in 1983

heya


just one of them posts to "round things out", look you see. or just to complete a form of accidental triptych which i appear to have created for the month that is this month; the last of 2019. well, last until we reset the calendar or something, i don't know.

many, some, a few or absolutely none of you might just be wondering what, exactly, one could have watched on the television (in the UK) if you had elected (or opted) to stay at home for New Year's Eve 1983. if so, then here you go.

not bad, i suppose, but hardly the stuff to inspire one to stay at home, perhaps. let us not forget that, with this being 1983, home video was still kind of in an infancy, and by no means did everyone, or even a majority, have a VHS, Beta or V2000 at home. so, they were stuck with whatever was being broadcast.

obviously the highlight there is 9:40pm on ITV. that would be the broadcast of The Way We Were, starring Barbra Streisand and other (lesser) actors. a bit of a "good call" shout out to Channel 4, mind, for (effectively) starting 1984 with Fox, which was a superb series. no, looking at 9:25am on ITV, i cannot recall what ET and Friends was.

what was happening on the BBC? for some reason they don't seem to celebrate their 1983 New Year's Eve listing much, but i managed to find it.

yes, indeed, that is (deceased and former) Sir Jimmy kicking off their early evening entertainment, acting as a warm up (so to speak) for Little & Large on BBC1. just how strange a time 1983 was is, i suppose, personified in an episode of Bergerac being the main evening entertainment.

over on BBC2 one got a most interesting, indeed cosmopolitan, mix. it is not everyone, after all, who would think to blend darts and some sort of opera about a bat (or something) for evening entertainment. i am not entirely sure who the target market was for this, but hopefully it was found.

exactly why were the viewing choices particularly poor on this particular New Year's Eve? probably because it was on a saturday. this meant that people had sunday and monday, as a bank holiday in lieu of it falling on a sunday, off to recover. yes, as a standard Scotland does indeed have two days off as holidays after New Year's Eve, but that is to account for the "Bucky factor".

well, anyway, there you have it.





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

best......

hello there


i am not sure i am really in the mood for this one this year, look you see. that which was always spoken has turned out to be true; as in the older you get the "faster" (time and space are relevant to, etc) any given year seems to just go.

as such, i would not particularly trust my memory to identify the "best" of anything from the year which has just gone, which is 2019. well, no, i would not particularly trust my memory. but, for those of you who are wishing or willing to have a gander at what i may consider to be the finer moments of the year gone by, then here we are.


best solo album by a solo artist what was the singer of a Manchester based band that rose to prominence in the 80s (original material)

that would be the most excellent Ripples by Ian Brown. yes, it may very well be that the record serves as some form of final notice thing of how The Stone Roses shall do no more, at least not for now, but it is boss to hear some new music off the chap.

best solo album by a solo artist what was the singer of a Manchester based band that rose to prominence in the 80s (cover versions)

look no further than Morrissey to be most triumphant in this hotly contested category. yes, what he has to say may very well be unpopular with some now, in these strange days. those of us who grew up in the 80s may well be more forgiving, for we shall not forget nor take for granted all that he did then. and there are a few of us, since this got to 4 in the album chart. a chart which requires actual sales, which makes it more relevant than the mess which is now the "singles" chart.

best solo album by a solo artist what was the singer of a Manchester based band that rose to prominence in the 90s (original material)

in a diverse field, yes, no one but Liam Gallagher takes this one with his second solo record, Why Me Why Not with the question marks ( "?" ) and such placed wherever you like. although the album drastically lacks the vibrancy and dynamics of the excitement of his return to music with As You Were, it's still a right proper bangin' album with consistently decent rock tunes across it.

best album to feature Roger Daltrey performing previously recorded songs

after some consideration, i have opted to award this to Roger Daltrey's labour of love, known as Tommy Orchestral. by all accounts this was supposed to be a "very different" presentation of the much loved Tommy, with the orchestral sound bringing forward various elements for the listener to consider. mostly what you hear is Daltrey singing, accompanied by a very competent standard rock band, with a bit of orchestral music off in the distance. whereas it is not the triumph of revisionism that was Classic Quadrophenia, it all the same gives one a reasonable reason to listen to the magnificence of Tommy again.

best album to feature Roger Daltrey performing new songs

that would be the only recently reviewed Who by The Who.

best single of the year

credit and indeed thanks where it is due - Noel Gallagher flew something of a flag this year for actual, proper singles. he released a couple of ep things instead of an album as such. the first of them, Black Star Dancing, is one i consider superb. even if his decision to promote it with a video heavily reliant on archive footage of Bernard Manning is somewhat unusual.

the second best single of the year was Wandering Star by Noel Gallagher. alas, only an mp3 for now, which i bought, with the 12" out next year. quite the perfect song what works as both a Christmas tune and could most likely be played at other times of the year without sounding naff. bravo, sir.

best (or most played) compilation of the year

ladies and gentlemen, kind readers, how happy i am that Now That's What I Call Music 4 is firmly back in my life. more on this compilation can be read by clicking here.

best tv show of the year

i rather used 2019 to catch up on a few things instead of watching much new. to this end, Twin Peaks Limited Event Series was a frustrating but ultimately rewarding experience; the latter being applicable only when it dawned on me that it was rather more of a sequel to the film Fire Walk With Me rather than the much loved tv series. both Breaking Bad and Luther turned out to be exactly as linear, surprise free and as convoluted as contrived as i had expected, yet both turned out to be superb on the basis of the performances. in respect of the former, Better Call Saul was nothing like what i had hoped or assumed, with the last scene of the last series being where i, and i would imagine many others, reasonably had expected it all to start.

of "new" stuff, let me not add to the complaints and comments made concerning the final series of Game Of Thrones. except that it perhaps might have been better not to have made it, ever, letting fans be free to speculate on what might have been.

what a bloody shame that Disney has decided to only let two or three countries see the tv series The Mandalorian, with the rest of the world having to wait until some stage of 2020. if the technology or means existed to see it before then, i would like to think or imagine that i would probably find it to be not just one of the best things ever to be on television, but a sign that, at last, someone somewhere has managed to "get" what made Star Wars so magical and have recreated it. perhaps we shall find out if i am right at some stage.

best film of the year

actually, i am not sure. probably Avengers Endgame, as it did a very respectable job of coming as close as possible to being as good as Avengers Infinity War; something that felt all but impossible to do. other than that, the latest Spider Man did the job asked of it, Joker is worth the hype and celebration of Joaquin's performance, and maybe that is it.

would a film made for television count? if so then El Camino would be it. completely unnecessary and a textbook example of what "fan service" means, all the same it was really well done, and let us see more of one of the more interesting, better characters off of Breaking Bad.

best post of the year

modesty should really forbid (or prevent) this part of the list, in truth. for me it is all good, all a win and very much the best if just one person reads one thing i write.

in terms of popularity, for most of the year it seemed that this post i wrote on the subject of a smart Atari hand held device i got for father's day was going to be the most read one. however, the one i did in november, when i used my special powers and dark arts to see a future unwritten, has attracted a frankly astonishing level of interest.

best book of the year

it feels most unfair to pick one out, for as far as i can remember more of what i read during the year was good than bad. for those interested, i guess you can navigate your way through the reviews from this year (normally one post a month featuring two novels) and then just select which one it is that i seemed particularly enthusiastic about.

well, i think that about covers it for a "best of" post, reflecting on the highlights of 2019. on, then, to this 2020 business, see what that is all about.



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

こんにちは日本

こんにちは


some of my friends, and a few of you readers will know, look you see, that it has been an inexplicable and (quite) baffling ambition of mine to get more visitors off of Japan to this blog. it appears to truly be the season of miracles, then, for somehow i have achieved this.

here, look at the viewing figures from those hedonistic twenty four hours which fell across December 7 and December 8 of this very year, or if you like 2019

blimey. 480, or if you like 四百八十. have paid a visit to me and my world. no, absolutely no idea why they would or should, but like everyone they are most welcome, and i am very happy indeed.

nice to see my "unknown region" fanbase remains constant. as far as i can work out, that's people reading this blog whilst on an aeroplane, or out on the seas, or in space.

anyway, once again, thanks to all of you for reading!



tagaini sugurete iru!!!!!!!!!!!

in 1989

ho ho ho, Merry Christmas


i would really rather encourage you to be doing something else than be on the internet on Christmas Day, look you see, but you live your life as you wish. for those of you who insist on having a browse, or maybe have come after the day, i figured well, why not throw something together here for you.

just for fun, then, a bit of a "throwback" thing to what one would have probably been watching on the tele on this evening 30 years ago. well, likely to have been watching. this was 1989, and at this stage almost as many as 100 homes in the UK had that new "satellite" TV thing. further, many homes had video machines (mostly VHS but a couple of functional Betamax were around), so it is possible some watched a few tapes instead.

why 1989? i can think of no reason why not. there is a school of thought that it was the end of an era, for let us face it, despite some highlights here and there on the way, the world, and everything in it, went right f****d the moment we left the 80s. or maybe that is just me.

in my estimation, or my opinion, your early evening televisiual entertainment on Christmas Day in 1989 was best spent on BBC1. earlier in the afternoon they had the Top Of The Pops special for the year, hosted by (oooooh) Gary (young free and single) Davies. so everyone would be tuned in anyhow.

you can't really go wrong with this line up, can you? especially as smoking was generally encouraged and allowed anywhere, so as long as you had a full packet there was no reason to leave your chair or sofa at all. Russ Abbot was class, and even more class when Les Dennis appeared as a guest. as was the case here. quite a nice warm up for one of Australian cinema's greatest moments in the form of 'Crocodile' Dundee. sure, the film is no Mad Max 2 or Star Struck, but being 3rd best ever Australian film behind them two is no disgrace.

what made this line up even more appealing was the fact that ITV had for some reason decided that people across the nation wished for nothing more than a complete cockney w@anker early evening selection of entertainment. to this end, they had something with Michael Barrymore in it, followed by something with Jim Davidson in it.

once Paul Hogan's finest cinematic hour had completed, it was time to switch over to the generally murky but often quite good world of Channel 4. actually pretty great mostly, for they did give us the excellent Who Dares Wins, and Comic Strip Presents, and them films what had a red triangle in the corner which meant the promise of nudies and other naughty stuff.

yes, at 8pm it was time for a Christmas dose of Brookside, a show which in absolutely no way whatsoever reinforced any Liverpool stereotypes. what i quite like about this synopsis is that i can actually remember all three characters named. not sure i could name any other characters off it, mind.

what was the present that Jimmy and Sinbad left on Billy's lawn? no idea, as i do not recall watching it, or if i did i certainly do not remember. it probably was not anything vulgar or crass as the write up suggests, although maybe it was. i simply do not know.

by 9pm on Christmas Day ITV had, with some mercy, dispensed with an overtly cockney celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. they went right ahead an "won" the choice for main evening viewing (if 9pm is considered main evening) by having a premiere of Down & Out In Beverly Hills, barely 3 years after its most triumphant cinema run. believe me, back then this was an extraordinarily fast move from being at the movies to being on rental video to being on the tele, so you could tape it.

in truth i have not seen this film for many years. whilst there is every chance i might have watched it at some point in the 90s (on video), i suspect this screening was probably the last time i watched it. but, i remember it well, and class it was. let me have a dig around, maybe i have the DVD.

no, there was absolutely nothing of consequence on BBC 2, so i have not bothered including it. this was in the days when BBC 2 was more or less limited to broadcasting high quality but limited interest stuff, and was not as concerned with ratings as is the case now.

this is ground i am pretty sure i have covered before, but, well, we are here now, so i might as well once more. back when we had but four channels to choose some viewing off of, ratings were insane. something like 24 million people tuned in to the big Christmas entertainment shows. now, with such a variation and proliferation of channels, i suspect at best the "big" Christmas broadcasts would think themselves to have done well to get a minor fraction of that figure.

a bit of a pity, really, for when we all (more or less) watched the same thing, we all had a topic of conversation. that seems to be gone, now, but freedom of choice and all that.

right, enough 1989 for now, let me get on with the present. i guess.




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

live by the sea

hey there


recently, as opposed to some random future date, i was down by the coast. which is to say near the sea, look you see. it was supposed to be that i was in such a place for a brief time, and quite early in the morning. however, seldom is it that fate pays attention to intentions.

as the hours drew upon the day it became apparent that my early morning visit to one of the finest places you can find on the coast would see me see it by afternoon, too. which meant that the not inconsiderable and rather important of what to do for dinner became a question that i had to answer, despite not having any plans to ever ask it.

to be at the seaside is, of course, to wish for fish and chips. yes, even in these december days, when the weather generally suggests one do anything but be down at the beach. my wish was somewhat confused, though. as much as the idea of fish and chips appealed, i felt an impulsive urge to have a chip butty.

how fortuitous, then, that i should find a seaside fish and chip proprietor who had keenly anticipated such a dilemma in the minds of patrons. to this extent, they had added to their menu something which can only be described as the best of both worlds, the fish and chip butty. i can assure, indeed promise, you that it was as precisely as tasty as the picture looks.

many of you will have no idea what a chip butty, or even the fish and chip butty discussed here, actually is. i know this to be true for i have been to places where no knowledge existed. rather famously, myself and my good friend Mike introduced this cuisine to the people of Felixstowe in the mid to late 90s, but that is another story. as far as this story goes, a chip butty does or is what it says on the box. one takes a bread roll - preferably a bap, if pushed sliced bread - adds butter, puts chips on it, eats it and happiness comes.

considerably less than many of you shall be curious as to how i am getting on in the world and such. for the limited interest audience that this is applicable to, here you go, a selfie around about the same time as when i had that splendid fish and chip butty.

see, winter is not all dull and grey here. as and when the blue breaks out in the sky during december, it is a most agreeable, crisp (hello, Faye) shade of it that i am generally very pleased by. perhaps the sense of being pleased is accentuated by the fact that it is of great relief to see it instead of the general darkness of this time.

well, anyhow, i am all out of pictures for this particular adventure, and further am confident that i have written all that i can, for now.




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

temporary tree

heya



well, another seasonally themed post then, look you see. having covered many (or at least several) of the traditions and customs of Christmas so far over the course of the month, now it is time for the "biggie". yes, the humble Christmas tree.

for those who like history or "origin" stories, indeed, yes, the concept of a Christmas tree appears to be most decidedly Bavarian. as far as anyone can work out, it was them Germans what started this tradition off, and it spread somewhat when someone or other in the British Royal Family saw one, liked what they saw and commanded (or decreed) that such decorative pleasures would become part of UK Christmas traditions. and so here we are.

that is indeed our tree this year, erected (so to speak) by me and indeed decorated by moi. well, everyone else was a touch busy, and i don't mind doing it.

some of you, and if you are one of them i would urge (if not implore) you to find better things for your time, might believe that this tree of ours this year looks all so familiar. well, it should. it is indeed the one and very same tree that we have used for the (hang on let me count) last five Christmas seasons, with this being the sixth.

in respect of provenance, the source is mid to late (ish) December 2014, Yorkshire Trading, just south of ten pounds cash, and purchased in an "oh f*** i forgot about that" form of rush. the thinking, or if you will, my intention was that it would "do for now", and that a different, better, proper tree would be secured for 2015, and beyond. it is so that this has not happened, as such, as yet.

presumably this approach of using the same tree again and again shall win me favour with temper tantrum enthusiast, sailor of yachts, dining companion of him out of Titanic and recently crowned Time person of the year, Greta Thornberry (or whatever). reusing and recycling appears to be a thing what saves her dreams, so there you go. every cloud, etc.

missing, or absent, from the tree are crackers. well, Christmas crackers, since Poundland sells (or used to) Easter crackers. no, i don't know the provenance or origin of crackers, but yes, i have indeed stocked up on some.

will i replace this temporary tree with a new, more better one for Christmas 2002? i am not at all sure. the aesthetics of this one may be a partially bold and mostly stark challenge to perceptions, true, but also the continued use of this tree has become very much a "thing". one must always consider that things like chaos theory, or the "butterfly effect" being actual.

for some reason it is that one or two of you may wish to see a sort of "tour" of the Christmas tree (as it stands in 2019), with that being of course in Commodore 64 mode. if so, and also that you wished that it could be presented sideways, then the below is surely a great treat for you.

right, then. not a lot else i can add here, except perhaps to express the wish that you find the view of the tree as pleasing as i do.




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

sir percival lets me use his piano

greetings


well, if you are reading this within a few days of me publishing it, we are well and truly in the main thrust of the Christmas season, look you see. the big day, or if you like December 25th, is a mere 4 or 5 days from now, depending on how you count such things.

this proximity (close or otherwise) to Christmas makes for an ideal opportunity to showcase, or just plain show off, one of the finest cards i have ever received, wishing as it does me well. actually two cards, but we shall get to that.

indeed, this post enables me to do three things all at the same time. doing things like that perhaps explains why the blog post count is down for this year when compared to the ones before, but no matter. so, anyway, in addition to showcasing the splendid card i was generously sent this year, i can also present a present given last year, and do that thing i do where i don't reference Bowie in at least one post per month.

but first, the primary reason for this post. as you can quite clearly see above, yes, this is a most wonderful and decidedly seasonal card what i received. whilst i am quite sure no commentary about it is needed off of me, for the sake of clarity, yes, that does indeed depict David Bowie and Bing Crosby, doing their celebrated Peace On Earth / Little Drummer Boy duet. absolutely essential Christmas listening, of course, along with the b-side of Do They Know It's Christmas, which features a very special Christmas message from Bowie that is best listened to in 1984.

just who do i have to thank (and indeed have thanked, profusely) for such generosity? the sheer quality and class should give this away, but indeed yes, this was from His Excellency, the Viscount of Stockton. commoners such as i simply do not have the resources to purchase luxury like this, and nor do we have the eye for finer detail which enables us to discern and procure them.

yes, there is another Bowie related item in the picture above, and indeed below. again, this was a gift from His Excellency (who has many, many titles beyond Viscount, but he really does not find making a fuss around them at all agreeable), but was issued last year. why not have a closer look.

that is indeed a quasi Lego figurine fashioned to look like David Bowie. well, an imaginary David Bowie, i suppose, for it brings together elements of his Ziggy Stardust, Aladdin Sane and very early Diamond Dogs period. and it is magnificent.

no, there is no error, i did indeed say quasi Lego. although the figure is fashioned to look like it is of Lego, it does not in fact feature the branding. with interest i also note that the Christmas card features no indication of any sort of formal, official licensing. from what i can gather it is the case that the aristocracy, or if you will the landed gentry, have no interest whatsoever in meeting copyright obligations. they are quite busy and take it as a given that such laws are in place to main control over the lower classes.

do you know what annoys me? what the Americans do with the word "Lego". i am speaking about their painful, needless pluralisation of the word to (forgive me for typing this, even just as an illustrative eample) "legos". utter nonsense. one is playing with, or building something out of Lego. that is it, that is all you have to say. so please, America, just stop it. carry on pluralising cheeseburgers as much as you wish, but leave Lego out of it.

exactly what does a Viscount do? some of my readers, in particular the previously mentioned Americans, may be unsure of our class and social structure. well, generally, in the case of the Viscount i know who sent me all this stuff, they (he) just gets on with doing Viscount like stuff. in terms of the nobility, yes, technically it is true that a Viscount does have a place in the succession line to the throne, but not a particularly high one. generally speaking, a Viscount has as much change of being crowned King as that twat, the complete bellend Mr Kim Kardassian has of being "the greatest rock and roll star in the world". which is to say it could happen, but thousands of deaths would have to happen in order to make it so. 

but, then again, also yes, it is indeed true that as things stand at time of going to press, any Viscount presently recognised in the UK can indeed state with confidence that their becoming monarch is a more likely scenario than Prince Andrew doing so. for clarification, by all means read up on the silly bother Prince Andrew has gotten himself into, and let it serve as a lesson as to why anyone with any sense steers well clear of ever appearing on something as crass and as common as television. 

the smart Bowie-Bing card is one that His Excellency graciously sent me in a personal capacity. i am both honoured and flattered (although not necessarily in that order) to be a member of his social circle. but, there can be no favouritism, and so i, as is correct and proper, also received a formal Christmas card from His Grace, in his capacity as Viscount.

no, true, not as many people as you may think would naturally associate the season of Christmas with Wez out of Mad Max 2 (or Road Warrior if you are American). strictly speaking, perhaps on a superficial level, the hedonistic, celebrated Wez lifestyle of roaming the wastelands, killing and bumming whilst wearing stylish trousers and sharing smart philosophical observations, seems at odds with the ideals and purpose of Christmas. but, them trousers he wears are proper smart.

one more look at the Bowie-Bing card, along with the quasi Lego Bowie figurine? presented in Commodore 64 mode? there is no reason i am aware of as to why not.

right, then. i think that is about all for here. my thanks again to His Excellency for his continued generosity. and, indeed to all those what sent me (and the family) a card, or otherwise held good thoughts about us.



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

who by who

howdy pop pickers


something of a delayed review of the new album off of The Who, called Who, look you see, but so it goes. judging such things on the basis of sales, to be sure, would suggest that anything i have to say about the record will make little difference, for already it is shifting some significant volume.

interestingly enough, the delay is partially down to The Who themselves. for reasons that i shall mumble through, rather than visit a shop (usually HMV) on day of release (or close enough), circumstance, convenience and appeal saw me place an order online. whereas most bands and artists post (or "ship" if American) their records to the fans so that they arrive on the day of release, it is the way of The Who to have precisely f*** all of that business, with them instead only posting it on day of release. so, mine turned up on the Saturday. which, as they once sang, is all right for fighting.

yes, in respect of the last bit, i know it to be a (Sir) Elton song, but they did an absolutely boss cover of it on that Two Rooms set. worth looking out for, that one, especially for Kate Bush doing the best ever version of Rocket Man to exist, but that is not the album i wish to write of here.

right, then, what exactly do we have here? well, according to the sticker, this is the first studio album by The Who in 13 years, following as it does from 2006's decidedly underwhelming Endless Wire. and that was their first studio album for somewhere north of 20 years, but anyway. it did indeed just get an auto pilot purchase from me, purely because, well, it's The Who, isn't it.

my main point of interest here was hearing how this was an album by The Who when Roger Daltrey's (superb) solo album off of last year, As Long As I Have You, was not. whereas that was released and marketed as a Roger solo album, well, of the 11 (or was it 12) tracks on the record, 7 (seven) featured Pete Townshend on guitar. for those not up to date with such matters, Roger and Pete happen to be the only members of The Who proper still with us, although that is perhaps being a bit unfair on Kenny Jones.

yes, actually it is decidedly a record by The Who. the difference between this and the Daltrey solo is subtle, but significant. whereas Pete was simply performing to support Roger and do as he wished on As Long, here the real magic of The Who is at the forefront. the sound is that of two musicians pushing themselves to be at the forefront, the point of attention, the prominence and the most important to the listener. the utter, utter, ego motivated, rage and anger they drove into their art to outdo each other was what always made them stand out. sadly, of course, we now have just the two of them doing it. whereas when it was the four of them having a go it was like no other music, like no other love, but trust me these two do it just fine. you can only play the hand you are dealt.

why, then, did i "mail order" (bought off of internet) rather than day of release it down at HMV? my biggest reason, or excuse, at this stage is a simple lack of time. i knew there was next to no chance of me being near HMV anywhere close to the release date, so that was that. but, also, The Who are another band that have opted to revive the tape format, and as far as i am aware one could only get he record on tape (as well as CD) off of the website. so, that was a done deal.

no, i really don't get the revival of tape, but i enthusiastically embrace it. sure, when i was growing up, tape was freedom with music - you could listen to the vibes on the go, and it was easier to take a tape of an album round to a mate to listen to than it was the record. but, in terms of quality and feel, if we are honest tape was a means to an end - it was no vinyl or CD. i have bought more tapes (The Who, Ian Brown, Manics, Robbie Williams) in the last couple of years than i imagined that i would, which is to say more than one. but, if the bands i like are going to keep making them, then i shall purchase them.

that said, applause to The Who for doing a proper inlay for the cassette, rather that just shoving it out as cheaply as possible. one particular highlight of this is the presence of the much missed "hope taping is killing music" warning symbol.

before i leave the subject of tapes and return to The Who, yes - if anyone is paying attention, i still think Christmas With The Stone Roses by The Stone Roses would be an ace album, and having it released on cassette for Christmas 2020 would be most excellent, thank you.

how do i best describe this record? probably as what it is, a relatively straightforward 40 or so minutes or rock and roll, played by people who love rock and roll and just so happen to be among the greatest to ever have performed rock and roll. there really isn't a prevailing theme across all of the songs, for it certainly is not another go at one of them "rock opera" things what The Who are rather well known for.

in what way, exactly does one approach or comment on a new record by The Who? this is a band with a career, off and on, which goes north of fifty years. a band which has seemingly effortlessly (although appearances are not what they seem) delivered anthemic classic after great album, and also along the way showed that a live album can be as great and as important as any studio work in the form of Live At Leeds. my thinking is that one can only hold it up against what the band has said it should be.

let me start with Roger Daltrey's comments, then. i do not apologise for saying i start with Roger in the hope that he takes this as respect, and so i avoid getting punched (quite hard) in the face by him. channelling virtually every review of every Bowie release between 1983 and 2016, Roger has taken it upon himself to declare Who as "the best album by The Who since Quadrophenia". which is quite a weighted but obvious statement.

essentially what Roger is saying, then, is that Who somehow manages to be "better" than the 5 (five) albums attributed to the band, recorded and released between 1975 and 2006. nice one. of those records, By Numbers is nowhere near as bad as some make out, especially as it features Success Story. following that, Who Are You features Who Are You, so it is not a complete write off. the next two suffered not because Kenny Jones was on the drums (although Roger says different in his memoir), but rather people just weren't interested in a Moon free Who. admirably, in an interview thing with Ken Bruce (one of the last few actual proper presenters left on Radio 2), Kenny said "there was only ever meant to be one drummer for The Who, and that was Keith, not me". no matter how much grief or stick he gets for it, this is all the evidence required to show that Robert Plant has been absolutely right to try and leave Led Zeppelin in the past ever since Bonham died. and, as for Endless Wire, see the comment above.

it is important to clarify that Roger is not saying that Who is either as good as, or better than, Quadrophenia. there would be no sense in doing such. for a random figure, in the whole of recorded music, at best there are perhaps 40, maybe 50 albums which have been recorded by anyone since Quadrophenia came out that could get away with claims of being as good or better than that one.

with all of this in mind, then, yes, Roger Daltrey, as he is so prone to being, is absolutely correct and right in his declaration. the music on the Who album flows freely and in a most agreeable way, featuring good to excellent ranking songs, organized well and giving good listening from start to finish. once i had finished my first play, the instinct was to hit play again. not skip back and forth to just hear the most outstanding moments, but to listen to it all again.

to the Pete Townshend benchmark, then. no, i am not going to worry about him punching me in the face for listing him second. whereas Roger has a keen sense of justice and will only punch you in the face if you have transgressed laws both written and unwritten, if Pete wants to do it then he will just do it, no questions asked or solicited. and you will thank him if he does it, and you will ask him if he may do it again.

for Pete it appears that the most important thing was that the record be "contemporary". he had no wish, to borrow one of the greatest lines ever written by the Manics, to be an old man on the streets tonight, playing with newspaper cuttings of his glory days. Townshend wished for the record to be relevant to 2019, and not just some exercise in nostalgia.

does he achieve this, or get what he wants? yes, mostly. it would be ludicrous, ridiculous in fact, for The Who or any artist to completely disregard their own past. often when the band touch on their past it delivers some of the finest moments on this record, and here i am thinking of the track Detour. more often than not, reflective lyrics across the album are less "remember when we was fab", more a way of trying to express understanding of where they are now, or if you like who they are now. fair enough. and, every now and then, one gets treated to a cheeky musical refrain borrowed from a previous Who song. well, why not.

in terms of sales, or general acceptance of a new record by The Who, you would have to say positive. the album entered the chart at number three. not a number one, sure, but for a band and a record that now has rather more niche than general appeal, this cannot be argued with. as to comparison, earlier this year the efforts by Ian Brown and Morrissey got as high as number four on week of release, so i guess The Who are certainly still one louder. to be third is to be behind an unexpected chart battle between Robbie Williams and Sir Rod for the all of a sudden coveted "Christmas number one album" (since the chart company destroyed the singles chart), so this seems nothing less than respectable.

ultimately Who is a solid, as expected album of The Who by The Who. there really is no greater compliment or praise one could give or seek. is the world a better place for it existing? yes.

anyway, enough yakking. time to boogie, so i am off to enjoy the record again.





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

and a bit more shopping trolley

hello there


this has been said before, look you see, and shall be said again. in respect of the latter element of the previous sentence, right now. let me never grow tired, nor cease to be surprised, by exactly which posts and what have you that i place here become quite popular.

of my most recent posts, it has been generally pleasing to see that the one dedicated to the simple pleasures of the shopping trolley has found something of an audience. a figure (significantly) north of 50 is reflected in the stats for that post, which is simply splendid. magnificent, as point of fact.

let me give you more of what you apparently want or wish for, then. well, when i say me, i mostly mean Codename : Magic, for as was the case with the post linked above, my good friend has been central to this post existing, for he sent me some pictures of trolleys. or is that trollies.

i am sure you shall agree that the above is a cracking set of trolleys (trollies) right there. back when they were not coin controlled, or locked into shopping centres by some sort of mechanical, magnetic wizardry, these would have been very welcome at any provincial scrapyard. whereas i am not too clued up in the spot price value of no questions asked metal sales, i have every confidence that, in the golden era of deregulated shopping trolley procurement, any scrap dealer worth their salt would have paid at least enough for one of them massive two litre bottles of cider in order to get their hands on them.

no, sadly, Magic has not provided a video this time. you could always go and watch that other video again, i suppose, here is the link once more, to make it even easier for you to enjoy it. should, of course, enjoy be the right way of describing the experience. i  think it is.

yes, though, no this is not all of the work of Magic alone. in trying to support and encourage his great passion for a trolley designed to be used in shopping circumstances (mostly), i myself observed the below. also, i agreed to record an image of it to share here.

there is something of a temptation here to comment on how the sight of a stolen traffic cone reminds me, fondly and most favourably, of my student days. stocking up on as many traffic cones as possible, or as many as various councils, members of the constabulary or provincial municipalities cared to place on the streets, was a great highlight of my working for some degrees. but, older and wiser me says no, because you cannot steal that which you already own, surely.

generally speaking, the only people who can legally place traffic cones anywhere are the two so-called big c's in our society - councils and the constabulary. both are 100% funded off of us, the taxpayer. so, in effect, we have bought these traffic cones with our money, so there can be no fault in us taking them home. should anyone who is not one of them two big c's place a traffic cone down, then they are probably doing so in violation of one bylaw or another, and thus you are doing a great public service by removing it.

one could think of this a bit like BBC broadcasts, so long as you pay for your tv licence each year. if you've got a licence, then you have effectively paid for all that they deem it wise to commission and distribute over the airwaves, be it on television or radio. that means (theoretically) you can go right ahead and video Graham Norton (or similar) off of the tele, then go and sell copies of it down the market. presumably selling it to people who have no licence to do the same.

oh, one of them family trolley things, with a seat or two for the kids. nice find, Magic.

no, i have not tested either in a court of law. mostly this is because i have no real interest in traffic cones at this stage of my life, and even less interest in Graham Norton. i cannot really imagine that any court would waste too much time in dismissing any case brought before it in respect of either, saying that it is a frivolous charge.

well, anyway, i am fairly confident that this has been more than enough shopping trolley and general legal opinion for you for one post or article. should you have extracted any pleasure or useful information from this, well then so much the better,




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

christmas viewing

hello there


christmas is a time of traditions, look you see. some of these are good, a few make sense, and there are one or two (one in particular) which might happen for no apparent reason beyond nostalgia. possibly misguided nostalgia.

with regards to the latter, i of course speak of that once important, now secondary thing which happens around christmas in the UK - the (previously) celebrated "mega" double edition of the tv guide.

exactly, i wonder, how much do i bore you with the same sentimental hygiene of nostalgic waffle that i seem to do every year? well, i guess, for those who are new to this blog, a little. in short, growing up in the 80s meant you had entirely four tv channels, and no way of knowing what was going to be on any of them without the tv guide. the christmas edition, usually covering the weeks of christmas and new year, was hotly (eagerly, perhaps) anticipated, as it revealed the "big" film premiere and various special episodes of (usually or mostly) popular if not loved shows.

but that's all gone, now. we live in an era with dozens of free broadcast channels, hundreds of paid for television options, thousands of "streaming" or on demand things and millions of other visual distractions. what the traditional "big" channels show - predominantly the two main entertainment ones, BBC 1 and ITV - just does not matter any more. and this is reflected in ever decreasing efforts at any sort of quality being reserved.

and yet still nostalgia drives me to purchase the christmas edition of one of the big tv magazines, be it the TV Times or the Radio Times. why? perhaps just to touch a memory of days gone by, a shameless effort to grab the excitement of when Mum came home with it. no, at no point during the year do i purchase any sort of tv guide. it would be silly, as i rarely get the chance or time to watch much.

yes, this year i went back to the Radio Times. this is after a few years of buying the TV Times, and of course swearing off the Radio Times, vowing never ever to buy it again. why the change? mostly it is because TV Times went right ahead and bumped the price of their edition up to £4 on the button, whereas previously it has been somewhere considerably south of this. i figured if that is how they want to play it, fine, i will spend an extra 95p, or if you like just 5p south of £5, on the Radio Times, so that i may look sophisticated and classy in the eyes of the lady at the cigarette counter at Tesco.

indeed i did immediately regret this decision. the Radio Times may be a good deal thicker, and so seem like greater value for money, but it is not. for something predominantly driven by the BBC it sure does have a whole lot of adverts in it, including a really, really annoying 8 page "travel" special right in the centre of the christmas day listings. also, the layout and the way they present what is on each channel is, as you will see in the below, complete sh!t and annoying. my understanding is that only the really posh people of the country buy the Radio Times, and even then it is just so their staff may observe what televisual treats are coming and alert their masters.

anyway, a look at what is to come (assuming you are reading this before christmas day 2019), and do be warned, for it really is as bad as people have been saying.

that there is the "main" viewing on BBC1 and BBC2 for christmas day. no, i have not done anything like them clever "photoshop" people do, this is totes legit. we do indeed have a lot of frequently repeated Two Ronnies, Dad's Army and Morecambe and Wise to watch. also, EastEnders, as absolutely nothing says "christmas" quite like "let us give them cockneys shouting at each other, that is what they want".

quite a few people have already told the BBC that yes, actually, there is such a thing as too much Michael McIntyre, but they seem not to hear. as for Mrs Brown's Boys and Call The Midwife, well, i tape them for my Mum & Dad so i cannot complain too much, but neither feels like all that great a christmas treat.

for those of you particularly worried that there is only a small fraction of christmas day handed over to Kylie on the BBC, fear not. as you can see below Channel 4 has kindly agreed to also broadcast some of the celebrated antipodean marvel.

the best thing which can be said of ITV's main entertainment for christmas day is that it makes BBC 1 look like they are actually trying. at least BBC 1 just throws one soap opera at audiences, whereas ITV make it two. other than that, it appears to be just "celebrity" versions of (either average or dire) gameshows, with some people that some viewers might have heard of participating in watered down versions of lukewarm contests to benefit charity. maybe just rather give the money to charity and put a decent film on instead, but no matter.

as for Channel 4, well, i am not even sure what the relevance or purpose of the channel is any more. perhaps i am now just too old for it, but i remember it being cutting edge and interesting. now, no.

with the format of the tv listings being poor and the actual listings themselves being rather dire, is there anything remotely of value in this magazine to make me feel like my £4.95 was not a complete waste? i had a flick through to check.

just about the best thing i could find was this interview, really. it is, of course, him out of Communards who was not Jimmy Sommerville but is now a vicar, or something. lovely chap he is, too. a really nice touch is that, as you can see in red, the Radio Times has taken this opportunity to "put the christ back into christmas" and mention some christmas related shows being broadcast.

back to christmas listings, then, and right on to the single, biggest and greatest disappointment. as in even more miserable and sad that what BBC and ITV have lined up. yes, Channel 5. they have done it again, which is to say that they have declined to broadcast one of the best christmas things ever to exist, namely Chas & Dave Christmas Cockney Knees Up 1981. from what i recall they did not show it last year, either.

that's one thing i always look forward to. mostly, yes, of course, Chas & Dave in action, and a whole bunch of cockneys, in a pub, wearing brown suits with flared trousers. but also the bit with Lennie Peters out of Peters & Lee. so far as i am aware this has never been released on DVD; let me have a look around for the video.

for some reason Channel 5 has, and you can see this above, elected to go for a celebrity death celebration of christmas this year. on any given night they have one or two "documentaries" about the final days or the autopsy of someone famous; in this instance Kurt Cobain and Richard Pryor. would it really have been to much for them to, on just one evening, have dropped this sort of show and screened the Chas & Dave classic?

if there was one thing that i always looked forward to happening when i was a Dad at christmas then that would have been having a nice snooze on the sofa one afternoon as something reasonably interesting was being broadcast. for this, BBC 2 has come up trumps on christmas eve.

look at that. between 11:40am and 4:00pm i can lay down and have a nice relaxing sleep whilst two classics of 70s British cinema play on to an audience not paying attention. nice one.

but even then, or of course, this is not quite perfect or as it should be. a reasonable expectation for me or anyone would be that a christmas time snooze on an afternoon with the tele on would feature ITV, with a James Bond film starring Sir Roger Moore being broadcast at either 3:10pm on christmas day or 3pm on boxing day. this is how it was for years, with Moonraker in particular being a big favourite.

not so, and not to be this year, alas.

for some reason (perhaps it is all rights related) ITV has seemingly abandoned all James Bond films bar the last few what have starred Daniel Craig. they are screening all of the Daniel Craig Bond films to have been released so far over Christmas. yes, it is on an evening they are doing this, rather than the traditional afternoon slot. oh well, at least the very best Daniel Craig Bond - and one of the best Bond films ever - in the form of Skyfall is the big boxing day treat.

so far it would be fair to say that the christmas edition of Radio Times, and the christmas tv schedules, have all been an underwhelming disappointment. it pretty much carries on like this for the new years eve schedules, with the "major" channels for some reason still believing that what the people want involves the likes of Alan Carr and Jools Holland. at least our friends what do the Challenge channel get how important it is to put something decent on.

yes, ladies and gentlemen. what you are seeing is quite true. from 10pm on december 31 to 4:30am on january 1, Challenge TV are having an ace, mega, boss and totes excellent festival of Bullseye. i shall indeed be watching, and best it be proper and correct Bullseye with his holiness, the eternal and excellent Jim Bowen, and not that revival they did with the false prophet, Dave something.

well, that's about that, then. everything, or most of everything, about the tv listings this christmas screams if not says "do not watch much television this christmas". perhaps that is no bad thing at all, really. everyone can just do all sorts of other stuff.

shall we be here again, around about mid-december 2020? yes, i would expect so. here i could make all sorts of wild claims and statements about how i am not going to bother buying a christmas edition of the TV Times or Radio Times again, but assuming i am still around, then yes i surely will. the temptation and the lure of nostalgia shall always and forever win this wrestling bout.




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

further reading

hello reader


and so i have read a couple more books, to be sure. not just one, or as many as three, look you see, but the standard, rudimentary two that i would before sharing observations here.

there is absolutely nothing as comfortable (or comforting) in this world as consistency, and so i shall be consistent. as usual, an image of the two books what i have most recently read, followed by some spoiler free oversights, for those either in a rush or who wish to discover the mysteries of the novels directly.

in starting where i did, and indeed moving from left to right as our reading brains have been conditioned to over the years (with apologies to them what are used to reading from right to left), The Family by Louise Jensen eerie, creepy and dark as i had expected, but not in the way that i had anticipated. not for all tastes and perhaps a few extra contrived twists which were needless, but if you can handle darker and disturbing books then get stuck in. meanwhile, Valley Of Death by Scott Mariani is another Ben Hope adventure. you know what you are getting, and this one sits in a fair to middling just above average on the scale.

right, then, please note that from here on out to be safe a *** SPOILER WARNING *** is most decidedly in place. i shall do my best not to give away too much information, of course, but these things happen. proceed with this in mind.

as mentioned just moments ago, the first of these two i read was The Family, so that is where the look in more detail commences, then.

provenance of my copy? well, the sticker says Tesco. sorry, no idea who or what a Fern Britton is, although i am sure it is a who, as they seem to have in some way endorsed this novel. in respect of how much i spent on this, well, it will have been one of their £2.50 or £3.50 or even flat £3 books of the week deals, as it is rare that i would pay either there flat £4.50 or £8 for two fee. not sure when i last paid such.

the plot? a widowed mother of a teenage girl finds her life falling apart. the recent death of her husband left certain questions and was possibly connected to some trouble with his building business. on top of that, her own business is failing, and she faces eviction. fate or co-incidence somewhat intervenes, and a compassionate soul suggests that she and her daughter move, for the short term, to a reclusive farm where people who need help and are looking to "get away from things" go to live for a while. despite some reservations and a couple of warnings, from a lack of choice she agrees to move there until things get better.....

if you are thinking that this sounds like one of them "doomsday cult" type of set ups, or some form of tree hugging hippie commune, well, that was my thinking too. to say whether or not it is or is not either or both, or a mix, can only be summed up as yes, no, maybe. certainly, there is (what seems) to be an enigmatic "leader" at the helm. but, saying more might give things away, so let me say no more, squire.

often reading The Family is as uncomfortable and disturbing as it is intriguing and compelling. the story twists and turns (perhaps a little too much here and there) to some rather dark places. i would say that, overall, it is worth delving into the dark for a most excellent read.

perhaps, possibly, hopefully, after a somewhat darker book being read it felt like time to go for lighter and less complicated. there is very little in the world of literature which ticks this particular box with the skill and sheer force of will quite like how a Ben Hope book off of Scott Mariani does. so, Valley Of Death was the next read.

a bit of an usual provenance here. well, different. normally i pick these Scott Mariani novels the moment they come out. however, i never spotted this one on the shelves when it was published, back, i think, in May of this year (2019). so, with winter creeping in and me thinking a Ben Hope novel would be perfect for crawling up in bed with, off to the internet i went and bought a used copy for somewhere just north of £4. or somewhere around that price.

plot? really? ok. Ben Hope is contentedly teaching people how to twat terrorists and kidnappers one at his special twatting school in France when an unexpected person from the past reaches out. in quite a short space of time, Ben is off to India to do a fancy kidnap rescue mission, with some very convenient and contrived access to planes, guns, money and a no questions asked embracing of his rather direct methods.

yes, all preposterous and implausible sure, but entertaining. calling this series of books "formulatic" is disingenuous. the same can be said of, say, James Bond or The Avengers And Other Comic Book Things films. which is exactly how and why they work, and why they are successful with people who wish to have straightforward entertainment. which is a lot of us.

one thing i liked in particular about Valley Of Death was the tagline on the back. it says, as you can see below, "this time it's personal.......". somewhere out there i imagine this is concluded with the line ".....just like 327 of his last 328 adventures have been". but, you know, it's all good fun reading, if you like that sort of thing. which i do. and now that i think, on the subject of my regular reads, i suspect i am not far off a new John Connolly or John Grisham in paperback, let me browse.

well, there you have it. i suspect that i have said more about how and why i purchased the books than i have about the books themselves, but such keeps spoilers to a minimum.

anyway, as ever i can but hope that this has been of some interest, or use, to someone somewhere!




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

two films

hey there


so, i've watched a couple of films, look you see. well, as it happens, there are a number i have watched since i last did this sort of post, but to keep it all on the pulse (so to speak) i thought it prudent, if not best, to use what (little) time i seem to have available to write of those most recently released.

much like the book reviews what i do here, how about a bit of a gander at what i watched, some spoiler free comments (or overview), and then a nice warning that spoilers may follow?

to start where that picture does, Rambo Last Blood is a hideous, vile, nasty piece of work that seemingly bears no thematic or characteristic relationship to the previous four Rambo films, unless i totally missed them. Joker, meanwhile, is a most impressive avant garde, postmodernist one man play which has somehow made a formidable amount of money for what is essentially an arthouse movie.

well, for the casual reader who for some reason wishes to see either (or both) of them films but for some reason wished to have my general opinion, there you very much have it. for all who have seen them, or are just not particularly bothered about such, do read on. if you wish to see either but have no interest in knowing much of anything of what may happen in them, consider stopping now, for from here there is a *** SPOILER WARNING *** in place.

despite the order in which the posters are presented above, it was Joker what i watched first, so that is where i shall start (or if you like commence) here. which is quite nice, as by some formidable distance it is very easily the better of the two films.

i had little or no idea of what to expect when setting off on the task of watching this one. from what i could gather, it was and was not a standard "origins" film of a character one would be hard pressed to deny as being best known as Batman's number one nemesis. the intention, evidently, was to explore the character with an ambiguous free hand.

with this in mind, a really, really bad way to try and watch this film is to do so in a way that you try and tie it into or link it with any of the cinematic Batman variations from over the years. it shall just lead to disappointment, and maybe some confusion.

ok, enough of what it is not, then, and more on what it is, if the italics i have used there make any sort of sense. and effectively this is one reasonably budgeted (i think the entire budget came in at just around the basic before profit percentages amount of money Jack Nicholson got for playing the same character 30 years ago) film of a one man play. yes, there are other characters in it, but make absolutely no mistake at all, they might as well not be, for the only thing you are ever watching is Joaquin Phoenix.

that the film has hoovered up in excess of US$1billion around the world probably tells you how good a performance Joaquin gives in this film, but for the sake of this being my blog, my views, etc, i can indeed tell you that he is truly exceptional. sure, i always thought he was very good indeed in things like To Die For, 8mm and so on, with me always having a soft spot for Buffalo Soldiers too. but, this is at a whole different level.

an entirely unsettling level too, of course. much has already been written of the way in which the film goes about addressing and depicting mental health, the lack of support and treatment in society, and of course the elements of violence which occur. let me not add waffle to this, then, except to confirm that this really is frequently uncomfortable viewing. but uncomfortable because of just how good and powerful the performance by the lead actor is.

yes, the film can instantly be grouped with those that dealt either with alienation or had the ambiguity presented well enough to allow an audience to decide themselves if what they have watched "really happened" or just occurred in the mind of the protagonist. without saying which group they belong to, films in such company include Taxi Driver, American Psycho, Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange, and, well, several others.

it is also true that Rambo Last Blood is frequently to be found to be uncomfortable viewing, but for really different reasons. this would be not so much that it is a masterpiece, as it is not, but very much due to the fact that it is a nasty, vile, graphic exploitation flick with a right wing slant that is as curious as it is disturbing.

plot? an apparently retired John Rambo lives on his deceased father's estate with his housekeeper. mostly he keeps busy training horses, and trying to rescue people out of floods. when the housekeeper's daughter(i think, could have been niece) goes missing, off he goes to find her. when it turns out something repulsive, ugly and vicious has happened to her, so he goes off on a quest for blood vengeance. and believe me, it is graphic. normally i am partial to gratuitous sex and violence, it is true, but this is just plain nasty.

the biggest problem here is that it simply never feels like a Rambo film, at all. for comparison, think Blade Runner 2049. whilst in that film there are considerable merits, the biggest flaw to it was that Harrison Ford apparently forgot that he was playing Rick Deckard and spends much of the film being some weird cross between Han Solo and Indiana Jones. you can get away with that when its not the main character of the film. Stallone electing to all of a sudden make his character some Charles Bronson or similar revenge vigilante type is very much at odds with the other four films featuring the character. 

one of the biggest issues for me is that this film exists at all. at the end of the fourth film there was a shot of Rambo "going home". there was an understated ambiguity to this, one could choose to see this as him going to a literal home, or at last being at peace with himself, either within himself or even by his passing. a rather eloquent end, but that ambiguity has all gone now.

i am not going to get bogged down with all the claims of racism, xenophobia, stereotypes and what have you that have been spoken about as being apparently integral to the film. but yes, such would seem to be there, along with the as mentioned staunch right wing view of justice. indeed, there is a logic one can see in being harsh, brutal and sadistic with harsh, brutal and sadistic criminals, and trust me you see such here. the judicial approach of an eye for an eye sounds good, but ultimately before long everyone is blind.

reflecting on the movie, this film is out of time. the best way to have watched this film would have been in the 80s, with a few mates and several cans of lager, on a 2nd or 3rd generation bootleg VHS as the BBFC at the time would have either banned this film entirely or censored it to ribbons. in the here and now, it is not a motion picture which makes any immediate sense to exist.

anyway, that's that. if any of this has been of any remote use or interest to someone, well then that's splendid, that is, to be sure.




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