is what the Boomerang channel is all about. It is not. Some people will see this decision for Turner to do this as a good thing, but in truth they are taking 2 steps backwards. 

From what I understand, advertisers today are more attracted to current cartoons and shows airing to help bring more consumers and persuade them to buy their products, access their services. They do not see retro and classic TV programming as being lucrative enough to satisfy and meet those requirements. Face it, retro TV shows are retro for one reason - they are not produced in today's market and they are dated. And yet to me, this sounds stupid.

If an old programme airs, following by commercials for products that currently appear in stores and online, so be it. Who cares about the logistics of it all? Why should this determine how a network should be run and the types of shows that appear on it?

But hey, it's all about making money these days, right? 

The Boomerang channel will always be perceived by me as a channel for classic children's cartoons. That is how I see it, and hence, no amount of changes by Turner will ever change that. It is a shame therefore they chose to believe otherwise. 

I completely disagree with people who say there is no need for retro cartoons on current television, because in their eyes not enough people care for it. There are a lot of older folks who long for a channel that will air animated shows from the 1940s - 2000s. 

Kids today already have Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Disney Channel to watch current cartoons. Yet for people like myself who need our fix for older cartoons on major cartoon channels, we don't have much in way of choice. Boomerang continues to be messed around and with it; its initial intentions of the station has been lost. 

Why is it okay to have a channel dedicated to current programming to a 'niche' market such as cartoons, but only if it is aimed at one target age group? Cartoons aren't just for kids, and not all adults are into Family Guy, The Simpsons. Fans of older cartoons young and old deserve a station, not just on cable but on other satellite platforms. 

Also, there is no need to show Scooby Doo, Tom and Jerry & Garfield more than 2 times a day, every week- which Boomerang is doing; to me, not only is that excessive, it is rather tiresome and demonstrates that in spite of having a massive library of other cartoons, that they haven't aired for years, Turner Broadcasting likes to keep repeating things and of whom are not willing to change it and add other shows to the schedule. 

It is why less people watched Boomerang over the last 10 years or so & is why this channel has been failing so much; it has been failing because since the launch as a separate channel, these repeated mistakes and decisions made by this company, just fly in the face of what it used to be, which is as a classic cartoon channel.  

Cable and satellite television's proposals promised so much in the last 20 years or so with regards to Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney Channel and Boomerang, but during the last 10 years those same promises have since been broken by network executives, who have no clue whatsoever what viewers - who know what to demand- want out of it. Yet many do. 

The rot began at CN round about 10 or 15 years, and unfortunately, after that it made its way to Boomerang. Turner have had numerous chances and opportunities to rectify the problems that fans have been airing their grievances with. Yet they chose to sit back and do nothing. 

How many more chances are Boomerang and Turner Broadcasting going to get, before they start delivering the goods and live up to their expectations? 

Until then, I expect to stick with Youtube for my Retro cartoon fix. 

Here are TV stations that offer classic cartoons

Retro TV
PBJ
Tooncast  - site is available in Portugese and Spanish
Me TV



Felix talks about Boomerang by MarcosLucky96 on deviantART

The Death of Classic Saturday Mo(u)rning Cartoons On Mainstream Channels Lives On On YouTube

I am a sucker for tradition - well, anything from the 80s and 90s in the world of pop culture and entertainment. From music, television shows, movies, video games to sitcoms and Saturday morning children's cartoons, those times were arguably the best years for it whilst growing up as a child and teenager. That's for me personally speaking. 

But as times change, so does the entertainment and TV industry. The recent news I read online though made me disappointed, but at the same time it made me reminisce about the good ol' times. 

Last month spelled the end of an era for the Saturday morning cartoon, with the CW network airing the last batch of episodes of Vortexx on September 27 2014 in the US. The CW was also the last and sole mainstream US network to televise these cartoons. 

During the 80s-early 00s in Britain, we had a kids programming block then titled 'Childrens BBC' by BBC and Children's ITV (now called CITV) on rival channel ITV. Both aired cartoons from the UK, US and some from abroad in English, in addition to teen dramas and factual shows.

Today, both the UK and US television stations have virtually no animated kids cartoons to speak of on national TV. By this we mean stations such as BBC, ITV, Channel 4, NBC, Fox, ABC, CBS and CW. It wasn't until late 2012 that BBC1 stopped showing kids shows including cartoons for good, with ITV1 following suit afterwards. Alas, It is hard and sad to comprehend that it has been over 30 years ago that animated cartoons became a staple in mainstream television. 

And that now, they hardly exist anymore. 

The television landscape is so much different now to what was before, and yet most of it isn't for the better. Sure we have the technology, more options, more ways to watch our favourite programmes. But other than that, it just doesn't feel the same, anymore. It is so fragmented with genres such as cartoons and sitcoms ditched in favour of more 'serious' ones like reality, drama and live-action. Genres of which, for me, are overexposed and over-saturating the TV market. It wouldn't be much of an issue for me, if Saturday morning kids cartoons, as well as multi-camera sitcoms were as prominent and were given the same amount of coverage and treatment as reality and drama shows. But they are not. 

The FCC in the US, pretty much ruined what was left of Saturday morning cartoons with their consistent monitoring and nanny-state laws, regulating and controlling what needs to be aired and by how many hours. Also, I'd lay the blame towards mainstream national networks - not the specialised ones such as Cartoon Network, Boomerang, for neglecting children and focusing all of their attention at elders. The likes of CN and Boomerang, like BET and Black viewers, are providing (younger) audiences content, NBC, ABC etc have all but given up on. 

Current Boomerang channel right now needs to revert back to its original remit and air more cartoons from the 60s to late 90s -early 00s. Not mid-00s cartoons, which it is doing. 

I know some people may say and think that not having these types of shows on Saturday mornings is not that much of a big loss, because we can always relive them on YouTube, Cartoon Network and other cartoon channels. It is knowing that this tradition of watching them on a station where you don't need to have cable or satellite to do so, is long gone. 
This particular programming block has been decimated by those in power in the TV industry, which saddens many of us. 

You just don't mess with tradition. 

And speaking of which, I hereby offer one example of a cartoon that underwent a reboot of some sort - Thundercats. It was launched on CN a few years back, then after 1 season, it was cancelled. It had its moments, and in most parts was less corny compared to the 1985 original. But it lacked the sparkle the 80s Thundercats series had, which made fans fall in love with it in the first place.  


Mourning the death of the Saturday morning kids cartoon segment

Another thing worth pointing out, is the demise and closure of studios such as Rankin Bass, Filmation and Hanna Barbera. These people were key to the success of Saturday morning cartoons and its impact that is still felt throughout today. Without their creative input, without these studios, we wouldn't have known of or heard of He-Man, Thundercats, Flintstones and Scooby Doo to name. 

What us the millennials and generation X-ers and Y-ers will miss most about it is the nostalgia, the tradition of watching these shows on television. That, as well as the memorable characters - both good and evil - that have entered our screens and resonated with our childhood. 

The 80s especially may have had only main 4 channels on television in each country, but what it lacked it in quantity, it made up with quality with so many great programmes. We don't have that luxury, any more. It sucks but nevertheless we have more choices in channels. 

Of course there will be others who will argue the quality of the animation wasn't that great in the 80s and there were a couple of really crappy cartoons. That is them, but for the most part, I digress. I pretty much enjoyed most of the cartoons when I was growing up then, in addition to the ones in the 90s when the animation and art style improved. & that the success of Thundercats, He-Man and many others happened because they had a toy-line to back up the cartoons themselves. So what if they did? Anything to help promote the show and propel it to new heights and raise awareness and interest, is a good thing. 

The quality of children's cartoons today can't be matched with those of yesteryear's. Sorry, but that is how I feel. 

The Saturday morning cartoon block is more of an American TV tradition more-so than a UK or global one. We had an after school kids schedule in the UK like CITV and BBC1 at 3pm- 5.30pm where cartoons would air. However, there were many cartoons which aired in the US that also aired in Britain, such as Thundercats, He-Man, Dungeons and Dragons. 

It's funny how so many of those cartoons had echoed lessons of sentimental and family and educational value, yet the US congress and  major TV networks wanted to put a stop to all of that. 

It feels like a part of you is gone. The sentimental value is what people born in the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s remember most and will take away from. And that is something that can never, ever be eroded.... thanks to online and YouTube. 

You can still be young and older and young at heart enjoying Scooby Doo, Flintstones, Top Cat, He-Man, Alvin and the Chipmunks and other animated shows. 

If that is perceived as a bad thing, then I don't want to live on this planet, anymore. 

Saturday morning cartoons may be dead on national TV, but their nostalgia, the moments that bring happiness and joy to us all, will live on and on, and forever. 

*source: Powerbox 

90s Eurodance - The Rise and Fall of a Musical Sub-Genre

If you have heard of songs such as 'Another Night' by The Real McCoy, 'Mr Vain' by Culture Beat and Corona's 'Rhythm of the Night', then you would be somewhat familiar with or be interested to know they were part of the widely known Euro dance scene that took placed during the 90s. 

Great songs, timeless classics, huge dance anthems with catchy choruses, memorable instrumentals and sing-a-long lyrics. 

It was a great time for Euro dance music, and for fans and dance music enthusiasts to be bombarded with fun, good - feel records. 

If the 1980s was dominated by Stock Aitken Waterman European - style pop music, then Eurodance was the 1990s and successor to Italo dance and Hi-NRG & was Europe's take on dance music. 

Italo dance was hugely popular in the underground scene during the 1980s; the term Italo dance referred to a type of dance music originating in Italy. After the popularity of disco in the 1970s, it declined in the 1980s and was subsequently replaced by Italo dance. 

When Italo dance didn't take off in the same manner as disco did and became mainstream and commercial, Eurodance took its place. 

The 90s wasn't just the decade of boybands, Britney Spears and Max Martin, the golden age for R&B and hip hop - it also heralded the arrival of Eurodance. 

Growing up as a child of the 1980s in 1990s as a teenager, was a mixture of good and bad times for me. Mostly bad speaking from personal experiences and high school, but everything else, entertainment wise, music, movies, TV, video games were so much fun. Those were the good days. 

Eurodance introduced me to dance music; I grew up as a child listening to pop, but when the 90s arrived, I took an interest in other genres such as R&B and Euro dance. 

I enjoyed many of the records, I was attracted to the sound, but also how melodic and catchy the choruses, the lyrics and tunes of the songs were.

It was significant in a way - I don't care what people say. The same people who trashed Euro dance are the same people who slagged off Stock Aitken and Waterman pop music and 90s Max Martin records. I wished Euro dance was still current and dominant, as it was in the 90s. But music over time has changed.... and most of it isn't very good. 

The sorry state of Dance music today is as a result of the interpolation of rap, hip hop and euro dance into pop music, resulting in a sound that is convoluted, messy and thus, has lost a part of its identity that made it what it was in the 1990s. The influence of and impact of Electronic dance music (EDM) and progressive house music are partly the reasons why Euro dance rarely exists, - and those are the same reasons that pop music and R&B music have not so much evolved, but rather regressed as musical genres. 

The two couldn't be any more different; whereas R&B has been sucked up by the mainstream music industry and had its image and identity spat out and thrown in the trash, the former in dance underwent an assimilation into pop and R&B. When you take genres such as Euro dance and R&B and turn them into commercial entities, their importance and roots are stripped away, for good. 

I personally will say that Euro dance died during the early 00s- for me, that signalled the end of its dominance. 

Many will say Eurodance was and is commericalised, throwaway and disposable sub-genre of dance. It has its critics and as a musical style, gets a lot of flak - some of it is justified, some of it is harsh. There is good and bad Eurodance records. 

Either way, lets us reminisce on the good old days and the great Eurodance records, like these....