introducing the band

howdy pop pickers


a little while ago i got all excited. positively giddy, look you see. why, or why in particular? because no less than Split Enz featured on the most popular section of the most widely listened to radio station in the country, no less. true, this was back in late May or at some stage of June, but it is only now i have gotten around to writing something about it.

the broadcast happened between rounds of "Popmaster" or "Pop Master", the music quiz (as the name suggests) on Radio 2 at 10:30am, Monday - Friday. it was on a Friday edition that Ken "Scotland (i think)" Bruce excitedly announced that, after one contestant had a go and the next was getting ready, the song to be played was I Got You by Split Enz. yes, the volume went up.

indeed, there is a great deal of controversy around why Pop Master is on at 10:30am every day, but we will get to that as we go. for now, and to start, i just thought this was all a most splendid excuse to celebrate a band (Split Enz) that, to me, for me, does not get celebrated anywhere near as much as they should.

oh, yes, all the images here will be in Commodore 64 mode, for fun. no, i am not going to give a history or similar of Split Enz, at least not in any detail. that's covered on other, better, dedicated sites. here is just me, a fan, happy that they came on the radio and that others got to hear this magnificent band.

with no disrespect to the rest of the band (far from it) a general association with Split Enz is for it to be called "the band Neil Finn was in before he went massive with Crowded House". technically correct. Neil Finn is now of course, bizarrely, a temporary or touring if you like member of Fleetwood Mac, a move what must be the biggest shock musical transfer since Mani joined Primal Scream.

as a new member of the band, and a male, no doubt Neil Finn will have to face trial by Stevie Nicks, which will involve (text removed on legal advice), as happened with (name removed on legal advice) and, of course (name removed on legal advice). best of luck going forward, Neil, but now let us look back.

that there above is True Colours. no, it is not my personal favourite Split Enz album, but only the foolish would say anything but this is their best, most celebrated, most successful and the best place to start off with introducing the band.

why? I Got You is on it. and the rest of the album is of the same high, exceptionally high, standard as that song. it is one of those "once in a lifetime" albums what bands produce; ones where every single track (or just about close enough) is so good and so strong the whole thing sounds like you are listening to a greatest hits set. so, yes, if you have heard I Got You and want more, then this is perhaps the best starting place.

of the controversy around Pop Master being on at 10:30am, well, that's back to the great betrayal that was the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, created by the EU and bizarrely agreed to by all concerned. a lesser known clause, or if you will concession, in it was that the workers of England had to move their traditional mid-morning break from 11am to 10:30am. why? the French. other than the fact that the time suited their frankly ridiculous obsession with the metric system, it was the time they wanted their people to stop (by French standards) working and remember the greatest French military victory for many hundreds of years, if not ever.  as you probably don't need me to remind you, that "victory" was when a group of valiant, brave and noble French (by French standards) farmers waged war on a bunch of part time employees of McDonald's in protest of McDonald's using proper potatoes to make chips with, rather than inferior French ones.

more on that in a bit, but back to Split Enz.

there are several "Greatest Hits" things available for the band. one of the better ones is History Never Repeats, but just to show off here above is a different one, a magnificent double disc set called Spellbound. as far as i am aware every single such "greatest" or "best of" set for Split Enz features I Got You, so tuck in. no matter what variation you get, they all have good songs on.

frustratingly, however, no one such set features all of my favourites. this Spellbound one just misses the one i would want to have out, but again we will get there.

the biggest problem, or most heartbreaking betrayal, of the French thing where we now have to have our worker breaks at the metric 10:30am? the loss of the word "elevensies". we English, as point of fact as far as i am aware all British, used to have a formal break at the more agreeable hour of 11am. it was called "elevensies", and was celebrated with tea. it is seldom that one hears someone use the word "elevensies". my memory may let me down, but i think the last time i heard it was in the late 80s, obviously pre-Maastricht Treaty nonsense, spoken by Vim Fuego out of Bad News.

above is probably my favourite Split Enz alum, the magnificent Time And Tide. it's just loaded with amazing songs that i connect to. chief among them is Dirty Creature, a song nearly as much of a hit as I Got You was. the masterpiece, however, is Six Months In A Leaky Boat. Tim "not Neil" Finn delivers an astonishing lyric, using the press gangs of years gone by and the discovery of his homeland as a striking metaphor for a torrid, turbulent relationship which had just ended. a masterpiece of any form of music, and yet seldom heard due to a controversial ban. between them the BBC and The Sun "newspaper" decided the song was about the Falklands conflict of 1982, and so arranged for it to be banned. let not the fact that it was written months before such a skirmish get in the way of that.

why, despite the controversy around the timing of the show (so everyone can have a go on break) (due to French interference) is it the most popular thing on the radio? well, it's fun to play along. also, lack of choice. just as MTV eventually stopped playing music so has Radio 1. Radio 3 is all classical, Radio 4 is a lot of talking and Radio 5 is not on FM. thus, Radio 2 is your only chance at decent music during the day. well, except for provincial radio stations, but there are only so many adverts for carpets, invariably followed by a selection of Phil Collins songs, one can be expected to have the patience for.

right, that there is Frenzy, which was a bugger to find. and expensive. well, i paid somewhere south of £10 for it, but most second hand copies seem to go for north of that.

i was particularly keen to get this one as it has another superb Tim "that one" Finn song on it, She Got Body, She Got Soul. this was eventually reworked as Body & Soul for the magnificent 1982 Australian film Starstruck. alas, inexplicably, the reworked version is not available on CD, so this original will have to do. which is mighty fine in itself.

so far as i am aware Neil Finn never went back and did any Split Enz numbers when he was with Crowded House. well, why would he? i mean, it is a shame not to have, but there was a wealth of just as excellent music he created with the next band.

and there you have it, although i am not sure what it is i have said here. basically, if you are tired of "new" "music" being awful, then there was a lot of stuff in the past what got overlooked by the larger audience. so, go seek out Split Enz and enjoy.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

still bulb

hello there


i do find it quite remarkable, look you see, to see what posts here gather more "reads" or "hits" than others. as per previous confessions i never, to be sure, actively hunt huge reading numbers, but it is always splendid when something what i do or muse upon reaches a significant audience.

and what an audience i reached, ladies and gentlemen, with a humble post on a £1 light bulb off of Pounldand. here is the link to it, although at time of going to press some 1500 of you have already had a gander.

whereas i suspect such high reading figures shall not be repeated, i thought or maybe felt that some of you that took the time to read the first post may well want an update. and here it is.

yes, indeed, quite. as you can see in the glory of Commodore 64 mode, the bulb is still performing. this is not so much not bad as it is really rather good. we are, after all, some 15 months down the road with it and still it works. splendid value for £1, excluding the operational electricity supply costs, which i cannot imagine being very much at all.

the latest thing to amuse me is the ability to make a "gif" in Commodore 64 mode. which is why the above image should be all animated for you; illustrating the vagaries of the bulb at work.

how much longer do i anticipate this bulb working for? well, i am quite pleased that it has made it this far. no doubt it shall be a sad day when it pops, but also a somewhat good one. the light emanating off of it is, shall we say, dim, and makes reading by it quite an eye straining thing. as and when it pops it shall take me some time to adapt to a brighter bulb being in, but it will be all win thereafter.

and it shall be a regular bulb installed next, for it seems these "vintage" ones are no longer available to buy. that said, i have seen some fancy "disco" ones, but i suspect they will be far too distracting to read the words of certain, or if you like several, novelists by. we shall see.

for some reason a number of you prefer pictures in non-Commodore 64 mode, so there you go. yes, indeed, i do appreciate that i could have dusted the bulb prior to taking this picture, but it was around midnight when the thought came to me to take an image, and i could not be bothered, frankly.

well, anyway, that's that, or we will call it as such. i am pretty sure that over the years, and in this post, i have said all that i possibly could on this particular subject.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it's happening now

now then


something of an unexpected purchase, to be sure. yes, indeed, look you see, this is all showing off something what i bought, then. but you never know, it might be interesting to someone out there.

whilst i was aware of the fact that the popular compilation album series Now That's What I Call Music was heading to a landmark release of 100 volumes proper (there have been many non-numbered Now releases, meaning that the actual 100 mark was passed some time ago), i was not at all sure what they would be doing to celebrate this release. as it turned out, re-releasing the first volume on CD was what they elected to do.

since the price of this was most splendid, and volume 100 in itself looked like a poor purchase, yes i bought it, because why not.

blimey, 35 years old, now. and no, not the first time on CD for this set. i am led to believe this first ever Now compilation has been on CD before, at least twice, for certain anniversary years. but i have not seen it on sale. certainly not for £8.

indeed, it is not my favourite set of the Now series. my memories seem to sugget volume 4 was my all time favourite, followed by 6. and maybe 8. also, 3, just to break up the even side. but, with none of them currently being out on CD, i could only purchase this one, for it was all that was to be had, except the terrible looking 100. perhaps if we are fortunate they shall release the other earlier volumes on CD. and if they do that at the £8 price i paid for this one, well then so much the better.

an interesting aspect of this is the English / wider UK fascination celebrating all things decimal or centurion. whereas we are the last bastions for proper imperial measurements, every now and then we do rather like to make a nod to our Roman infused past by celebrating a 10 or 100. i suppose if you can pick and choose parts of heritage to celebrate, why would you not.

no, i wasn't tempted by the vinyl re-issue of Now That's What I Call Music, simply as i have it. my Dad bought it when it came out back in, what, 1983 (35 years, blimey), and it's safely sat here.

also, no, i am not going to do the tosser, precious thing of bad mouthing the later releases of Now, in particular 100. but it does reflect the sorry mess of the "singles" chart that volume 100 can take up just one CD, with the 2nd disc being an alleged "best of" volumes 1 - 99. we live in a time when a song can be number one as a "single" for several weeks/months without so much as one copy of the song being paid for, since it is all calculated on "streaming" and what have you. back then, people had to actually go and buy the record for it to chart.

the quality of music today, in terms of volume 100, compared to the first volume, is all for the ears of the beholder. whereas i doubt the names on disc one of 100 will remain household names 35 years from now, though, most on the first volume are. but, the honest answer is that the best ever music in the world is always going to be the music you grew up listening to. and that is how it should be.

something of a nice touch is that the booklet with the CD more or less replicates what was on the vinyl, so far as i can remember. i would have to dig it out to check, i suppose.

percentages? sure. not all labels rushed to allow their artists and songs to feature on this first compilation, for they did not see the knock on sales effect. so, you get some artists appearing more than once. if i have done my maths correctly, 1 track on this Now That's What I Call Music set equates to 3.33% of the album. with this as a frame of reference, highlights include (either alone or part of a band) -

Limahl - 9.99%
Phil Collins - 6.66%
Tina Turner - 3.33%
Australians - 3.33%
Culture Club - 6.66%
Bands Named After Characters in Barbarella - 3.33%
Non-Tubular Bells Mike Oldfield - 3.33%

and so on.

my biggest gripe with this release is pictured above. look, if you will, at track 14 on CD Two above. standards have slipped. for some reason the 2nd appearance of Culture Club is missing the all capital letters of the band name which the other 29 have. not sure how that can slip and slide past the design proof checks, but apparently it did.

everything about the tracklisting for the "best of" disc on Now That's What I Call Music 100 says less "best of 35 years", more "the cheapest songs from that time to licence". for some reason the 80s are represented by all of three songs, and even then ones by UB40, Bon Jovi and Phil Collins. i am unsure if those three are the wisest or best choices to represent an era, but as i said they were undoubtedly the cheapest to licence.

actually the percentage of Australians might be higher. i could only spot Men At Work on the tracklisting, but for all i know 1983 Simple Minds might have had an Australian in the band. also, if Limahl applied for Australian citizenship then they would probably give it to him, because of his hair.

right, well, let me go and have a listen to this, then, again, probably for the first time in 30 or so years.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

further cricket

g'day


and so summer continues, look you see, for us, at the least, in Yorkshire, to be sure. which means that the cricket carries on.

yes, then, for friends and families around the world, another gander at how James is getting on playing that most beautiful, elegant and perfect of sports.

indeed, quite, that is he, or if you like James, sat watching on as he prepares for his innings.

as usual with these posts, then, i shall do my best to keep my drivelesque writing to a bare minimum, allowing you to appreciate and admire the pictures and video.

yes, we have got a video. several, actually.

a most splendid boundary stroke, with James deftly guiding the ball with his bat over the rope for a four.

in the same match one of his teammates hit a six. i take some credit for that, for i offered him a shiny £1 coin if he hit one. yes, i paid up.

yes, that was a clip of James bowling, for those of you who like to see how he is getting on with the other side of cricket. well, i suppose cricket as three sides, doesn't it? sorry, no, i don't film his fielding.

also, for those of you who for some reason wish to see, every now and then, but not often, how my (considerably) better half and i are plodding along in the world these days.....

my intention there was to get a celebrated local landmark in the distance, but i suspect i failed to do it. still, some lovely blue sky visible and most splendid trees.

further video, since it seems more than was usual can play it back here? certainly.

another fine batting display and more runs to the total. well, just the one, for as you would hopefully have watched James hit the ball in such a way that taking a single was possible. right off the vegetable of the bat.

no, for those of you who regularly read these particular updates. James has not decided if he is a batsman who bowls a bit, or a bowler that is handy with a bat.

one thing i quite like about these posts is that if, and it is entirely up to him, James sets off in a career in cricket, then presumably some journalist shall, on a future day, "stumble" on these posts and declare that he or she has "found" the footage. well, good luck to them.

do i want James to go off and have a cricket career? i want him to do whatever it is that makes him happy in this life. further, i shall of course support him no matter what he chooses. and his brother, William, too, of course. so long as, obviously, it does not involve France in any sort of positive way.

another fine bit of bowling there from James. fine, but alas not rewarded with a wicket.

unlike this next video.

splendid work, son!

would i have wished to have a career as a cricket player? i could wellie the ball around a bit, but not with much finesse or class. a slogger, if you will. my discovery of, in no particular order, cigarettes, the ladies, beer and certain other things suggests that i would not have had the discipline. yeah, sure, it was totes them things stopping me being the next Ian Botham.

quite a nice shot of James and his batting partner leaving the field after a most splendid innings. an innings which, alas, did not secure victory for the team, but still the game of cricket won. and that is always what is most important in cricket.

yes, that video above was from the innings which the picture before it showed the conclusion of. indeed, quite, i maybe should have had them the other way around, but then again none of this is in any sort of order, featuring as it does stuff from at least two matches.

another image of my (considerably) better half and i? to be honest i cannot think of any reason why one may want such, but equally i can think of no reason why not to add another.

some more video to finish off? surely.

yes, footage of another wicket, so as we may finish this off on a high, as it were.

well, then, that's that for one more post. many thanks for the support and encouragement, and indeed for reading!



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

do we have any idea how The King, Elvis Presley, might have appreciated Bullseye?

hello


yes, yes indeed, look you see. my passion, proclivity or otherwise inexplicable ambition to make sure that i speak of Bullseye at least once a month on this blog has reached that level. that level, the one at which my fascination or go-to resource, The King, Elvis Presley, is brought into it all.

the respected of our society - the elders, the scholars, the historians and so forth - will of course be aware of how Bullseye was only first broadcast in 1981, i think. this is some four (4) years after August 1977, the point at which The King, Elvis Presley dropped out of public view. whereas some say this was due to an incident of death, over the years i have on this blog proved conclusively that perhaps not.

of the many tragedies which befell the world during the 20th Centuries - several wars, many natural disasters, Sammy Hagar being given a record contract, etc - none, perhaps, are as so sad as that it appears The King, Elvis Presley was never able to have an audience with his excellency Jim Bowen. undoubtedly Jim would have been most agreeable to such a meeting, but one really rather suspects that it is The King, Elvis Presley who felt as though they had missed out the most.

it's quite difficult, then, to know for sure whether or not The King, Elvis Presley would have appreciated the finer points of Bullseye. my opinion is that yes, yes he would, for he would have been impressed with Jim Bowen and so liked anything what he done.

due to Denis Leary mentioning it in the song Elvis & I, we know as fact that if something broadcast on television displeased The King, Elvis Presley, then The King, Elvis Presley was prone to airing his displeasure by firing one of them .44 Magnum guns like what Clint Eastwood had in that film where he was the copper at the television. it is my considered and learned view that no firearm would ever have been considered, let alone reached for, by The King, Elvis Presley during any screening of Bullseye that he watched, if it were possible.

no, it is not just me who wonders or ever wondered about how The King, Elvis Presley might have felt about Bullseye. far from it. the producers of the show, and in all likelihood his excellency the revered Jim Bowen, seemed pretty interested in this too.

to clarify. the above is probably not The King, Elvis Presley appearing on Bullseye in the late 80s or early 90s. it might be, but also it might not be. a safer assumption would be to say that it is just an ordinary bloke what applied to be on the show who has an uncanny, fascinating resemblance to precisely how The King, Elvis Presley would have looked in terms of age, hair concept and fashion sense at the time this particular episode was recorded. an episode recorded, as an aside, with the highest level of security and secrecy in place that any television studio had ever seen, maybe.

had The King, Elvis Presley ever had a confirmed appearance on Bullseye, we would all have known of it. rather than using conventional darts, i believe, with that special badge what he got off President Nixon, he would have used three solid gold bullets what had EP TCB in diamonds on them. further, every shot would have been precision perfect, scoring the maximum possible. it would have been amazing, man.

as this perfectly passable tribute act to The King, Elvis Presley used conventional darts, it probably wasn't, after all, The King, Elvis Presley in person, then.

just who would The King, Elvis Presley have summoned to be his partner? an interesting question. his entourage was numerous. quite possibly The Colonel, of course, or maybe he would have insisted that he be allowed to do the dart throwing and question answering. but, then again, maybe he would have invited Tom "bloody" Jones to come on with him, or President Nixon or John Denver or similar.

did The Rat Pack ever have Bullseye aspirations? it is quite likely. perhaps i will look at that in some detail in a later post, but for now let me share a theory. i firmly believe that Mr Sinatra had video tapes of Bullseye flown in from the UK, with Dean Martin listed as the person responsible for any customs duties or import taxes. they would then recreate the episode, with Mr Sinatra and Dean Martin as the contestants, and Glass Eye - being talented enough to do so - taking on the role of his excellency Jim Bowen and scorer Tony Green. all the prizes won would, of course, have been kept by Mr Sinatra, with Dean Martin expected to buy the older items Mr Sinatra had with a "legacy" premium added to the cost.

speaking of Tony Green, here he is interacting with the gentleman who might be but probably is not The King, Elvis Presley after he had just successfully scored about 7, which is some 173 less than what The King, Elvis Presley would have scored.

you see, look, Tony is not bowing or applauding or nodding. that, to me, suggests that this really wasn't The King, Elvis Presley appearing on this particular episode.

celebrities back in the 70s and 80s were way better, man. there was a perpetual air of mystery surrounding what they did when "off stage", so to speak, so you could speculate, with awe and wonder, about what they got up to. i am allowed to dream of what The King, Elvis Presley or Mr Sinatra thought about Bullseye. you cannot do so with today's "famous" people. not only are they mostly all too dull to ponder on, but for some reason their lives are broadcast in full on them "social media" things. there is no margin for dreams, idle or otherwise.

has the rubicon been crossed in this post? i don't think so. should i still be around to construct it, i would expect more Bullseye stuff next month. it's up to you if it is better or worse, or north or south, than this particular effort.

and there will be more, dear reader. right now i am thinking i need to spend a bit more time investigating, or failing that making up, exactly what other things Mr Sinatra might have encouraged Dean Martin to buy off of him, other than outdated decanter sets, busted video equipment and speedboats and caravans.

well, anyhow, thanks as ever for reading!



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

walk me to the bridge

hey there


wowee, another month, look you see. and why not start it off with one of the greatest, to be sure, tourist attractions and modern marvels of the engineering world. yes, but of course, i speak of the transporter bridge.

if for some reason you don't know what the transporter bridge is, well, my Dad would be the best person to have speaks with. he thinks it is great, and is highly knowledgeable on the subject. in short, right, it is a bridge what transports stuff. where? across the Tees, which runs through the heart of Middlesbrough, Teesside's petrochemical wonderland.

no, i didn't set out to use the bridge of transport just for this blog. as it happens, i programmed a journey. on that trip, i noticed a most peculiar sign on the Sat Nav that i had not seen before. also, i noticed i was getting quite close to the bridge. very close, in fact, for i turned one corner and found myself in the queue of cars waiting to cross the Tees via it.

yes, that is the view i had from my vehicle, or if you like wheels, as i embarked on the journey across the Tees via the magic of the transporter bridge. well, not magic, engineering, but same thing really, when you think about it for a while. for those wondering about the legality of such an image being taken, well, i was parked, not on a road (which i would have thought was totes obvious), and the engine was off. or the ignition was off, or how you say it. so, as far as i am aware, that was all above board.

how long does the journey across the Tees take via the transporter bridge? well, do you include queuing and waiting and all that? the actual business end is not so long, 5 or 10 minutes maybe. as far as i could work out there would not have been enough time for me to get out and have a fag as i crossed, but everything about the approach of the staff and my fellow motorists suggested that getting out of your car whilst the transporter did its thing was frowned upon and a no no.

for those of you who cannot, or more likely just plain will not, ever come to Middlesbrough in this life or the next, yes, but of course i have some video for you of the transporter bridge in action.

whilst i am not 100% sure exactly how all the technology and that works, maybe you could feed this video into one of them "virtual reality" things and get the full experience. or, you know, ten or so seconds of it.

but what of the cost of using the bridge of transporter over the Tees? a not entirely unreasonable £1.30, as you can see in the below image, edited for security reasons for i was on a top secret mission. also, you get to keep the receipt as a sort of impromptu souvenir, i suppose.

indeed it was quite fortunate that i had the money on me, since i had no idea that i would be crossing the Tees this way or how much it would be. and yes, the nice man what sells you the ticket and that does give change, although if i were you i would not try to pay with currency north of a £5 note. should you try with a £50 note, and London types this is directed at you, i suspect that both you and your vehicle will be able to survey the temperature and pollution levels of the Tees. cash only, so far as i can recall.

and that would be all of that, i think. most of you have probably stopped reading this anyway, instead setting about making the requisite plans so that you may experience the bridge of transport for yourself. good, i say, jolly good. they, we, are a (mostly) friendly bunch up there, in particular to those who do not suggest things such as a "west cleveland" accent exists. even then, all (mostly) welcome.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

just go back to normal packaging, please

hi there


oh yes indeed, look you see. this will be another post about them there fags, or if you like cigarettes. so, after reading that smoking is very or if you will tres silly and you should not do it, it's entirely up to you whether you carry on reading.

normally i am not prone to conspiracy theories in general, and specifically not those which involve any sort of government shenanigans. why not? because for most of the political shenanigans spoken of in such theories to be valid truths would require governments to be intelligent. time and again they have proven to be as thick as pigsh!t.

for some reason, as an example, we are supposed to believe that the US government has, for some 60 or so years, "hidden" evidence - nay, contact - with aliens. really? a government that cannot do a proper explanation or cover up of the killing of a president? cannot stop a president being implicated in a burglary? cannot cover up a president who likes female attention? i don't think so.

the above, however, has got me wondering. as you have no doubt observed in the magic of Commodore 64 mode, this packet of fags features an image of a child about to shove a lit cigarette in his eye. other than the latent dangers of hiring a child to pose for such a picture - not that Theresa May cares, she has proven time and again that she hates people, children in particular - they have irresponsibly either doctored the image of the child so he looks like Vladimir Putin (that one, the president one), or simply and quite deliberately hired a child who looks a lot like him.

up to now it has been bad enough that, as discussed on this blog numerous times, for some reason it is only white people what feature on these warning images. as if only us ice cream faced ones are the only ones who smoke, are at risk of adverse side effects or are just the ones they want to save. putting blatant political statements in these warnings is just going too far, for me.

i really, really want the beautiful, sleek packaging of fags back. this is particularly true, of course, of my beloved Marlboro, but also all fags. these crappy coloured ones are not stopping anyone - and nor are they meant to, for the government is propped up by tax off of fags smokers and fags makers - and now they are clearly just using these larger warnings as a conduit or forum for political statements.

also artistic eroticism, apparently, going on the above. whereas no, not me personally, honest, the above is clearly intended to stimulate hormones of arousal or whatever, and get people into an erotic state of mind.

if you took that picture above and hung it in a gallery, no doubt it would be praised as a "bold stark statement on sexuality" or some other such rubbish, and get lauded with awards and have a huge price tag placed on it. which is smart, really, but seems to be at odds with the purpose or theoretical intention of it all.

there you go, a clearer look at the "Putin child" the British government of the day insisted be on the packs of fags. yes, i know it is upside down, but so is their thinking. besides, that is how google managed to upload it here, so it will just have to do.

what do i think about Putin in general? my understanding is that he is a formidable judo practitioner. Spiros says that if Vladimir ever mans up and does a proper martial art he will take him on, and this would be a bout i would very much like to watch. other than that, not much really. he seems to mouth off a bit, but i suppose he has done OK for himself. much like whoever, and please may it be soon, takes after Theresa May, it is not like it was all that difficult for Putin to be a better, more effective or just plain coherent leader after Yeltsin.

another look at that erotic warning, but only in Commodore 64 mode? why not.

for all you clever non-smokers who find it wonderful and possibly funny that fags are taxed highly and fiddled with frustratingly, two words - sugar tax. next they will gun for one of your passions, no matter how responsible you are with it or how prepared you are to accept the consequences of use.

anyway, you are probably just here for the pictures.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

swans again, and other such stuff

hey there


many thanks as usual for dropping by, look you see. although this is one of them corners of the internet what is advert free (i think, if any appear nothing to do with me), it still causes much merriment for me as and when someone clicks on and reads.

with that in mind, i do like to post the kind of things you people seem to like, at least as and when i can. one such thing that reader figures suggest a preference for is swans and swan related stuff. and why not.

a rather unexpected development is that Spiros has now taken quite the shine to swans. actually, remembering how i did that one post which featured him extracting the pleasures of the flamingo, that is not a surprise. what is, then, is that he is reading here still. i thought he was off reading that other, unknown blog, what he is quite upset with because it keeps making suggestions about his sexuality.

well, anyway, i think there might be a swan somewhere in the picture above. if not, however, then rest assured that one of the other ones off of him featured below will do so. see this one as a sort of "setting the scene" thing, if you like.

just where this picture was taken is quite interesting. you tell me, really. he was off doing his stuff as the greatest legal mind of his generation, that much i remember. whilst yes, he did mention exactly where he was, i must have got distracted or something as i cannot recall. Europe, for sure, and maybe East or Southern.

yes, though, happily i can confirm that the above swan you see was pictured in Yorkshire. i would say one of the beautiful parts of Yorkshire, but of course it all more or less is. no, i do not quite recall which part of Yorkshire it was with any precision, but an area south of where i live in it. as in, not to the north, where certain towns and councils, who for some reason have fashioned themselves as being a "valley" despite being not such, claim to be a "ceremonial" part of Yorkshire as and when it will suit them.

so far as i am aware there is just the one swan in the above image, but i allow for the fact that there could in fact be several. i mean, i just don't know. the rest look like ducks. in being as honest as i can with you i just plain have no idea what a baby swan looks like, or for that matter what the proper name is for a baby swan. i think it's something like cygnet, or maybe it is just "duckling". at no point in my life have i ever needed to know, other than when writing this, so that's that.

back over to Spiros, then, and another image from wherever the gosh jolly heck he was. that looks like a most impressive building of significance, so maybe a clever world wise traveller can spot it. again, perhaps a swan is somewhat visible in the body of water, or if you like lake, between the train track/s and that smart building/s, although maybe not. i just for some reason really, really like that train track, man.

at this point i would like to remind you that the title claims the disclaimer "and other such stuff". this i take to have a fairly wide definition, and so for the Richard enthusiasts here you go, a recent image of him.

my understanding is that the above was taken whilst he was watching that there football contest they were having in Russia. or are still having; this is a "written in advance" blog so for all i know it is all still going on at the moment. or, if you are reading it after it is all done, definitely "had", then.

in any of the above circumstances, well, splendid to see Richard healthy and happy, and indeed still enjoying a taste of the ale once in a while.

but now, back to swan/s. and ducks. i am sure some of the below are certainly ducks.

yes, same spot as the previous one from Yorkshire, whatever the name of the place was. lovely it was, had a bite to eat in a most splendid bistro like cafe there. would certainly go again, and will, as and when i am in the area and recall what it was called.

in one of the more recent posts i did on swans, and here is the link to it, i comprehensively covered the current legal status of swans in England. there is very little reason to cover it all again when you can click on the link, except doing so gives me something else to write here for you.

my understanding, then, is that the swan that is in England is a swan what is owned by the Queen. one day this shall be the King, but for now it is a Queen we have. the reigning monarch takes swan ownership very seriously indeed. whereas i have done no research or have any knowledge, i am pretty sure that killing, harming or interfering (sexually or otherwise) with a swan is one of the few crimes what you can still be hung for here in England. so, if you are thinking about it, don't do it. at least not in England.

yeah, that there is me, in one of them selfie things, at the site of the unspecified locale in Yorkshire where the pictures i have taken come from. one or two of you, i believe, don't mind me so much and quite like to see how i am getting on with things. so, there you have it. happy and possibly as healthy as it gets.

do i particularly like swans? they are beautiful creatures, but then i suppose i do try to make sure i remember to see all living things as such. but if you want specifics, i can take or leave them. i mean, if the Queen, right, woke up one day and said "they are mine, i am keeping them", and ordered her butlers or whatever to go and fetch them so she could keep them in a shed round the back yard of Buckingham Palace, i wouldn't be too distraught.

well, a little, i suppose. it is nice to see them when i am out and about. but i don't actively go looking for them, would be my point, i guess.

a final picture off of Spiros, then, off of wherever it was that he was in Europe. if, indeed, he was in Europe. the man tends to get around a bit. anyway, i am quietly confident that a swan (or two) is visible in the above. if not, well, just make do with the splendid bridge and magnificent trees.

has anyone ever been arrested, put on a "do it for the sake of formality" trial and been hung for interfering with a swan in England? i have absolutely no idea. probably, is my answer, but if you cannot find any evidence of such on the internet that will just be because as the prosecution acted on behalf of the Queen all reporting will have been banned. for all i know, i could well end up being a "victim", or "benefactor of justice", of a state sponsored assassination just for bringing the subject up.

one last image off of me above, then, of that lovely spot i found in Yorkshire where the ducks and swans seem to roam (swim) (or paddle, i suppose) freely.

right, well, that would be just about it for this post, then. if i happen to chance on any more swans during my travels, or someone takes the time and imagination to send some images, i shall certainly consider thinking about remembering to do a post here about it.




be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

random bowie - "heroes"

Howdy Pop Pickers


And so yet another edition of Random Bowie for those of you who like that sort of thing, look you see. With the number of those who seem to like it somewhat diminishing, to be sure. No matter, I will carry on and see, if my time here permits, if I cannot get them all done. Well, the official releases.

This time out, for no particular or deliberate reason, it's Heroes, or "heroes" or indeed "HEROES", but, to be honest with you, I am going to stick with "heroes" as my usual blog posts normally display a passion for all lower case all of the time.

Please note that a most splendid, open to all but one only giveaway is included with this particular post. And it does involve post. You will need to be able to leave a comment or in some way connect to me to claim it, and yes, why not, open across all of the planet so all of the Bowie fans of earth can have a crack.

Fantastic facts to begin with? Well, sure. This is album 12 by David Bowie, according to the standard agreed method of counting them, even if that does mean some great albums are excluded as being official releases. To this end, according to the standard agreed methods of counting, this is the second or if you like middle part of the legendary "Berlin" trilogy, distinguished by the fact that of the three it is, so far as I am aware, the only one to be 100% written and recorded in Berlin. In terms of sales and that, the album was a moderate success, with of course the title track, or if you will titular tune, going on to be firmly established as one of Bowie's most celebrated, iconic and popular songs of all time.

Right, where to begin. Actually, I should possibly have only tackled this after doing Low, for some comments will refer to that album. But, I have started now. Much like Low, then, "heroes" contains a blend of instrumentals and "standard" songs, with the balance in this instance being slightly more towards ones what have words.

I may well be robbing myself of stuff to write for Low, but as I said I have started now. There are all sorts of theories about the two "more experimental" records. Some just consider Low and "heroes" to be the maturity of Bowie as an artist; his pushing for and pursuit of creative excellence rather than being overtly concerned of all matters commercial success. Erm, yeah. A less discussed or raised issue was that Bowie was known to be frustrated with exactly how much money others, particularly record label types, were making off his efforts, and so he quite deliberately sought to make music as uncommercial as possible for the remainder of his record deal. The truth is probably between the two; it does not really matter as what the conclusion is for us, the simple, humble fans, is some astonishing music.

Of the titular tune, then. Most casual listeners to Bowie will be quite familiar with "heroes" in its 3 minute single format. Here we get the "original" version which clocks in at north of 6 minutes. I say "original" and not full, for no version of "heroes" ever feels complete. No matter what version you play, there's a sensational dislocating sense that you are just catching a fragment of a far longer, perhaps perpetual, work.

In isolation, and of itself, the song "heroes" is a work of beauty. As in, if David Bowie had done nothing else but this song, he would still be spoken of. Yes, there are many, many, numerous and many songs by David Bowie that you can say "if he only ever did this one" and the true would be still the same, quite the same. Things around the song, though, tend to disrupt the pleasure, and indeed subvert it, to reference a common theme in these posts and Bowie's career, with the latter being far more important. But this could just be me.

Firstly, the sound that makes it beautiful. To my ears the magic of the song is the wonderful, hypnotic, captivating rhythm guitar. When played live, though - with the exception of a truly inspiring quasi acoustic take for a Bridge School charity performance - David elected to have that drowned out by a far too highly elevated screeching lead guitar.

Secondly, the "context" and that. Quite a few would know that he song was inspired, according to Bowie, by the sight of two lovers meeting apparently in secret by the Berlin Wall every day. He was clearly affected by this, the will to love despite knowing the risk and doom ("we're nothing, and no one will help us"), and that in itself just adds to the beauty. Alas, in recent times, corrupted and perhaps subverted. Producer Tony Visconti has elected to make it known that the secret lovers Bowie saw were in fact him and a lady, and it was all Mr Visconti having an affair, behind the back of the lovely Mary Hopkin.

This is rather like Never Let Me Down, then, when an at face value beautiful song gets spoiled somewhat by knowing the background. On the one side I can understand Visconti's public admission, for if Bowie wrote a song that even by accident referenced you or I we would shout about it too, but on the other side the implications just spoil it. Well, for me, anyway. That said, perhaps Bowie did know that he was spying on his producer, and that's why the song was qualified and called "heroes" rather than Heroes.......

Yes, there was always a risk that this post was going to be dominated by talk of the title track. Which, I think, is fair enough - it is that good and it is almost the best thing on the record. But, allow me to try and be fair and speak of what's on the rest of the album.....although there will be a return to "heroes" later on.

My favourite off of the album, and it's a close call between this and the title track, is one of the instrumental numbers. Although it is an instrumental with some words. So those familiar with the record will know I am speaking about V2 Scheider. Whereas the song and its title are widely regarded as a nod to the band Kraftwerk, whose sound very much influenced this, to me it sounds like an extension of the rhythmic train motion sound found on Station To Station. And that is probably why I love it as much as I do.

The other songs on the record? An interesting thing with them. Most - Joe The Lion and Blackout in particular - feature what one might call "shouty Bowie". Again there are ways of interpreting why the album, on all bar "heroes", features far from standard Bowie vocals. Perhaps the blend of 40% shouting, 40% narrating, 20% singing, matches the disconnected, desolate and desperate tone of the "Berlin" trilogy, emphasising the plea to be heard, the wish to reach out and connect. Or, maybe he responded to the record label asking for "some words please" on Low with adding words, but not necessarily singing them. We, I suspect, shall never know.

And it's not that there is anything wrong with the "lack of singing" on this record, far from it dear reader. The tone of delivery very, very much suits the subject matter and lyrical content. It just makes it a rather more confrontational listening experience than you might have expected if you went to it on the basis of the titular track alone. Which many, I suspect, in fact did.

No, I have not mentioned anything at all of the great Brian Eno and his involvement in this record, have I? Well, whatever, you know. To be honest, I think it's difficult to read any Bowie article on this album or the "Berlin" trilogy without extensive references of Eno. Credit where it is due, then, but my focus tends to be on things other than the "technical", mostly as I do not understand it all. I just know what I like.

Over on my early 90s CD reissue we have two extra tracks, a "remixed" rather than re-recorded version of Joe The Lion, which successfully sounds the same as the album version, and an instrumental called Abdulmajid, which it says was recorded between 1976 and 1979. Hmn, yes. Whereas I do not dispute the provenance of the recording dates, I do question when it got that title. My view would be that it got named that in the late 80s or early 90s. Why? Well, Abdulmajid just so happens to be the surname of Iman, or if you like Mrs Bowie (that was not Angie). Anyway, it's a lovely instrumental tune, and well worth having a listen.

Missing from the extras on "heroes" on this CD then are the variations of "heroes". No inclusion of the single edit (which features on most "best of" sets", the German version "helden" (which is on the magnificent, 3 or 4 CD version of the SoundAndVision box set), the English/German "heroes / helden" mix (which is found on the Christiane F soundtrack) or the French version, "heros" (which is an awful version and I have only ever obtained via one of them iTunes purchases). Avoiding including any such variations must have been deliberate; perhaps David did not want the focus of the reissue to be just all about that one song. So he would probably not have been too impressed with this post, then.

And listen to this record is what Bowie wanted us to do. I mean, after the fact. Some nearly 40 years after release. Why do I say that? Because it was the artwork for "heroes" which Bowie ultimately elected to subvert for his "comeback" of sorts with The Next Day. We know, thanks to documentaries and displays, that Bowie went through variations of distorting nearly all of his previous works before setting on a crossing out of the name and a big white box on the cover of "heroes" for The Next Day, but why? The records share a producer, in the form of Tony Visconti of course, but that's it, maybe. Unless it was only around then that Bowie found out the truth of the two lovers who in part inspired the title track.

GIVEAWAY SECTION. I know some may well be just interested in this, so I put that bit in bold and a lovely colour, just for you. Right, a couple of years ago, to celebrate Bowie, Royal Mail issued stamps and postcards featuring some of his records. Yes I bought them all. As it happens, the one postcard I have left from it is "heroes", along with a "heroes" stamp.

Should you want it, first come first served. Please, however, DO NOT leave personal details on the comments section. I am not so difficult to find - either on that Google+ off of this, or I can be located on that there Facebook thing. Over the years I have made contact with others before via all of this, so it can be done. My preference would be to send non-UK, for those of us here can order them easy enough off of Royal Mail, but whoever gets in first gets it. Good luck, if required.

One of the most famous quotes about "heroes" is John Lennon saying, in an interview not long before he sadly left us long before he should have, that he wanted to make his next album like it. Whether he was referencing how good it is, or maybe how his mate Dave was doing it to pull the chain of his record label, is unclear. Perhaps both, but that just makes it a double compliment, does it not.

As for the more casual, non-Beatle person who listens to Bowie, is this album, "heroes", worth your time getting? Yes, no, maybe. Many in this world can get along just fine with the single version of the title tune, but I would argue that "the longer the better" is the way to go. Also, the two instrumentals highlighted are on that All Saints instrumental compilation, which came out either in the late 90s or early 00s. But these days, in the UK at the least, you can buy the CD of "heroes" (versions without the two extra tracks, at least) for just north or south of £5. So instead of yes, no, maybe I think my answer to that is yes.

For an interesting "in-between" buying and not buying "heroes", there is the previously mentioned Christane F. soundtrack. The nine tracks on it are, accidentally, a most smart "as short yet as perfect as you can" sort of "best of" covering Station To Station all the way to Lodger. From "heroes", one gets V-2 Schneider, Sense Of Doubt and the English/German mix of "heroes / helden". In respect of the latter, the English aspects are the opening and closing verses from the album version of the song.

Also, those of you who like to have a live recording of a specific era by a band or musician are fairly well covered here. Kind of. There are two live albums (two official, I should say, countless bootlegs flow) which ostensibly cover a tour kind of in support of "heroes".

The first of them is Stage. Perhaps the most memorable thing for me about this one was a slight article in a newspaper announcing its release on CD back in the early 90s. It said something like "David Bowie's celebrated 1978 live album is being released on CD". So, of course, me and Woodsie drove around in his car with a sign we made which said "I own a copy of the celebrated 1978 live album Stage by David Bowie".

Next, and as recent as this year, is Welcome To The Blackout. This was released as a double vinyl for Record Store Day 2018 in April, I think, with the CD release coming in late June.

Both have their merits and faults. The merits would mostly be that you get to hear David Bowie. Also, the live version of Station To Station - trimmed by about two minutes from the album cut - is superb. But, as I have mentioned up above somewhere, here you can hear "heroes" done live in a way which suggests that Bowie didn't quite agree with me on what were the most beautiful, to be cherished elements of the song. I just don't like it live as it sounds on these recordings.

Where to next for Random Bowie articles? For those still reading, I am not sure. Actually, perhaps I am. There is one fairly obvious title to do after "heroes", which no doubt you have worked out from the above. Should you have been reading carefully.

Anyhow, many thanks indeed to all of you what stop by and read these Bowie things, as well as whatever else I elect to post here.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

book reviews are back

hello


blimey, it feels like a while since i posted a couple of book reviews. i think, look you see, the last ones were back in May, unless i did some in June and have forgotten about them.

oh well, no matter. let us worry about where we are at, and here is very much that. yes, indeed, to state the obvious, i've read a couple of books - two, not three or five - and so it would be time for me to pass some comments about them here, for the benefit of those of you that would take such from them.

as ever, then, a quick look at what i read, followed by as spoiler-free an overview as i can give you people, prior to looking at them in a bit (not much) more detail.

starting where i did, and as pictured above, Die Last is more or less relatively the most recent DCI Max Wolfe "adventure" or if you will case, presented by Tony Parsons. it was much much better than the previous one i read, which i seem to recall as being somewhat flimsy. Into The Water by Paula Hawkins was a little bit difficult to get into for the first 20 - 30 pages, but once in did not want to leave - it's brilliant.

right. whereas i do try to be careful in not giving too much away, for those that are sensitive or concerned please find your most splendid *** SPOILER WARNING *** in place for the remainder of the post. to recap the above, though, just head off now and read either or both, if you were looking for someone's opinion on them.

as usual, links are placed for your convenience. they are most certainly not an affiliation or endorsement off of me, just making it as easy as i can for you to have a look at them on the global grocer's website. on that note, later we shall get to the controversial provenance of my copies.

but, for now, the books. and again, to recap, i commenced with Die Last by Tony Parsons. i suspect this is the 4th or 5th book to feature the "created" protagonist by Parsons; i think this is only the 3rd i have read but i could be mistaken.

plot? Max Wolfe is called in to investigate when a truck load of dead ladies is found in Chinatown (the London one).  it soon transpires that it's a people smuggling operation gone badly wrong. Wolfe goes off to investigate, finding the path leads him to the "old school" ways of London crime bosses, with the path featuring detours to face the bickering and politics of those around him.

i have said this before, and here i am saying it again. i have a great deal of time for Tony Parsons, based mostly on the fact that he is knowledgeable, respectful and in awe of A Clockwork Orange. also, for all the gibberish and nonsense he can produce (whenever anyone famous dies he writes a sycophantic article declaring them to be the greatest and most important at what they did, ever. which, you would think, made 2016 tricky for him), he often speaks sense. like, for instance, the basics of "social media". simply put, he says never ever write anything online that you would be embarrassed about appearing on a huge billboard with your name on it. no matter what you may think of Parsons, if we all did this then the internet could go back to being a decent place again. no, of course it won't happen, but then again it never will if the idea isn't aired.

oh yes, the novel. really quite good. it has a "tabloid" slant to the narrative, but that's what Tony does for a living and besides, to be honest, the story probably benefits from it. as mentioned earlier, this one feels a good deal more substantial than the last Max Wolfe i read, which is good. the fleshing out, however, was often in the form of some soap opera style developments between characters. a dubious path to be on, but let us see what happens with the next one.

another thing i like of Parsons is his confidence. many might see it as arrogance or cockiness, but i decline to do so. for him there seems to be no point being a writer if you're not going to be bold and put yourself out there. he makes no secret whatsoever of protagonist Max Wolfe being his very own Walter Mitty like alter ego. one really suspects that these Max Wolfe books will become some sort of TV series as and when an actor who looks close enough to Tony Parsons can be found for the lead. and, of course, as and when the lawyers are confident that a certain Ms Julie Burchill will be OK with any presentation or representation of another character in the books, the journalist Scarlet Bush. what's that, Max Wolfe, Scarlet Bush - Parsons is indeed a master of naming his characters.

can you read this novel without having read any of the others? yes, i would think so. prior knowledge would be nice, but each of the books so far has been a welcome "in its own right" story. should you read this novel? well, it's a flowing read, keeping you going and involved, and never boring or dragging. so if you like detective mystery thriller things with the London constabulary, yes absolutely.

a word on the provenance of both books, then. i have disgraced myself. or everyone has a price. or perhaps everyone can be tempted by a deal. both of these books, to be sure, are off Tesco. they were purchased as part of their ongoing special; the one where a novel each week or so is priced at just £2 if you at the same time spunk up 50p on a copy of The Sun, a publication sold and marketed as a newspaper. sorry. but also, buying novels for 20% of the cover price, or 50% of what Tesco normally sells for, cannot be missed. i am sure The Sun are delighted with their false circulation boost, and there's always a handy recycle bin to be found for the guilty 50p spent.

we go on, then, and Into The Water by Paula Hawkins. one that i was particularly keen to read, despite somewhat lukewarm or doubtful reviews when the hardback landed. most happy day that such reviews and comments were incorrect.

plot? an unexplained death by a body of water notorious or infamous for such sees the estranged sister of the deceased return to a former home town. whilst there, she has to confront herself, her own understanding of her past and try to solve the mystery of exactly what happened. with plenty of factors affecting the ability to do that, the least of which not being her niece that she is now ostensibly the guardian of.

that's the best i can do for a description, and i am not entirely certain i have nailed it. once again, in fairness, i am trying to avoid spoilers, for those of you who don't want them yet for some reason insist on reading on. and i suppose yes it is nice that you do read on, for it makes it somewhat worthwhile for me to dedicate whatever spare time i get in the world to doing all of this writing stuff. but, it is not my writing stuff in focus, now, is it.

my view has not changed, The Girl On The Train remains one of the best novels i have ever read. whereas that was, say, 90% excellent and the last 10% "a bit" of a let down, here it's a tricky 10% to start off with and 90% sheer brilliance and thoroughly enjoyable reading. because of course one should always break literature down to numbers.

the tricky bit here is the disruptive, broken narrative. and you have about a dozen or so narrators. if this makes me a bit thick then so be it, but quite often in reading the book i had to flick back to the "list of characters" at the front of the book to remind me who was narrating and who they were narrating about. making this all the more of a challenge is that some characters get a third person narrator. quite complicated, but overall absolutely perfectly suits the tone and telling of the story.

from a traditional perspective, the "second" novel by a writer was always dismissed. either it was too similar to the first and considered lazy, or too different from the first and considered too radical a departure. somehow Paula Hawkins has managed to do precisely both of those things with this novel, and triumphed. undoubtedly i am very far indeed from being alone in really looking forward to the third.

and there you have it. two novels which i thoroughly enjoyed, and would have no hesitation whatsoever, or if you like at all, in recommending to others for reading pleasure. you cannot really as much more from a novel than that.

well, as ever, hopefully all of this has been of some use or interest to someone out there somewhere. many thanks for reading this, anyway!




be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!