best.......

Heya



And so it is that time once again, look you see. The year that is, or soon to be was, 2018, draws to a close. For the most part I would encourage one to look forwards, but it does no harm to look backwards.

This is then my semi traditional, mostly annual glance back over twelve or so months, give or take (north or south) a day or so. Make no mistake, for I am under no illusions that my view of what counts as the “best” of this or any year represents what is so for all, to be sure. But, here it all is for those who are for some reason interested in how I saw, heard and read the year that was, or “is”.

……….film

No, I didn’t see too many films this year. Of the ones that I did watch, however, I am indeed going to be as perhaps obvious and indeed populist as to say Avengers Infinity War was the best of the lot.

Why? There is no good reason why not. A staggering achievement – fine film in its own right, whilst also raising an ongoing series of these “Marvel Superhero” films to a whole new higher level. It perfectly balances a huge stack of “main characters” whilst allowing them to have depth and dimensions. This is particularly true of the ostensible “big bad” of the film. Best of all is that it stands up extremely well to repeat viewings. This is handy as both the boys have wanted it on again and again.

For want of a better, more appropriate title, “second best” would be another Marvel film, Black Panther. It broke with the colour by numbers plot of virtually all Disney / Marvel films thus far (the “we’re putting a team together” one) and brought something fresh, new and interesting.

Otherwise, Jurassic World – Fallen Kingdom did exactly what it said on the box, which is give two or so hours of dinosaurs running about. Splendid, and I must say it is with interest I am watching to see just how far Chris Pratt’s career will go with his “stand around and visibly be Chris Pratt” approach to acting. The Predator was way better than I had anticipated, with only the presence of the awful, rubbish looking CGI “uber” Predator letting it down. Venom was also surprisingly decent.

Disappointments of the year? Well, the other 75% of the family disagree, but to me Ant Man & Wasp was a little dull. I think it suffered coming after Infinity War, but being set before the events of that film. Biggest letdown of the year, however, was by some distance Solo. The magic of Star Wars was always that it was a simple, straightforward, swashbuckling adventure whole families could enjoy. When you have an 8 year old and 12 year old pair of dedicated Star Wars fans getting up and walking away from a Star Wars film because they are bored, well, you know something is wrong.

…….royal wedding

Oh, pretty straightforward really. This honour goes to Harry & Meghan (pronounced “Meghan”). A lot of this is because the wedding was one big massive throwback to a time when such weddings were used to cement treaties, agreements and truces in war. Great Britain and America have taken two ostensibly important but ultimately irrelevant prominent figures and have married them off in a way which tacitly underlines the “special relationship” between our two great nations.

Mostly, though, it gets my vote for “royal wedding of the year” purely because BBC 2 decided to have someone called Rae Morris perform live in their studios on the morning of the wedding as part of their coverage. I had not heard of her before, but was more or less hooked straight away, and so bought her most recent album.

Which leads us quite nicely to………..

……..album

A year of some very good, above average albums, but ultimately none of them with the outstanding, excellence, sheer “wow” factor of the ones which came out in 2016. No, not a typo – 2017 was somewhat poor.

Just so as to avoid getting a needless, quite unnecessary punch in the face, I must of course commence this with a celebration of Roger Daltrey. Yes, Roger did indeed treat us to a most splendid of records in 2018.

Nearest closest to a non-Roger Daltrey album of the year was The Blue Hour by Suede. A haunting masterpiece that seems not to be appreciated by the present day audience. It is, however, an album which shall continue to exist, which is to say one day an audience will seek it out and it shall be understood, rather than it being discarded for all time.

Any others close? Well, James could have had an album as excellent as 2016’s Girl At The End Of The World. Sadly, inexplicably, they allowed themselves to be distracted and for no apparent reason polluted the otherwise excellent Living In Extraordinary Times with at least two attacks on Trump. To be honest, I am entirely indifferent to Trump, and for that matter whoever America elects to elect as leader. Why exactly James decided to distract from the good music on the album with references to him is a mystery.

Welsh Wonders the Manic Street Preachers continued with their transformation into the Relaxed Sat In Comfy Chairs Chatters with Resistance Is Futile. A rather mellow, tranquil, pleasant listening record off of them, then.

Honourable mentions to the records off of Kylie, Simple Minds, (Sir) Paul McCartney, (Sir) Rod Stewart and (as far as I am aware still a commoner) Mark Knopfler, which were all jolly good listening. And, as per the royal wedding observations above, a special mention again for Rae Morris, who is splendid and someone you should give a try.

Re-releases? Or things what had not been released at the time of recording but came out in 2018? Certainly, 2 (two) came out over the year which immediately suggest they should be noted.

Perhaps the best thing about Welcome To The Blackout is that it showcases an on top form David Bowie, sounding relaxed and immensely comfortable with the music he is performing. Appetite For Destruction remains, as in now as it was then and shall surely always be, one of the most devastating, outstanding "throw everything you have at this because you might not get the chance again" rock albums of all time.

Musical comeback of the year is the happy and sad return of Ian Brown. Happy as it’s some decent new music off of Ian Brown, sad as you have to assume that The Stone Roses shall not be making any new records, then, at least not soon.

A seemingly failed comeback of the year was that of Culture Club, although now they are apparently styled “Boy George and Culture Club”. I heard one or two songs off of their new album on Radio 2, and they were quite good. But, no, I did not buy the album, and few others did it seems, for if I remember right it didn’t crack the top ten. Undoubtedly there exists a nostalgia market for their classic hits, but it is a bit of a shame their new efforts seem to have been widely ignored.

Speaking of which, by some distance my most played album of the year was one released late last year – Songs Of Experience by U2. It has become inexplicably fashionable and trendy to be seen to be not listening to U2 these days, which is a great shame as Songs Of Experience is an outstanding record. Should you be one of the many who have not heard it, what can I do but recommend you reconsider this and give it a spin.

…….posh chap

Jacob Rees-Mogg. It beggars belief that anyone could ever be posher. Cherish him whilst we have him, I suppose. It would seem we are stuck with him anyhow.

……..book

A tough one, this, very tough. This year has seen fortune smile on me, for in my selections I have read a great many more good (excellent) books than I have poor (bad) ones.

If I had to choose one that I would say “yes, read this” then it would be the superb Thirteen, or if you will Th1t3en. Just a damned good thriller with an interesting plot or if you like premise. One that I am aware of people giving a try after I sang the praises of it (with some clauses and disclaimers) was Chalk Man. So yes, that was on the shortlist too.

Honourable mention goes to Cass Green with Don’t You Cry. A quite breathtakingly brilliant modern spin on the Desperate Hours plotline; one which brings something quite new to a plot structure one would have thought had already been done all ways possible.

Also Into The Water, by her what done Girl On The Train. Sheena Kamal's Eyes Like Mine was also superb. Despite being somewhat brief, yes, Artemis off of him what done The Martian too. Well, yes, as I confessed, some good reading was had in 2018, to be sure.

……post

I am not sure I am in a position to select my “best” post of the year that was here, but I can at the least tell you which was the most read one. With some delight I can tell or otherwise assure you it was one which sought to celebrate David Lee Roth.

Yes, The Roth Tapes as a blog post attracted somewhere slightly south of 1000 readers. Perhaps this is due to the good taste of people in the world seeking to know the magnificence of Roth, or maybe just some nostalgia for fan compiled videotapes.

Well, then, that’s that. Perhaps, or maybe, I have missed some things of importance or consequence, but overall and on the whole I’d like to think I have covered enough.

And so onto, or into, another year, then. See you in it, I hope and trust.



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

bonus books

hello there


i have, for all sorts of fairly good reasons which i am not inclined, look you see, to share, been spending some time in hotels across our fair land. well, when i say "our", that presumes you mean i speak of us English, or if you will British. anyway, when doing so, my imagination stretches quite as far as seeing this as time to do some top level, or if you will hardcore, reading.

and so, peculiarly perhaps, i find myself in a situation where i can do some more overviews, comments, or i suppose reviews of two books that i have read. this despite the fact that earlier in the month i already did two.

sadly, due to my penchant or preference for using the ereader (mostly) as and when on my travels, i cannot present you with images of the covers together as such. but i can, should you wish for it, give you a look at the front of the ereader.

yes, i know, not the most exciting picture i have ever put on here, but it shall just have to do, i'm afraid. actually no, i am not really afraid, but that seems to be the right thing to say in these circumstances. or, is it?

moving on, then, and a brief overview of what i read, keeping it spoiler free. first off was The President Is Missing by Bill Clinton (that one) and James Patterson (that one). this was actually really rather good, and the best description i can give it is a faster paced prime Tom Clancy style to it. second was The Fox by Frederick Forsyth. this one had a remarkably similar theme to the other book - that of "cyber terrorism" - but wasn't really as good. still, provided light reading.

the provenance of the copy or if you will volume of any book i read is, surprisingly, of interest to quite a few of you. well, in this instance, that - the provenance - for both novels would be "internet", since as mentioned they were read on one of them ereader things. beyond that, please note that from here on out a *** SPOILER WARNING *** is in place for both novels.

my curiosity was somewhat piqued when i learned that a former President of the United States of America (a "POTUS", no less) had, in conjunction with a writer i was aware of but had not read much by, unleashed a work of fiction on to the literary world. let me have a look at this, said i. well, more of a read than a look, and so off i went to read The President Is Missing. in a hotel, mostly. but you don't have to check into a hotel to read it, so far as i would be aware.

plot? in a surprising move, former "POTUS" Bill Clinton has elected to make - get this - a serving POTUS the protagonist of the novel. well, write what you know, kid. anyway, this is a president under siege somewhat, facing calls for impeachment, etc, and no nothing to do with "sexual relations with that woman". in the midst of this, he is aware of  sophisticated "cyber" internet terrorist attack being imminent on the United States, and for that matter much of the Western world. for reasons i shall not disclose here, so as to leave some element of suspense for any of you who may care to read it, he has to act on this knowledge and information quickly, secretly and just about all alone. will he be able to leave the White House undetected, wander the streets of America without being spotted and manage to thwart an attack which threatens to send America back to the years before there was such a thing as a computer?

let us be honest here, i would think you could answer that question all by yourself without reading the novel. but, in truth, and surprisingly to me, you would indeed be missing out on a quite wonderful read. a couple of people i have mentioned this to have suggested - cynically or truthfully - that this book is probably less by Bill Clinton and James Patterson, more their respective "ghost writers". don't care really, whoever wrote what in this novel - and you would think a key speech off of the president in the novel was penned by Clinton himself - did so superbly well. it's a fun, thrilling read; one that i was reluctant to put down.

if i were to have a complaint, it would be that the title is misleading. well, that and the grandstanding speech mentioned just now, but anyway. yes, to some characters in the novel the president is "missing", but as much of the work is first person narrative off of the president, this is not really a "where is he" mystery sort of thing. but that said, you know, i would have no idea what other title they could have given it.

with a soft spot for the man who wrote The Day Of The Jackal i elected to pick up and try the latest offering off of Frederick Forsyth, then, The Fox. in doing so i had absolutely no idea of the plot (ebooks, alas, are not noted for having a back cover with the rudimentary details on them), so didn't know i was dipping once more into the realm of "cyber terrorism".

the plot in this instance? a gangling, socially inept English teenager is caught breaking into a supposedly impenetrable US military database. he did no harm, just "had a look". the American authorities, as is their way, very much wish to "bust his ass" and send him to Gitmo or death. the British prime minister, however, convinces our friends in America that it would be much more beneficial to use his "hacking" talents on mutual enemies.

and so this young lad, code named The Fox (hence the title of the novel, now that i think on), is set up to go and hack away at the various enemies America and the UK have somehow accumulated (despite decades of spectacular success with foreign policy). causing all sorts of mayhem. these enemies, however, soon wise up to what is going on, and elect to undertake an ambitious fox hunt, using certain dogs of war......

the best way i can describe this is "readable rubbish". characters are one dimensional, plot twists and turns are both convenient and convoluted, and the whole thing is a very simplified application of the Daily Express / Daily Mail brigades "British is Best in the eyes of the world" approach to life. everything about cyber terrorism - what it is, what hacking actually involves, what it can achieve - is in this novel precisely what you might think an 80 year old would just assume it is all about. much of it appears to long for a return to the "good old days" of the Cold War.

but, ultimately, it is a good, fun read. exciting in parts, to be sure, and yet also unintentionally "laugh out loud" funny. like, for instance, and i remind you of the spoiler warning, the bit when Russia's greatest ever covert sniper is thwarted and found short by a wily old Scottish gamekeeper. in truth, and in fairness, often you can't but help wish that the world in some way worked like Frederick Forsyth imagines it to.

right, then, that's that. at present i am back on more traditional books, as in i am reading a paperback. just as soon as i have read two such things, a post will be made here. no doubt this will be in 2019, rather than in the last five or so days of this year.

as ever, most splendid and happy a thing is it should any of this have been of any use to someone out there.




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

black roses

howdy pop pickers


indeed, a bit of a "throwback post", look you see, to those crazy, hedonistic days of a couple of weeks ago. as the title of this post gives every indication, yes indeed i did purchase the second comeback "single" off of Ian Brown, it being titled Black Roses.

any good? what, you want me to speak ill of Ian Brown, or anyone associated with that band he was in, the name of which escapes me for the moment? sure, that's going to happen.

i am quite digging it, to be sure. the song is a whimsical, south of three minutes funky rock number, with a most smart layer of guitar. which is slightly surprising as the original version of the tune was a boss, or if you like deft, reggae song. yes, i do indeed believe that i rather like this one even more than the first "comeback as a solo artist" single, the very decent homage to Primal Scream that was, is and always shall be First World Problems.

what of the title and lyrics? a member of The Stone Roses releasing a song with the word "roses" in the title is surely going to prompt questions. well, maybe it's a metaphor or a euphemism or a hint or a suggestion about the band he's decided to "drop" on us. to be honest, i am inclined to just accept it at face value, which is a most decent tune. one that makes the world a better place for it existing.

should First World Problems and now Black Roses reflect the sound and the vibe of Ripples, the album heading our way on February 1, well, then, i think we all know what my album of the year for 2019 shall be.

dig what you dig, and



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

the wait

yo ho ho

well, at time of publication it is Christmas Eve, look you see, to be sure. as many, many wonderful people in this world shall be busy with many, many wonderful things, i shall try and keep this brief. what would have been briefer would have been to just be brief and not say that, but i have done it now. 

Dad sent along this picture, and said "i can use it if i want", which translates as "best i see this on that bloody blog of yours". 

yes, 'tis indeed Mum & Dad's tree once more, but from a slightly different angle, and with the much beloved Marmite having a snooze before it. 

Merry Christmas one and all, in particular those who celebrate it. for those who do not, and i am sure not for perfectly valid reasons, please accept the wishes of goodwill in the spirit they are offered. 

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

celebrations

seasonal greetings to you


and so it is time again, look you see. the guide for tv, or if you like tv guide, for the final week of one year and the first week of the next has been purchased. over on the stereo is the magnificent b-side of the magnificent 12" of the magnificent song The Power Of Love by the magnificent Frankie Goes To Hollywood, featuring as it does the magnificent Frankies expressing their wishes, desires and ambitions for the season.

Christmas, it must be, that is here once more. yes, indeed, the season of goodwill, coming as it does but once a year. time now, then, for a round up of trees, so to speak, as is reasonably standard for me to do at this time of year. well, as and when i remember, and when i have the pictures to do so.

first, then, as is proper, over to Mum & Dad. it would be that they should be first for several reasons, but specifically in this instance it was so that they happened to be the first in the family (that i am aware of) who had the tree up. and what a magnificent one it is too.

the conversation around this was that Dad believed or felt he had been responsible for the family tree for the last 50 or so years now, and that for the next 50 Mum could jolly well get on with it. being on the other side of the world from them (more or less) allows me to allow them to get on with it. several of you shall have concerns, i know - but don't. i can assure you that my Dad is pretty good for that most splendid of toothpaste what has love beads shoved into it for quite some time; at least well north into the first quarter of the coming year.

celebrations at this time of year are not, to be sure, limited to Christmas. our family has, it sometimes feels, a disproportionate number of members who (whom?) celebrate their birthdays during the very same month. the most recent member to this special club is, as it happens, the one who celebrates it first during this particular month of December, and so here he is.

yes, indeed, William, resplendent in a hat his Grandad gave him, presumably to save himself the trouble of packing it and taking it to pastures new.

there are friends, family and those who know me that, for reasons best known to themselves, prefer not to keep in contact, but do choose to check in here once in a while to see how i, and indeed the family, are all getting along. just fine, really. should you be of a mind to remain a stranger, well, i can give you my assurance that William had a most splendid day of celebrations for his most recent of birthdays.

now, then, Richard enthusiasts will no doubt be keen to see what sort of tree has has up. last year, or perhaps the year before, he painstakingly drank several hundreds of bottles of beer so as to produce his magnum opus. in truth, i have no idea what he has done this year, for instead of a picture of a tree he sent along this image, which i have taken as being his interpretation of a Christmas greeting.

many of you will look at the above and be concerned that he is off for an operation - exploratory surgery on his arse, perhaps. well, fear not. Richard is in fact just the subject of a special, worldwide investigation. at this stage Richard is unique in his knowledge, his passion and his commitment to the motion pictures Convoy and Cannonball Run II. the UN have elected to fund research into how Richard has achieved this exceptional level, so that others may achieve the same, thus making the world a much better place.

on we go to our very own tree, then, for your viewing pleasure. although i am not convinced that i have taken the best picture possible of it. however, it will do, as it were.

perhaps you are looking at the above and thinking "that is familiar". maybe it strikes you as being quite like the tree i purchased for Christmas 2014; the cheapest one i could find with a sentiment or view that it "would do for one year and i shall sort out another for next". indeed, yes, it is the very same tree. that is now, i believe, 5 Christmases i have extracted from this £9.99, or if you will 1p south of £10, tree. maybe next year i will indeed spring the cash for another one, but don't be at all surprised to find that i extract a sixth seasonal use from this one.

further celebrations? of course. whereas James came along before William, his birthday falls on a day which is a date after that of his younger brother. if that makes sense. so we celebrate his after, on the appropriate day. and indeed, yes, it was one of those "milestone" birthdays, but i suppose all such birthdays are milestones, when you think about it. if you use milestones.

should James strike you as looking a bit baffled, if not perplexed, in the above, that is quite normal. it is down to a mixture of him being awake at a time he would consider unnatural for a weekend, and indeed attempting, valiantly, to read my handwriting.

how about a wander around the village, to see what decorations and other such signs of festivities are in place for the more public level of celebration?

the above is indeed what the elected parish council, in their infinite and infallible wisdom, have chosen to place in full display of the public to commemorate the coming of Christmas. what can i say but nice one. actually what else i can say is yes, that is William. we were off on a mission, as he decided that he urgently needed a packet of tic tacs and urgently required me to take him to the shops and purchase them.

an image of me? for no reason at all can i think of why you would want such, but equally for no reason at all can i think of motivation not to include one here. so, well, here.

that image was taken "by surprise", by James, on his new phone thing what has a camera welded to it. a pretty good camera, which it darn well wants to be, going on the price, but no matter.

indeed, that is a jumper which was provided for me by a dear friend known as Shanaz. provenance beyond that unknown, but possibly the Fordsburg / Crown Mines dynamic interchange in downtown Jozi. anyway, i have included it here as my sister reckons it is me with a "new look"; presumably a smart and sophisticated one, and not the scruff who or what is normally presented.

speaking of which (my sister, and not my fashion choices), yes, of course, she has indeed forwarded on a picture of their tree. a tree which, by her own admission, was erected (so to speak) late.

and what a beauty it is too. i particularly like the very shiny angel.

well, then, there you go. should you be reading this prior to the current (as in 2018) Christmas celebrations, perhaps needless to say you have my best and most fondest wishes for a splendid one. more, as and when, dear reader. as and when.



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

viddy well

hi there


and so once again we are here, look you see. the here, or if you will the now, is Christmas and the clutching at the past i do under the vague guise of claiming it upholds tradition. so then yes, indeed, truly, the time has come for me to make that once a year purchase of one of the two recognised big names in tv magazines (in the UK, at the least).

so, which one to choose from these two? indeed yes, i know that there are dozens of other tv guide magazines, but none of them were around in the 80s, and thus they do not feed my nostalgia. for Christmas 2014, 2015 and 2016 i went with the ostensibly or previously BBC based Radio Times out of some sense of loyalty; one that was perhaps misguided. when it came around to decision time in 2017, i "switched ships", so to speak, and went for the one that used to be exclusively all ITV (and then Channel 4 too), the decidedly proletariat focused TV Times.

just what i decided on is below, later. but for now, an observation on the covers. note, if you will, that this year - like many a recent year - it's all "Christmas themed" generic things on the cover. it was the case, once, that the "big star" of either BBC or ITV featured, dressed in some sort of Christmas related outfit; invariably Santa Claus.

there are reasons for this. partially, to be sure, we have now moved away from an era of super, great big "mega stars", like Jim Bowen, Tarby, Eric & Ernie, etc. certainly one or two people on television at the moment have a level of fame, but they never quite seem to become household names anymore. neither, i suppose, are any of them particularly cherished by a nation resplendent with hundreds of different channels to watch. but also, i suppose, the lawyers these days caution such publications from using the stars of today, lest tomorrow the sins of the past come to the fore.

quite, yes indeed, thank you to Richard for forwarding on the above somewhat timely reminder of the dangers of celebrity endorsements. for many years the most scary thing about the above was probably that so many people not only chose Co-Op to be their appointed vacuum cleaner supplier, but that the market for them was so competitive that such gimmicks were required.

no, as far as i am aware, my parents did not purchase a vacuum cleaner from the Co Op on the basis of the chance to win a "dream" meeting between their offspring and "Uncle Jimmy". to the best of my knowledge, any time such appliances were required, my Dad left word in the pub and arrangements were made with rather more independently minded sole traders, all of whom were united in that most precious of successful business foundation platforms - "cash is tax free".

oh, yes, Christmas tv guides. same deal as last year, really, which is to say that the magazine designed for commoners and the working classeshe TV Times, is what i went with.

why? economics. let us be honest here. such are my obligations and commitments in this life that it is rare, seldom even, that i get to watch much television. also, i never really read this annually purchased tv guide. to this extent, as i am purchasing a tv guide but once a year purely to service nostalgia, it really strikes me that paying £3.75 for the nostalgia pushed my way with the TV Times is economically more sensible than the frankly eye watering £4.90 demanded for the Radio Times. i suppose the differential in cost - £1.15 unless i am terribly mistaken - is symbolic of the gap between us working class TV Times readers, and the bourgeois, middle and upper class ruling elite who shall not tolerate anything but the Radio Times in their stately homes.

any particular highlights over Christmas? the usual, really. a substantial number of James Bond films grace ITV, as do a significant number of Star Wars films. over on the (posh) BBC, there does seem to be a fair few of them Disney / Marvel films to watch.

the big question, but of course, is how, when and where can one see Bullseye over Christmas. in respect of an answer, let me quote what is widely regarded as the greatest Festive based novel ever written (no hang on i think it was a different one but let me ride it out); it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

Challenge TV has really stepped up to the plate this year, if you will forgive the American nature of that celebratory statement. on the good side, there are hours and hours of Bullseye to be watched. the bad, or if you like down, side is the hours they are being screened. above is the guide for Christmas Day, or if you will December 25. yes, that's a whopping three hours and ten minutes of Bullseye magic, but alas it all kicks off at 11pm at night.

anything missing over Christmas, according to the TV Times? oh hell, yes. i have indeed scoured the listings for Channel 5 for each and every day listed (Dec 22 to Jan 4), and there is no indication whatsoever that they shall be screening that most loved of Yuletide entertainment treats, Chas & Dave Cockney Christmas Knees Up 1981. sure, the version they broadcast was somewhat heavily edited (all instances and references to Jim "nick nick" Davidson are gone), but still. you would have thought that this year, the year in which we sadly lost Chas out of Chas and Dave, they would have gone to town with repeat broadcasts. but, no.

it is just as well, then, that i have my Chas & Dave Greatest Christmas CD to hand, the one i purchased off Poundland for a fee that was neither north nor south of £1, a few years ago. this, and the fact that the Chas & Dave Cockney Christmas Knees Up is available on that there You Tube thing, shall see me through.

but what about New Year's Eve? well, i think Madness are doing that BBC 1 concert which goes over the chimes of Big Ben (if they switch them back on), but yes, yet again Challenge TV has secured my patronage for the last evening of the old year and the first morning of the new.

how excellent is that? six hours of Bullseye, if my mathematics are correct, starting at 10pm and ending at 4am. should my plans work out, i shall be sat watching all of that, then. there will be ample commercial breaks, which i will use as an excuse to visit the bathroom, go and smoke, make a cup of tea and all that sort of thing.

well, anyway, that's my Christmas tv guide post for this year then. should i make it that far, i would well imagine that another one of this nature shall be posted very close to the same time next year. but possibly without quite so much of Sir Jimmy.




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

address unknown

Heya

The art of successful politics, look you see, is to create the illusion of making a maximum impact overtly – to be seen to have done something – whilst covertly in real terms actually doing as little as possible. Quite often the latter aspect can in fact have consequences of a decidedly negative nature.

We, as a civilisation or society, are hardly short of examples of this. One such instance is the decision by our present government, who all agree have been a spectacular success with nearly all they have done of late, informing the NHS that it, as an organisation, will soon be banned from the “absurd” practice of using fax machines.

Ha ha ha, indeed. In this technological juggernaut of an era, this made for splendid headlines. On a day to day basis, after all, hardly anyone uses a fax anymore. Never mind that; few even use the landline telephone network which allows a fax to do its thing. Yes, of course the NHS – like everyone else – should get rid of fax machines would be the immediate reaction of most. But, should they?

As a frame of reference, let us make no mistake. The NHS is in perpetual trouble, with reports of it being “on the verge of collapse” being a constant for the last 2, maybe 3 decades. Money must be saved, more money must be spent on it so as to save it.

In terms of money must be spent, perhaps rather the existing money should be spent better. Simply throwing money at something does not make it better. Take, for a comparative example, your average footballer. A good example, methinks, for certain aspects of the fourth estate love nothing more in complaining how much footballers earn in comparison to doctors, nurses and so forth. We are often treated to stories of how one footballer or another is thrown an extra 50,000 or so a week. I have yet to see the instance where throwing more money at a player has improved that player, or made them better. As in, if some club currently paying me zero came along and paid me 100 or so a week to play, I assure you that my skills would not magically increase.

Yes, I will get to the fax business in a moment, but I seem to be on a rather rich vein of rambling here. Money must indeed be “saved”, and there are immediate ways of doing this. The fact that the government is determined everyone must live longer, up to 100 on average (probably) kind of says as a given that a lot more people are going to need a lot more medical attention than they did 40 or so years ago. Also, this “nanny state” business. Why not allow people to self-medicate? Should you go to a chemist and request anything more explicit or hardcore than some headache tablets, one gets bombarded with threats from pharmacy staff, insisting that the patient – perhaps suffering nothing more substantial than a momentarily sore arse – go and see a doctor. And they wonder why our doctors offices are so solidly booked.

So, anyway, fax machines. One must assume, or presume, that the idea of placing a blanket ban on fax machines across the NHS is motivated by those precious terms “cost cutting” and “money saving”. Surely sending an email is cheaper, faster and more efficient? Perhaps. Yes, in certain aspects. But there are certain key advantages to using a fax machine that one does not get with emails or similar forms of electronic communication.

Here is a by no means exhaustive but nonetheless hopefully compelling list of things to consider with this ingenious decision to rid the NHS of the fax machine.

* a fax cannot “accidentally” be sent to several (million) people at once, unless one resends it the fax will only go to the number dialled or typed in.

* spam filters and junk mail detectors do not exist on fax machines, so no fax of importance is inadvertently deleted by the settings.

* you cannot shove thousands of faxes onto a quite small memory stick and smuggle them off somewhere, or at least not with the ease that you can do that with emails. Just ask that Ed Snowden fellow, or that weird looking Ecuadorian chap behind that WikiLeaks web thing.

* a fax being sent and received relies solely on the relatively (strong and) stable landline network. It does not depend on a network provider, their data transfer rate or if their services are currently available.

* whilst you can send obscene pictures via a fax (Spiros and I were champions of this, once), one cannot really attach malicious viruses or “malware” to a fax. Nothing for someone to inadvertently click on then, which means nothing to bring communication and systems to a standstill.

When it comes to important, medical and quite likely life or death stuff, looking at the above I really have no problem whatsoever with the NHS, doctors and chemists et al, carrying on using fax machines. Carry on using them until the end of the world, really. By all means integrate “new” technology and all that, but surely I am not alone in thinking that a service of such importance would be “absurd” to completely abandon a safe, secure and reliable form of correspondence?

This may well come as a surprise, or maybe not. It is not just the NHS that makes use of the fax machine in this day and age. Several banks and such financial institutions will still correspond only via fax for high level matters. The reasons for this are right there in the above points I made.

So, then. By “banning” the NHS from using faxes, some Health Secretary or Minister or other such rubbish has been able to look as though they have “introduced” new technology to the organisation, and indeed created the impression that they’ve made formidable financial savings. Let us hope then, that by the time the ban on faxes comes in, the NHS computer network has a smooth running email system, one that is attended to and monitored and is, of course, immune to viruses, network errors, operating system crashes, etc.

Or, you know, maybe it's just me that thinks about stuff like this. Perhaps, arguably, too much, maybe.



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

i'd buy that for 79p (*)

greetings


please note that the (*) thing in the title is there with good reason. at time of writing, look you see, one US dollar, or if you like $1 or US$1, converted to 79p in British Pounds Sterling, or if you also like real money, to be sure. quite a formidable week awaits our ruling classes. this is a week in which our economy and way of life is widely expected to completely tank and be left all FUBAR, but i have heard this all before.

and so, anyway, moving on. yes, to the point. recently i had reason to be in one of those former fast food outlets, now some sort of gaudy, gentrified, artisan posh eateries called McDonald's. oh, how life was simpler when you just walked in, ordered your food, paid and left, but no matter. anyway, on this instance, they had a table set up, selling some (presumably) donated books for (i assume) a charitable cause.

since i like both books and "doing my bit" for charity or other such noble causes (recently i donated an amount similar to that mentioned in the title towards some sort of school in Dudley or similar), i had a browse. and it was just as well that i did, for if i had not then i would not have spotted this.

oh, yes, indeed. now you get the "i'd buy that for a dollar" comment, for it is a novelisation of the screenplay for the motion picture RoboCop what i purchased. such novelisations were quite popular in the 80s, and i have (or at least had, i fear many have been lost or donated over the years) many of them. but never this particular one, so i was quite delighted to see it.

cost? they asked for a mere 50p, but i was so delighted that i gave more. steady on, not that much north of the suggested donation, but still. as battered and well worn as it seemed to be, i wished to have it.

a glance or a flick through the book has given every indication that it is faithful to the (original) film we all know and love. unlike the horrid remake. although, oddly, this is a heavily sanitised adaptation. descriptions of violence in the novel are rather tame, and so far as i can work out all foul and explicit language, bar some curses uttered of a blasphemous nature, feature not.

which reminds me of something wonderful - the edited for television version of RoboCop. strange, it was, but also really good. the strength of the movie - just how good a film and narrative it really is - can be seen in this "cut to ribbons" version. with all obscenities gone and the visual violence largely removed, it remained a wonderfully watchable movie. one that all can enjoy, since i watched this edit with Gran and she loved it.

i do wish i could find that edit again. my (considerably) better half has made it clear that i am not allowed to hold screenings of RoboCop for the boys in all its uncut gory glory. but, i protest, it is a masterful film. had i still owned the watered down to make it suitable for all VHS copy of the tv edit, i could have them watch it again and again. not to be, alas. yes i have looked online for it, and no i cannot locate it.

so, well, yes, anyway. you all probably have other things to do right now, and so i shall leave this here at that. but, most splendid of days if anyone has found this of some interest.




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

take my money, my cigarettes, i haven't seen the worst of it yet

hello there


the biggest challenge i faced with this post was, look you see, the title. it was a requirement to come up with something what said "river", and the first thing what came to mind was Take Me To The River by Talking Heads, although i appreciate that was a cover version. my other instinct was to go with "when the river was deep" off of I Knew You Were Waiting by George and Aretha, so if you would prefer that then just pretend that is the title, or use some tippex or something.

anyway, a river. quite a big mighty one, at the least by English standards i suppose. yes, i know you Americans have huge ones and that, but then you go large with all.

usually i am reluctant to give too many details away of where i am in the world, but in this instance an exception must be made. it is highly likely that several of you will wish to see such splendour as this river for yourself, and thus will require details. well, it's Richmond, in Yorkshire. as in proper Richmond.

there is, alas, such a thing as a false or poorer or incorrect Richmond here in England. a lesser Richmond can be found in London, innit. so far as i am aware there are no rivers in that one, at least not beyond the Thames and none quite so lovely. go there if you will, but that is not the one i was at. although i have been there too.

indeed, yes, one of them "selfie" things, should you be for some reason wondering how i am getting on. on that note, for some reason my hair in this image has attracted several comments, most of them complimentary. no idea why, really. there was a brisk, crisp (hello, Faye) wind within the air, and that was what was responsible for how my hair looks in the above.

was i welcome in Richmond? at first, yes. however, i suspect my approach to driving, with particular emphasis on the parking aspect which is a requisite of it, caused some concern amongst the residents of what is a really lovely place. despite all actions i took on the road being perfectly legal, they were it seems not in keeping with the "Richmond way of doing things". i suspect any attempt at a return visit might be an act of folly, for they shall see me coming and possibly suggest that i do not.

something ambitious next for you, and i hope it works. i was fiddling with my phone and discovered that i can, i believe, make one of them "gif" things not in Commodore 64 mode. should that be the case, and it works, then enjoy the below.

if for some reason it did not work, then my apologies for the big, gaping space between paragraphs where the "gif" thing should have been.

by all accounts - and i trust my source on this without question - this particular river, the name of which escapes me for the moment, is quite popular during summer. actually, very popular. so, get there early, or, like me, go when the weather is not so splendid as it might be.

another selfie? why not. tis, or if you will 'tis, the season to be merry, jolly, etc. so long as you celebrate that sort of thing. anyway, in this one you will note that the wind which chilled the bones went right ahead and did something even more outrageous with my hair.

never mind how the residents might not wish for me to do so, would i wish to return to Richmond? yes, very much so. it is a lovely spot. perhaps i will, then, and maybe i will modify - refine, possibly - my approach to driving so that it fits in with how they do things there.

for those of you who the "gif" thing did not work for, here is some conventional video. actually, even if the "gif" worked and you just want more, this is also for you to enjoy.

magnificent, it is, to be sure. yes, goodness me, i shall go again, even if that means me having to stand down and not quarrel so much about what does and what does not constitute being a one way street.

since we are in the world of all things Rich, let us now move from Richmond to Richard. yes, all you Richard enthusiasts, here you go, an image of him from quite recently. as recently as a couple of weeks ago, as point of fact.

no, indeed Richard would not normally sport a moustache, bar November. or "Movember" as it is called, when certain members of the gentry are encouraged to grow one for a range of noble causes. which Richard does, each year.

well, anyway, anything else i could say here is just going to distract from the lovely views of that river, so i shall cease. it is better this (or that) way



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

random bowie - low

Howdy Pop Pickers


And so another edition (episode) of Random Bowie, look you see. Should I have got my maths right, including this one there are but four left, meaning this has all got a lot less random than at the start. Many of you shall have worked this out from the title, so high up the intelligence scale my readers are, but for clarity the album this month is Low.

This is without doubt one of the most difficult albums to write about. For many Low is without question Bowie’s “best and most important” album, despite coming out a few years before the accepted Scary Monsters yardstick normally associated with that statement. It is a record which could (just about) certainly be declared his “most influential”, as the list of artists and bands who have cited it as a major inspiration is limited only to every band ever to use a synthesiser on a record over the last 40 or so years.

It kind of feels like that everything possible to say about Low has been spoken, or written. But, let me try and muster something, then.

Fantastic facts to almost start with? Sure. In accordance with the commonly agreed method of counting them, Low was Bowie’s 11th solo album. Despite a good deal of it being recorded in France it’s widely regarded as the first instalment of the “Berlin Trilogy”. As has been widely reported and recorded, Bowie produced this at his “lowest” point, with him facing financial, physical and spiritual ruin thanks to a decidedly hedonistic LA (man) lifestyle fuelled for the most part by cocaine. That is not necessarily where the name Low for the album came from, however, although most would add the one 2 to another 2 and not be entirely wrong in getting 4, despite the title being a three letter word.

Let’s start off with the actual music, shall we? There are a whole load of other things associated with Low, to be sure, but at heart these Random Bowie things have always supposed to be about the music. Yes, I know I often get distracted, but still, let me try.

One of the most striking aspects of Low is not so much the dominance of instrumental works but rather the nature of all the songs. Very few, if any, of the pieces on the album feel “complete” in any sort of traditional sense. More often than not you, or at least I, feel like you’ve just caught the middle bit, or a specific aspect, of a much longer, expansive work. This could well be Bowie’s usual subversion on the go, but it is not distracting at all – if anything it’s a significant contributor to what makes the album entire flow so freely, and so beautifully.

The best example of the above is arguably the best known song from the record, Sound And Vision. It feels like you are dropped into part of a perpetual song. And what a song, or if you like piece of music. To reference subversion again, this is it personified. Whilst the music evokes ideas of transition, of constant movement, lyrically it is very much about stagnation, remaining still, yearning to travel with the ways the rhythm does.

Beyond Sound And Vision, my two “favourites” off the record are two of the instrumental pieces, Speed Of Life and A New Career In A New Town. Speed Of Life pretty much does what the title says, and it’s a bold, strong, inviting and engaging piece of music. For what it is worth, out of all the songs, all the records, it was Speed Of Life I ran to, and perhaps took shelter in, when Bowie died. No real discernible idea as to why, leaving aside the obvious reason of the title it just felt like the piece of music to hear right then. As for A New Career In A New Town, it’s just always struck me as a vibrant, positive, uplifting and maybe even inspirational piece. Maybe the amount of times I have moved around in my life gives it extra resonance, to be sure, but wouldn’t that be the point, or the reason, why we all engage with different musical works?

Now feels like the appropriate time to partially divert from the wonky path my narrative here is on. One of the greatest rock myths or legends out there is that, locked away somewhere, there exists an entire soundtrack for The Man Who Fell To Earth. Legend always had it that Bowie recorded a complete soundtrack for his (ostensible) film debut, but it was so bad (presumably due to his cocaine use) it got binned as unusable. Not so, on both counts, if I have made two points clearly there.

Firstly, the idea that his soundtrack for the film was “rubbish”. No, not quite. As the linear notes on the lavish re-release variations of the eventual soundtrack make clear, Bowie simply went off and wrote music he thought would suit the tone of the film. It did, but didn’t match the pacing or tempo of any of the scenes, and so simply could not be used.

As for the idea that no one (at least not us out there in the world of fans) has ever heard his soundtrack, well, I have always taken it as a given that most of Low, some of Station To Station and aspects of “heroes” was the soundtrack. Like any and all musicians, Bowie “did not waste”. Without any proof and certainly with no confirmation, I think it is safe to say we can take it as a given that all of the music Bowie produced for a possible Man Who Fell To Earth soundtrack that he felt was up to standard is sat on this record. A clue to this is, of course, the fact that both Low and Station To Station feature, as album artwork, promotional stills from the film.

But, back to what it is, and not what it might or could well be. To bounce back to the songs with lyrics (or “proper songs” if you are a record label executive), they are for the most part intriguing glimpses. We, the audience, are never quite sure whether or not what Bowie is singing is some far reaching metaphorical statement or just intended to be taken in a straightforward, literal way. With this, Always Crashing In The Same Car comes to mind. Literal or metaphorical? According to any number of stories, with one in particular suggesting that Bowie took to ramming his car into the car of a drug dealer, which would strike me as being quite a bold move), both are quite possible. Which just, you know, adds to the intrigue and interest of what is a truly fantastic piece of music in its own right.

The above can be applied to, I think, all of the lyrical songs on Low. Breaking Glass may or may not allude to Bowie’s “dabbling” with the dark arts, or if you will witchcraft. Be My Wife may or may not be some sort of plea in the direction of Angie. Exactly how you want to “understand” the songs depends, I suppose, on how much you want to delve in and know of Bowie’s personal life. You could, however, just let the songs speak for themselves. Which they do, magnificently so.

What, beyond that which I have said, do I wish to say of the instrumental pieces? Quite little, in truth. This is true of all music, I suppose, but with instrumental works I really do believe that each and every one of us “takes” something different from them, and that depends entirely on what we bring to them. To be broad, though, absolutely none of them are either a “waste of time” or simply “wankery indulgence by a self-obsessed pampered, overtly indulged pop star”. I have absolutely no musical ability whatsoever, but yes, oh yes, I can get a sense of exactly how the instrumental works on Low inadvertently gave those with such skills the impetus to go off and create.

So how come Low exists? A very good question. Rather famously, the record label hated it, sending back the tapes and asking David to “please do it again, but with singing”. There’s a strong element of catharsis and reinvention in it, with Bowie drawing on an enthusiasm for bands like Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream to escape the loss of direction and troubles in his life to recreate himself not for a musical persona but for himself. Also, a reality of life. At this stage Bowie was quite tired of the fact that he was the one making the least money from David Bowie records. Legend has it that his plan was to see out his existing contract with albums that were not really radio friendly or likely to be successful in terms of sales.

If there is any truth in the motivation for the latter point, it kind of failed. The records reflect that Low found an audience more or less straight away, and sold well. It might all have been a brave, bold and stark change of direction by Bowie, but one that the fans at this stage had already come to accept, appreciate and embrace. Anyway, no doubt Low came about as a combination of all of the above, plus several other reasons. Let us rather just be thankful and appreciative that it did, rather than trouble ourselves with thoughts of how and why.

Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding of Low is the reason for the name. Most take it, or assume, as being a reference to the mood Bowie was in, that he was at his “lowest point”. That really only partially covers a certain aspect of it. As noted in this edition or episode, hopefully, much of the record is not a wallowing in depression and despair. It’s title seems to come more from the fact that the record was intended to be more “low fidelity” when compared to the in your face sound of previous works. Also, the idea that Bowie was very keen on a “low profile” at this stage. One of the things he said he loved of Berlin was that he was all but anonymous in the city, which was not the case in the UK and the USA. Further to that, “Bowie” as a concept could take a much lower profile on this record behind Bowie the artist, with the music mostly being at the forefront, rather than the attention (at the time) focused on it being “a David Bowie album”.

The standard question at this stage is if Low would be an album that you, the casual fan or the new to Bowie listener, should give a try? Yes, unequivocally yes. In truth, you could be someone that has never heard of Bowie, or has but for some reason loathes and detests him or just the idea of him, and I would still insist you give it a spin. In isolation the album is brilliant, in context this is a record which changed the direction of music that came after it, the same way that Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys did a decade or so before. I would hope that the very next time Charlie Watts out of The Rolling Stones declares that Bowie “was not some sort of genius”, someone will give him a copy of Low and ask him to explain that, then. Sure, maybe Mr Watts would just cite the presence of Tony Visconti and Brian Eno, but it is very difficult to see the work entire not existing without some sort of notion or idea of genius within the artist credited with the album.

No, I do not feel that I have done Low justice with this post. But, then again, I am not sure I’ve done any of his albums proud with any edition or episode of Random Bowie. This is just me, a simple fan, working my way through all the records. I don’t proclaim my accounts to be definitive or perfect, just hope they say something to someone somewhere.

So, three more to come. And if you think I haven't done a good job conveying what I think of Low, just you wait for the last two. The closer something is to one's heart, I suppose, the more difficult it is to speak of it in a coherent way. Maybe. I will try.

My thanks as ever to all and sundry out there who read these posts and, from time to time, go right ahead and share them with others. Should just one person go out and discover a Bowie album they'd not even heard of before, all because I did one of these posts, then that is one of the best things I can do for a random stranger in this world.




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