world of butter

greetings

not sure about you, but i get the distinct sense that i am prepared to compose on just about any subject here, just for the sake of updating. and being boring would appear to be no barrier, look you see. then again, who am i to judge or call; perhaps things like this are of a particular (arguably peculiar) interest to someone somewhere. should that be you, then you are very welcome. 

so, recently i was running relatively, or quite, low on butter. or spreadable butter, i had best say, for there are those what get rather protective on this subject, believing that only them rock hard blocks should be known as "proper" butter. fair enough, but this spreadable stuff would seem to taste like butter, and is nice and easy to make use of. 

anyway, my usual brand or choice (i am reluctant to name, but lurpak) struck me as being a trifle more expensive than usual. oh, undoubtedly the educated elite of that twatter thing and similar such social media things where people shout have blamed this increased cost on brexit, the incumbent government, coronavirus or whatever else they believe is responsible for them not having the life they expect to be given, but i cannot claim to be of their number. i just took the approach of looking for alternates at a lower cost. to this, i found not one, not three, but two economically viable alternates

well, now that i have mediated on the subject and given some thought, ostensibly it was indeed three that i found. one got dismissed extremely quickly, however. that would be something called anchor, which was on special for (i think) £1, and turned out to be if not absolutely terrible then not satisfactory for my taste requirements. 

moving on and no, it wasn't really my intention to purchase multiple, more modestly priced alternates. i went to the relevant retailer with a view to getting just one (1) and seeing if i liked it. but then, and this happens, i got kind of distracted and distressed by options, so i just went right ahead and got two different ones. for a sense of needless perspective, i think it was so that these two tubs (or whatever, containers if that is the right name) combined - as in added together - cost less than one tub of my regular or usual type, at current market prices. 

just so that we are all clear on this subject, and to ensure any deviants or curious types know that they may depart this post now, any and all reviews or comments concerning these products shall pertain only to the conventional, traditional and very much intended use of this stuff. which means no, absolutely not, hell no, there is no "Brando style" use of butter reviewed or endorsed here, thank you very much, we shall have none of that sort of thing here. 

the first (non terrible anchor) butter (or what you will call it) to catch my eye was the one above. it is called, as you can see, "danpak", and for those familiar with it the packaging is exceptionally, surely lawyer testingly similar to that of lurpak. as is, of course, the name. 

here is where any sort of "review" element or aspect falls over a bit, for i have not tried this danpak as such as of yet. i have purchased it, and it is in my fridge. this, i believe you will find, is around 66% of the way made towards a comprehensive look at it. on the basis of that, my conclusion is so far so good with it, a reasonably good decision was made to buy it. and of course refrigerate it.

for one that i have actually tried, then, we must look towards our friends in the (theoretical) south west of the land in which i live. a smaller tub, to be sure, and i am now actually trying to recall what i paid to get it. i think it was below, or south of the magical £1.88 figure, which means that on a pro rata basis yes this would work out cheaper (ipso facto) than what the market price for lurpak is. 

i think the one thing which drew me into this, other than the price which seemed immediately reasonable and the sleek, stylish black packaging, was the proclamation or announcement of it containing cornish sea salt. up until this point, i had a lack of awareness about how there is an apparent difference (or variation) in the salt of different seas. perhaps this is lazy, or even ignorant, of me, but much of my life has been lived with an understanding that salt is just salt. making it clear that cornish sea salt differs in a way which is tacitly implied to be superior makes me excited about the idea of one day tasting butter what has aegean sea salt in it. 

opting to start off with trying this one came about after a glance at the best before dates on the two of them. from this you can conclude that spreadable west country butter with cornish sea salt shall die just days before danpak will, if you wish to do so. or it could be a stock delivery issue, i don't know. up to now i have tried it on some croissants, and on toast with (scottish) three berry jam and then with some marmalade, or unspecified provenance. i would say, overall, it has been satisfactory. 

not a lot else i can say on this subject, at least at this stage, so i shall refrain from doing so. 

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

tenet

ollehello

it is reasonably infrequent that i take the time to watch a film, or motion picture, these days. time has, or was, been against me in respect of being able to do so, look you see. every now and then, though, it is so that a movie strikes me as making the effort to find the time to sit and watch. this is why, or how come, i recent sat and watched tenet, a mere three (3) months after purchasing the blu ray disc of it. 

as ever i am not too certain, or sure, that whatever i would have to say on this (or any) film throws any particular value into the world, but here we are. further, i am careful, cautious and mindful of any of them sort of "spoiler" things. 

let this paragraph be a sort of virtual (or digital) line in the digital (or virtual) sand of the internet, then. for a kind of quick glance of a review, i found tenet to be superb, excellent entertainment, and i would not hesitate in saying "yes, go for it" to anyone what asked me if it was worth seeing. a double whammy, as it were, of excellent and superb, for it is as much of a cerebral experience as it is one of being flat out action thriller stuff. just, well, watch it. 

just so we are all clear, and have an understanding, here you go - a *** SPOILER WARNING *** is now in place for all of the rest of this post. even, or especially, the next picture what will feature here, below, rather than the one above, and oddly enough direction is an important factor. 

plot? difficult to describe, really, as per the sparse wording on the back of the video (or whatever) box. we are introduced to the (ahem) protagonist of the film, played by the i have never seen him before but my what a talent he is John David Washington, via the means of what now must surely be called a classic Christopher Nolan dazzling mindblowing opening action sequence. you know, like the start of, say, The Dark Knight, where you get an incredible bit of film that gets surpassed again and again over the next two (or so hours). it turns out this is just a step, of sorts, towards his actual (or ultimate) mission, or purpose, or maybe destiny. one which he is given one simple word in respect of, tenet. 

rather deliberately, as was the case with inception, i went in to watching this knowing as little as possible of it. once again, i advise on you doing the same. after watching, i of course read up on some comments and reviews. to my surprise a recurring comment was that of "needing" to watch more than once so as to grasp, understand or follow it. some said this was a good thing, where others argued that if you can't watch and enjoy a film just once then it has failed to deliver. well, after a slight moment of wondering what was going on early on, i found it - surprising, considering the ultimate subject matter - all perfectly "linear" and straightforward, if not Police Academy easy, to follow. 

now, you saw all those spoiler warnings, yeah? ultimately, the subject, or main theme here, is what you would broadly label "time travel", but not in the (contextually) way we are used to experiencing it in movies. this is not really Back To The Future 'actual' time travel, but is sort of almost kind of thematically similar to, say, Terminator and indeed Avengers Endgame to a degree, as it revolves more around "something" of the future sent to the past (present) to ensure a future. but, tenet diverts, possibly subverts it. for a potentially better comparison, think the magnificent safety not guaranteed, or perhaps even primer, thrown at a very much (and the director has acknowledged this) James Bond sort of film. 

above is something called the sator square. once you have seen tenet you shall, no doubt, look at this with new eyes, and maybe go "oh". further, yes, indeed, reminding yourself that the (vastly) talented chap who made tenet also made the remarkable memento kind of helps you keep going with it.

what makes tenet such a brilliant, dazzling film experience? on a surface level or even face value, let us not pretend anything beyond the incredible set piece action sequences are key to keeping you watching. once again Christopher Nolan has imagined breathtaking, astonishing sequences and brought together the talent needed to film them "real" rather than by means of using special effects. i very much get why he, the director, was frustrated that the invisible war on the new plague of last year (and this) meant that not nearly as many who would have could have seen this spectacle in a cinema. 

on top of that, though, is a superb cast delivering outstanding performances of well written, developed characters. probably not since the days of James Cameron doing things properly have we been treated to an excellent script backing brilliant action films, before he decided vague one dimensional characters would do just fine for all that avatar rubbish. 

having already sung the praises of John David Washington it is only fair and right to do the same for the remainder of the cast. not one single performance is flawed. a delight to see him out of the glitter vampire films be excellent, and what could i possibly say of a Kenneth Brannagh performance that would not already be known. or is it Branagh, well, whichever. 

does the film have any flaws, on that note, or plot holes or similar? probably. i failed to notice them if so. maybe one or two (possibly just one) moments were convoluted, but nothing felt contrived or out of place, should that make sense. at no point was it that i was not sold, or not bought in to the whole concept of it. blimey, that sounded convoluted and negative. 

perhaps, or maybe, i should have a look and get a copy of that interstellar film. so far as i am aware that is now the only motion picture off of Christopher Nolan what i have not yet seen. in terms of all of his films, well, for me this one, tenet, ranks well with his finest. 

mostly, mind, i just enjoyed switching all distractions off (including putting the phone well away) and just sitting and watching a thoroughly enjoyable movie. let me try and make the effort to do more of the same soon, and i should do well to do so with a film as close as good to this one. 

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

 

once blurred now clear

hi there

if such a question was posed to me, my answer would invariably (or perhaps better instinctively) be that no, look you see, i don't have all that much free time. and yes, somehow, for quite needless and for no rational reason, it would appear that i was perfectly able to find enough minutes to carry out speculative glances at (ahem) minutes from meetings held by the general optical council. 

should it be so that for some (or any) reason you wish to step into this world, well, they actually have a really good spot of that "search engine optimisation" on the go and so it is quite easy to find details of them and their meetings. but, we are here now, so to make your life a little easy, mindful of the fact that i can do nothing for your interest in this subject, here you go, a convenient link to their public record minutes archive. 

with me apparently (or evidently) being at a trifle of a loose end, i thought i would, at random, very specifically look at the minutes for one meeting. selected was one on the very date this post is published, except in 2009 rather that now (2021). fascinating stuff? that would depend on what you considered to be interesting. or, perhaps, not. 

aesthetically, the older minutes are not too appealing. whereas the font used is relatively easy on the eye, which is a nice touch for optometrists, there is no logo on the top of the first page. at some stage one was introduced, but when it came to trying to work out when it was introduced i simply lost interest and did not bother. 

other observations would be how quiet and empty the declarations of interests section is compared to more recent minutes. it would appear that as the reputation of the council grew, so too did the interest in having members of it, so to speak, on the book. beyond that, i suppose one of the more important elements of the meeting was the discussion around "fitness to practice" and seeking clarification on the vetting and barring process for any budding opticians. not certain, as i did not read it all, but drink driving conviction enthusiasts do not appear to be encouraged to pursue a career in the realm of optical enhancement or improvement.

for a final observation, i note with great interest that they would never appear to hold a meeting in the same place. and why would you. the whole of London (innit) is available to them, and it would seem that they elected to try different places out for each session. 

right, that's that. should you take some time to go and read any (or all) of the minutes, i hope you enjoy, and please do let me know if there is anything (remotely) interesting or exciting that i might well have missed. 

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

just what does it have to do with falko, no, hang on it's columbo isn't it

heya

depending on who you ask we are presently winning the invisible war on the new plague or we are quite badly losing it. alternatively, look you see, there are some you could (i would not suggest doing so but please do as you see fit) ask and they will inform you it's all a hoax, a sham, something out of Orwell's novel 1984 and so forth. it is this latter group what has come to be of immediate concern. 

conspiracy theorists, refusers or deniers, are of course nothing new. a select brand or branch of the human population exists which shall immediately assume the opposite of whatever you tell them is really the truth. you know, things like moon landings, mobile phone technology, aliens, the shape (or dimensions) of our planet and that sort of thing. i believe there is only a finite amount of it what can be blamed on Mulder out of X Files, and that finite is very small indeed. 

so as to provide an unusual non non-linear link between paragraphs here, it would of course be quite wrong (indeed incorrect) to describe Peter Falk as Columbo out of Columbo as the Mulder out of X Files of his day, as he was not. well, not that i am aware of. i have seen a few episodes and momentariy i cannot recall any such episode, or case if you like, where he dealt with the supernatural, aliens or any related variation of conspiracy theory. maybe he did, but i have not seen it.

generally speaking, Peter Falk is perhaps most fondly, or immediately, remembered as being the Grandad, or "Grandpa" for Americans, what read the story to him out of Wonder Years in the motion picture adaptation of The Princess Bride. but, then, there are one or two who would more immediately recall him a being Columbo out of Columbo, especially if you switch on certain TV channels here in the UK on a Sunday, where they (for some reason) play, screen or broadcast 12 to 14 hours of Columbo for entertainment purposes. 

in either instance of preference, it would remain (i am confident) the case that one would be puzzled to see the singularly eyed much admired and sadly no longer with us actor being used as a poster, or rather in this instance sticker, boy for a crusade against the new plague, or "covid" as many call it. and yet, on my travels, i discovered that someone has opted or chosen to do this. 

recently, as opposed to some close or distant future date, i was in a reasonably well celebrated coastal town in North Yorkshire. whilst there, i spotted this placed (with scant regard for a straight or neat job of it, but never mind) place on a lamp post. well, i think it was a lamp post, actually it might have been a general or generic post, carrying a sign suggesting that i do not park where i just had or similar. 

no, i am no medical expert, far from it. but, so or thus far, i am inclined to believe the reports, coverage and numbers about all of this new plague, the pandemic of this thing what is called covid. evidently, or clearly, there is at least one rather highly motivated person out there who has taken a different stance on this subject.

whereas i can speak for none but me (and would never presume to do otherwise), i am uncertain the approach being taken by the "plague denier", for want of a better term, is going to work. just who is it they expect to see this and on the basis of it immediately accept their truth that it is all a "lie"? one really rather suspects that presenting some sort of evidence (hint or actual) that the whole thing is made up would do a better job of convincing people than trying to suggest or imply it as being the view of an imaginary detective played by the deceased Peter Falk. unless, of course, it is so that where i was, and i am loathe to reveal that it was Scarborough so shall not, they consider all associated with or attributed to Peter Falk as some sort of gospel, unquestionable truth. rather him that Sir Jimmy, i suppose. 

my view would be that this plague business, covid or coronavirus or whatever term for it works bets for you, seems quite real. further, the best approach one can take is to adhere to all these measures what they have asked us to do, be it face masks, hand washing and distance keeping. but, believe what you will, whatever gets you through life.

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

pristine and clinical

howdy pop pickers

quite delayed this post is, look you see, but here we are now. with volume five (5) probably already here and, at time of publishing, the sixth (and final) volume likely to be announced soon, here's a look at volume four (4) of Brilliant Live Adventures off of David Bowie. in a double compact disc format, although vinyl and "streaming" things were / are available. 

this one, Look At The Moon!, is the second (of two) set to celebrate Bowie's live, well, adventures from the year 1997. it is taken, culled or was recorded at something called the Phoenix Festival; an event i can vaguely recall being a thing. so as to (more or less) present the entire set from a gig this time around, we are treated to a double disc set (as mentioned above), which of course came at a slightly increased cost. 

it is, for a brief overview sort of thing type review, pretty good. at, or by, this stage, though, there is a sense of if not saturation then exhaustion. releasing a more or less previously unreleased Bowie recording once a month for six (6) months seemed like an exciting and class idea, but a sense of complacency in listening appears to slowly drift in. for this, and one or two other reasons, it was so that in truth when this one landed it was placed aside for a couple of weeks, perhaps three. 

and so the set itself. quite a mix of OK David, as in we are treated to six songs from Earthling, to wonderful, thank you David, with several much loved fan favourites all of a sudden appearing in the set. classics such as Fashion and indeed Fame, as well as a delightful filled with Jean Genie feature. to make this even better, it is so that the more esoteric, jazz odyssey moments from Outside are no longer getting played by this stage, just the two solid hits greats from that whimsical excursion (Hearts Filthy Lesson and proper Hallo Spaceboy, not the Pet Shop Boys fiddle). 

my single biggest issue with this edition (or episode) of Brilliant Live Adventures is the title. oh, no doubt the actual title, Look At The Moon!, has some relevance to the event itself, but i just refer to it as Beware The Moon! i think it would have been quite class to call it that, but then the makers or rights owners of An American Werewolf In London may well have wished to have a word with Iman or similar. 

on a more sound related side of things (which is kind of important to music), it states on the cover somewhere or other that this is a recording off of the sound deck, or mixing deck. as such, it is much, much better than the first volume, which suffered from seeming to be taped off of one side of the stage alone. but, the cost of this is right there in the title of this post. 

you may consider this to be a good thing or a bad thing, but the sound here is pristine, clinical and precise. there is virtually no crowd sound at all. for me, or to my ears, it makes it all somewhat, or a bit, eerie, really. i mean, yes, you want to hear the artist. but, hearing them (in this instance him) performing to a crowd and the crowd is effectively absent in presence is, somewhat, strange. very, or quite, 2020 and bits of 2021 i guess.

certainly, i think (know) i probably have added too many pictures to go with what little text i have to add around them. here, have a look at this one, then. 

for the outstanding moments of the set, they virtually all come in the form of the classics included. it's not so much that any huge pop hits are included as such, but all the same well loved ones. what makes them great is that David is clearly relishing playing them again, doing so as he wishes to, and not out of a sense of obligation of giving the audience what he thinks (or suspects) they might be after. 

beyond, or if you like other than the songs already mentioned, a highlight for me was very much in the form of the inclusion of Stay off of Station To Station. what a sterling performance it is, too. and yes, it remains that Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps) just gets better every time you hear it.

negatives in the set all circulate around and then land on Earthling, alas. someone out there somewhere most probably thinks that this album was the best what David ever done, but it is not one i include in the top twenty (20) albums he did. being fair, once again Battle For Britain (The Letter) is a revelation here, a song far too good to have been (to be harsh) wasted and lost in the muddle of that record. 

with regret, though, most of the Earthling songs here prove exactly what Michael Eavis off of Glastonbury said. he considered it "boring", and once again this is a man whose tolerance for boredom is legendary, what with him hiring Coldplay 6 (!!) times, and Mr Kim Kardassian (or ex now i think). things like Looking For Satellites just go nowhere, and whereas Bowie appeared amused by Little Wonder i can't say i ever have been. 

a big thanks, and well done, to whoever made the decision to preserve the set entire (so far as i can tell) to the extent that we get the Gail Ann Dorsey performance of an obscure cover (i had to look it up) of a song called O Superman. lovely, it is, to be sure.

right, then. that's two sets from 1995 (one so so, one excellent) and two from 1997 (both better than anticipated or feared). on to 1999. next up with be one off of France, and the expectation is the last shall be the London Astoria gig, possibly including a DVD or video since Bowie set it all up (the gig) just to film. we shall see. 

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

comes the morning and the headlights fade away

hello there 

something of a little bit of a throwback (in all sorts of ways) with this post, look you see. predominantly this is in respect of me celebrating a mug on these pages, but also with regards to at least one (1) of the people what feature on the mug. 

whilst it is simply not true to say that i have my finger on any sort of pulse pertaining to fashions, trends or such things, every now and then i notice something. in recent times i have, to this effect, noticed a revival, or if you will rejuvenation, of interest in those "heat changing" mugs. should you be more or less unaware about what that is, exactly, fear not. basically, or in essence, it is a mug what has a "hidden" image on it, so it looks plain when stood cold (or "room temperature"), but an image (or pattern or similar) appears on the mug the moment some hot liquid is placed in it. well, not the precise moment, but still. 

i have no need to purchase any further mugs at the moment, and even less time to use to do such a thing. however, as a somewhat happy accident, it came to be that recently i unpacked not one, not three, but two of my own heat changing mug things. with regret i have to say one of them is most unsuitable to share here. but the other is, well, sort of kind of, so long as no one gets all busy and upset. 

yes, in the clarity of the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode, that is indeed a mug what features two stalwarts of the Carry On films, Barbra Windsor and Jim Dale. indeed, further, as you can more or less see, that is them in a scene out of one of the films; Carry On Doctor i think, but could be Matron or some similar medical thing. 

despite, or perhaps although, i would describe myself as someone who very much appreciates the artistic endeavours of Jim Dale (how can you not but help like him), it is of course the sadly no longer with us Ms Windsor who is in focus here. she passed away recently, an event which caused rather understandable nationwide sorrow. terms like "national treasure" and "icon" get used with ease these days, but she well and truly ticked all of those boxes. 

how and why? well, bubbly personality is often attributed to her. an open love of life, and embracing making the most of the world and being happy were her traits, all done with a tickle of a giggle and a quite remarkable, infectious smile. this touched, or affected, virtually all who ever saw her. famously, or infamously if you prefer, so much so that she had the most notorious and feared of East End gangsters, with particular emphasis on the Krays, wrapped around any finger she cared to choose.

that's the mug not in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode, then. also, it is pictured here with no hot (preferably boiling) liquid in it. yes, also, that is my quite class coaster what celebrates the motion picture The Shining. for anyone reading this what or who is easily upset or a bit sensitive, you are possibly advised to skip the rest of this, and certainly suggested to avoid the other picture, which shall come below. rather than, you know, above. 

one reason in particular that Barbra was so treasured is a little bit tricky to word properly. it's something close to a sensitive subject, especially under the rules of the English way of doing things, where there are subjects, in particular that sort of thing, which one is not to speak of. but, let me try to assume a reasonably grown up audience is reading this, and i shall endeavour to be diplomatic, or delicate. 

for at least one, two or possibly three generations (and i was certainly one of them), it was so that a rite of passage, or expectation, was that the first semi undressed (at the least topless) lady any male would encounter would be Barbra Windsor. specifically, of course, that celebrated scene out of Carry On Camping. whereas nudity, or any expression of anything sexual, is generally frowned upon (mostly by the British Board of Censors) in our society, there was a determination by TV studios to screen Carry On Camping as frequently as possible. or include scenes from it in shows. all during prime time early evening entertainment slots. 

above is the mug (or chalice) with some hot liquid in it, tea i believe. well, you were warned before you looked at it. perhaps i should have gone further and written something so as you did not get your expectations of saucy excitement up way too high. but still, a lovely vessel for having a fine cup of tea out of. 

exactly how it came to be that in a nation determined to block or censor as much nudity as possible it was so that Barbra Windsor's quasi topless appearances were unavoidable to the point of being compulsory to see is, as you may well guess, a mystery. she herself said that she didn't (ahem) particularly consider her "assets" to be sensational, but in her usual style was thrilled and delighted that so many people appeared to think they were wonderful. let me not disagree with the latter. 

mostly i just use the mug for drinking out of, in truth. yes, just tea. it would be criminal to use such a decidedly English item for coffee, after all. but, a glance at Barbara allows one to see (based on how many clothes she has on) is a quite useful and very satisfactory way of determining how warm the tea in it (the mug) is. 

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

le coq du spiros la homme

bonjour mon amis

just a relatively quick post, look you see, with a somewhat (with mercy) deflated picture off of Spiros, what he sent to me recently. 

several years ago, somewhere just north or south of twenty i believe, it was so that Spiros and i, or me and Spiros if that is the more better way to word it, where was i, oh yes, were gainfully employed by the exact same respected corporate institution. quite class it was, mostly.

anyway, once upon a time, for special occasions or instances (birthdays, weddings, that sort of thing) we had a bit of a collection, or if you will whip-round, to buy a gift to commemorate such a happy thing. from what i recall, the practice might have stopped when we did exactly this for Spiros. we raised enough in coins of money to buy an item what combined two of his favourite things, with the one of them that i can actually list here being things what are inflatable. 

if that looks rather priapic in nature, that is because it most certainly, determinedly and decidedly is. although, so far as i am aware, no one ever took a tape measure to it, the packaging gave every indication of it being six foot (around 1.82 meters, metric fans) of priapic nature. indeed, yes, proudly erect priapic in nature, for it stands in a stark and bold way when inflated. 

my memory is not all that it could or perhaps should be, but as i recall the issue we had with this was not that we bought it, then inflated it in a corporate workspace, or for that matter that we left it in the chair of a PA (or if you like secretary) to one of the more senior members of management there. no, it was rather the medical cost, consequences and fall out of what happened when the PA saw it what got us spoke to a bit, and suggested that we do not do such a thing again. we didn't, of course, for exactly how many inflatable peni... inflatable devices can you need? 

right, well, i am sure you are all more interested - fascinated, possibly - in (or with) the picture than any text what i could add. let me rather leave you to do so, then. but, of course, many thanks indeed to Spiros for sending on the pic. i for one am delighted to learn that you have kept and cherished this most magnificent of heartfelt gifts. 

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

forty sixth anniversary

hey there

as a disclaimer, or if you like qualification, i know that i am not setting this article for publication on the specific date of the anniversary being celebrated. rather, i am throwing it onto the internet one day early, look you see, so that you, the people, may prepare for it. 

so, anyway, moving on, whenever you say "March 17" to someone, the immediate thought everyone will have (except for those what have a birthday on that date, or some other significant memory) is, of course, that wonderful night in 1975 when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II attended the cinema for a Royal performance screening of the motion picture Funny Lady. this was such big news that it made the cover of the TV Times magazine that week. 

yes, but of course, this is the version (or variant) of film called Funny Lady which starts the awesome and amazing Barbra Streisand, no less. she was indeed in attendance at this Royal screening, and thanks to the magic of the internet you can see some film footage of the event by clicking here. 

famously, or infamously, it was of course so that Funny Lady was a sequel to the motion picture Funny Girl, what Barbs won an Oscar for. she had no wish to be in this follow up film, despite a hastily signed contractual obligation to do so, but apparently quite liked the script. whilst not a bad film as such, it is perhaps not quite so good as the original. 

having Barbra attend the Royal screening of the motion picture, in the presence of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, was quite close to the potential of the great royalty of Britain and America meeting. if Mr Sinatra had been cast in the film as originally proposed, and thus also would have been in attendance, then it would have been so. 

many of you, in particular readers from outside of the UK, may be unaware of the concept, or if you like phenomenon, of a Royal Cinema Premiere for a motion picture. basically, it does what it says in the name, in truth. each year (except 2020, of course, but perhaps there was one pre-lockdown) a screening of a new film is held in the presence of a prominent member of the Royal Family. 

generally, or where possible, a British made (or made in Britain) film is selected. however, it also must be a motion picture what is suitable and appropriate to show a senior member of the Royal Family. in this regard, 1975 was problematic, as films such as Tommy, Carry On Behind, The Man Who Would Be King, Confessions Of A Pop Performer and Rocky Horror Picture Show are not ones which one would presume that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II would describe as being "quite class". 

usually, yes, whenever there is a James Bond film out, that is the one what gets the nod for a special Royal screening. indeed them films do have rather a lot of sex and violence in, but as Bond does it all purely "for Queen and Country" it is perfectly agreeable. 

late evening television entertainment on 17 March 1975 was, then, pretty much limited to watching Barbra Streisand be introduced to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. oh yes, James Caan was also there, and some other people. 

anyway, anything else what i write (wrote) here will just delay you from preparing to mark the anniversary proper. or, indeed, watching Funny Lady, the superior Funny Girl or any Barbra Streisand film. well, you could watch some other Royal Performance film, i guess. 

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

so when you think it's time to go don't be surprised if

hello there

just time to bid a fond farewell to a garment, look you see. probably with far more pictures than i have words, but i have every confidence that i can string some things together around them. although yes i have cheated somewhat and have stuck (consolidated) two together. 

necessity has, then, dictated or decreed that i needed to have a bit, as in a lot, of a sort out of things of stuff of things. one rather significant section of this was my wardrobe, or if you like my clothing. garments, i suppose, you could refer to them as, for that is what they are. yes, i am quite terrible for not dispensing with such, but now the time has come to do so. 

in one instance of this, it was with a heavy heart and a sense of sorrow that i had to admit, or confess, that yes, it had to go. my most favourite of shirt is in my wardrobe no more. 

and there is a most gratifying look at it, presented of course in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode, because, well, why would you not look at such in such a way? but also yes, more regular pictures below. which you may, granted, have looked at without reading this. 

exactly why this one was a favourite shirt is pretty straightforward. other than the most splendid pattern, or if you like style, it was a perfect fit and really, really comfortable. without doing any actual research, let alone checking, my assumption is that of the many pictures to feature of me (moi) across this blog, most often it is this shirt which shall feature as being worn. 

worn it to death, so i have, to be sure. actually, probably accurate to say that i have gone ahead and opted to make use of it (as in wear it) for much longer time than anything of the condition of the shirt said that i should. but, done now. 

i think that one tear in the above pic appeared two, maybe three, years ago.  well, no, it was not quite so long, or large, or if you like pronounced, at first. it has gotten a good deal bigger and wider with each successive wearing of it. got, i guess, since now it is mine no more. 

did i feel uncomfortable, emotionally, walking around in a shirt which i knew was comfortable if appearing ill-fitting, feeling the eyes of judgement gaze upon me, with people walking by wondering how and why i would leave the house in such an unkempt, worn out item of clothing? at times, yes, i suppose so. but people who are going to do that shall do that anyway, irrespective of what fashion decisions you make. let them get on with it and be comfortable. 

here you go, them two pictures what i sellotaped (consolidated) together is below. see if you can see the seam in between the pictures, if you like, for you can clearly see such on the shirt. 

both aspects of the collar (as in front and back, if we assume the sides are thin and of no discernible interest) are on display, then. and neither would be what one would consider good. at the top is the back as in outward facing side, with the inner bit featured in the below segment. to say that it was "giving way" would be a bit generous and kind. i am aware of such a thing as a shirt with a detachable collar, but normally they would be designed for such. this shirt was not designed to do it, yet that is what it had started to do. except, i assume, i would not (without sellotape or a stapler) have been able to attach it on again. 

provenance of this shirt? it will have been bought many years ago, quite possibly even north of a decade, off of Makro, going on the "Camp Master" branding. blimey, i have had it for a while. or i did have it for a while. yes, i shall miss it a very great deal. 

what else can i tell you of, or write, about this particular shirt? not a great deal, honestly. if anything it is quite a surprise that i have been able to write so much as i have. 

there, a picture of an almost undamaged section of said beloved and now gone shirt, except for where you can see it is worn out towards the bottom, right of centre. 

so, how would (or do) i propose to replace this shirt? not with any ease. other than this particular lightweight cotton not being widely used in the UK (it is all polyester or similar plastic, creaky feeling stuff), the designers and tailors for the market here have an issue. with that issue being they are twats, i think. for some reason they believe any gent who needs a shirt the width (very large indeed) i do must be short. basically, they have used a more indulgent period (Sir) Elton John, or perhaps even prison era Boy George, as the blueprint for large shirts. ones which are the perfect width for me tend to be far too short. sometimes, please note, bigger gents, such as i, are also quite tall. 

also, i have had to get rid of a number (several) pairs of trousers (kex, or strides) because, frankly, it is so that the arse is hanging out of them. whereas i am an admirer of the man, i am no Wez out of Mad Max 2 and so cannot get away with wearing them. perhaps not, at least, without sending out an unintended message to certain fellow members of the gentry.

right, that's that. if for some reason you read all of this thank you, and let me dedicate it all to any of you who may also have had to give up a much cherished, dearly loved and frequently worn item of clothing. 

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

low cruise

hey there

normally, when it comes to considering or determining what i place up here on my blog, there is a general sense of "anything that takes my fancy" being the rule. it is not often i impose a self limitation, look you see. but i do wonder how many further posts, exactly, i am likely to be prepared to give over to an at this stage unseen sequel to a north of 30 year old Tom Cruise film, with specific emphasis on what can only be described as the bizarre thrust to market it. 

so, yes, more Top Gun 2 (or Top Gun Maverick as it appears to be styled) reduced to clear items off of Tesco. well, maybe not off of Tesco, but being offered by them. me saying "off of" them gives every suggestion that i, or someone else, has actually bought one or two of the items. no. 

please, make no error in assumption, this is not a bashing or pouring scorn issue. i consider Tom Cruise to be an exceptional talent. no, i don't have any particular interest or view on his "off screen" life. on screen, well, the best way i heard him described is as being someone who "always brings his A game to everything he does". also, Top Gun was an outstanding motion picture. it really just comes down to how the marketing for an unreleased movie makes little sense. 

another two (2) items being offered at a reduced price, then, with both relating to the film. yes, for those who notice it at the bottom, we did indeed get the Adventures Of New Buckethead And Frog version of Monopoly at Christmas, and had a very good fun, fight and argument free game of it over Christmas. but, if you may indulge me some, i would rather speak (or write) of the Top Gun Maverick items on display. 

certainly, yes, the most exciting (Top Gun related) item on display there is the "strategy game". but no, more on that one a bit later on. feel free to scroll down now and read if you wish, nothing at all says that you have to read this is the generally not too coherent order in which i place it. 

going on the top (ahem) item, priced formidably south of £5, and again it is an item of merchandise which focuses on a most decidedly secondary aspect of the Top Gun expanded universe; all that splendid fighter jet business. as i have said numerous times on this broader subject, the target market for this is not clear in any immediate way. leaving aside this is a jet we have only thus far seen in trailers, it is neither a toy nor a "proper" model kit, as it is snap together. my suspicion is that the proposed demographic for this was that selective group who would purchase it and leave it in the box, so that it may increase with value in a few decades. 

further price drops for the one i have featured frequently here, then. yes, the Matchbox (like a proper version of Hot Wheels, American friends) set featuring an aircraft carrier and fighter jet. some of you, presumably those enthusiastic about all things Top Gun, may well have followed the tale of this. it started off at an eye watering £30 (!!), and is now down to a quite tempting £7.50. yes, exceptionally tempting. as in, i had this in my hand(s) with consideration given to purchasing. but, ultimately, no, i did not. other than their being no obvious or even considered answer to the question of what, exactly, i would do with it (beyond "play with it", here at the age of north of 40, well south of 50, how did that happen), it might be that the film turns out not to be good. 

it is an interesting, perhaps fascinating, question to ask, to be sure, of what it was that someone senior at Tesco was thinking when they took the decision to go full tilt with a range of Top Gun Maverick merchandising items. sure, they will have opted to stock such well in advance, in a time when the film was expected to be released as planned. but, of all the films what were coming out in 2020, it was this one they felt would be the win? whilst being no expert, i would have thought perhaps whatever the latest Marvel or Star Wars thing was, or even James Bond, may well have been a more likely banker for being a big seller. 

back, then, to that board (or strategy) game. and a resounding sense of vindication for me, at least in so far as what i have said all along was the main focus, point or plot of the original Top Gun film. 

that 50% of the (so to speak) action of this board (strategy) game focuses on the volleyball of Top Gun says that yes, i have long since been correct to say that this was the main moment of the film. it is the scene we all recall fondly. further, of course, i go, and have long since stated that Playing With The Boys off of Kenny Loggins is the one we should call the "love theme from Top Gun", not the admittedly superb Take My Breath Away off of Berlin. 

no, i did not purchase it. i mean, sure, yes, it would be nice, but there are only a finite number of people i would play this board game with, and none are particularly close or in my "bubble" for the ongoing invisible war on the new plague. besides, we would probably rather play actual volleyball if we were together, rather than the board (strategy) game, pretending to be Maverick, Goose, Iceman and that other one what no one remembers the name of (very much the "John Entwhistle of The Who of Top Gun", he is). 

shall more stuff about Top Gun Maverick, with a peculiar specific emphasis on the merchandising, feature here? who knows, maybe. it would be nice to see the actual film, eventually. perhaps if i see anything more of interest in respect of it, then yes, probably. 

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

vintage looks

greetings

well, in truth i am not entirely certain (of anything, but specifically if) i should be posting or sharing these, but here we are. my thoughts were that family and friends around the world may well wish to have a gander. and well meaning strangers. but any weirdo or strange types can please leave this post now, look you see. there, i asked nicely. 

in recent times i have been obliged, or compelled, to a great big massive sorting out of things of stuff. this has directly, in an indirect way (and as an aside) led me to spending an awful lot of time down at the nearby tip, or "recycling centre" as it is now branded, which has left me all the more convinced that owning a scrapyard must be the best thing ever. going back briefly on subject, it was during the sorting things of stuff out phase where i stumbled upon two lovely "proof" or "sample" pictures of the boys. 

these were for some lovely pictures what we ordered but that never got delivered, as it happens. it was so that we were quite disappointed in this. yet, not all is lost, for having scanned in these samples it would appear i have obtained relatively decent, acceptable quality larger size images of each. 

so yes, our eldest pictured above. from (at time of writing) some ten or so years ago, perhaps even a very satisfactory Nigel Tufnell 11, in truth, as will be clear with the next image. 

for what reason did the larger (or if you like "proper") sets of these images not turn up? we have no idea. it was fairly, and reasonably, frequent that photographers came and offered to do some portraits at the much beloved nursery school the boys went to, and generally we purchased. on this instance, samples were delivered, orders placed, never arrived. on the one side so far as i am aware no coins of money got handed over so no loss, except we really, really liked the pictures. 

art, and arty stuff, is not really a strength of mine. beyond knowing what i like the look of, though. so no, i am unsure if these images are "black and white" as most would say, or that "sepia" thing, with the latter being, i believe, a sort of brown overtone to it all. anyway, still think they are lovely pics. 

yes, it is the presence of the two of them, wonderfully together, which allows for some reasonable guesses at accuracy of date. probably just south of 11 years ago (from date of publication), i am all but certain is the provenance of the pictures. 

right, well, anyway, time to move on from this excellent and accidentally discovered stroll down the lane of memories. but, yes, once again, if family and friends all around the world have seen this and just one has gone "aah" or similar, all worth it. 

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

has anyone got this?

hi there

just a (so far as i am aware) rare request, or appeal, off of me, look you see. a film what i saw many, many years ago and was never able to find again recently came to mind. it was wonderful when it did, via someone else mentioning it, for i was starting to think i had imagined the whole thing. 

i saw the film under the name Inside Out, but no, as i saw it in 1983 (or possibly 1984) it is not to be confused with the more recent (in relative terms) Disney film of the same name. or, at the least, from what i recall it was Disney what made one recently called that. as they (Disney) seem to now make all films, i guess so. 

should it help anyone randomly searching to help people out (thanks if so), it seems that Inside Out was the UK title, and in the USA it was released with the title They Weny That-A-Way & That-A-Way. more information can be found by clicking here, if you wish. 

yes, the above is exactly the cover what i remember. from what i recall, this was on the shelf at the petrol station at Marton Shops, where so many films got rented off of. only, i did not rent this one. no, one evening Dad came home with it from there, and we all sat and watched it. that's how come i have fond, or if you like sentimental, memories of it. 

not that, in truth, i can even remember all that much of the film. hardly anything, as point of fact, except i seem to think there was a scene where they end up eating possum meat. 

the trailer, which is available on the web, did not do much to bring memories back, except to suggest it is indeed a fairly funny film. well, have a look. 

certainly, i have had a look at trying to procure (as in purchase) a copy of the film, but alas it seems not to be. from what i can find it did turn up on DVD in the USA, several years ago. alas, that is now what they call "out of print", and copies of it sell for quite a lot more money than i am prepared to part with. especially as doing so would attract a lucrative "admin fee" off of Royal Mail. 

from what i can gather there are one or two "lending library" sort of things on this internet business where one can obtain practically anything. if it is not nailed down, generally someone somewhere shoves it online and lets nature do its thing. should nature be the right term. 

well, anyway, just throwing it out there. should any kind soul have a copy of this to lend, donate or pass on for a modest fee, please leave a message. or, indeed, if you know of somewhere where i may be able to borrow it off of internet, let me know. thanks in advance!

meanwhile, if this has jogged the memory of anyone and they also (for whatever reason) recall, or indeed just remember, this film in a fond way, well, much more of my work here is done. 

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

art for art's sake

geiá sou

i was having a browse of what images (and what have you) i had around to share, look you see, when i stumbled upon this one off of Spiros. as per an earlier, as opposed to future, post, i am likely to be off the line, or if you will sans an "internet" on the date i will pop into the thing here for when it goes, so to speak, all "live" for your entertainment. 

so, then, Spiros. yes, as the many enthusiasts of him out there could well assume, he has been particularly hard hit by all this "lockdown" business, being as it is part of the invisible war on the new plague. not only is one not supposed to go out and "mingle" (or be social), but the overwhelming majority of public restroom facilities have been closed. this has pretty much taken to a halt his most favourite of hobbies, which to recap is of course meeting like minded men (often in uniform) in public bathrooms to form shirt term yet mutually beneficial friendships. 

how has he been spending his time, then? due to a number of confidentiality clauses, and matters of state security, i cannot say too much. but, that said, no restriction what i am aware of precludes or otherwise prevents me from discussing that which he has not been up to. 

the owner, or custodian, of the above defiled (desecrated, or vandalised) vehicle has for some reason elected to blame, or hold responsible, Spiros for the impromptu paintwork. apparently this happens frequently, with the owner stating that (presumably in a smart cockney accent) it "isn't funny" as is quite a lot of bother and trouble to clean. yes, a request has been made to Spiros to "cut it out". 

except, predictably, Spiros is most decidedly not responsible for this. oh, make no mistake it is very much the case that he is quite open (and partial) to sharing his artistic expressions with the general pubic, on any surface which takes his fancy. however, and believe me i have had decades of seeing it, his works are considerably more priapic in nature than the above. as point of fact, his works (lesser and great) are all pure priapic in nature. no way would he fanny about with stuff like what is in this picture. 

could whoever is doing this, then, please cease from doing so. it is apparently not funny, and causing the owner of the vehicle some (considerable) distress. thank you. 

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

dramatic pause

hey there

probably something quite unnecessary for me to say, look you see, but write it i shall. there is every chance, due to me being a trifle busy with some things (also possibly sans an "internet thing" for a few days), that the usual flow of stuffs off of me may be absent for a few days. 

should it be that there is such a thing as regular readers of here (strange types who actually like whatever it is i do here), my apologies, and i hope to be back up and running soon. let me try and do a couple of "post dated" ones just in case, but i shall be, as mentioned, busy. nothing untoward. well, not so much. 

those really keen could, i suppose, just read the (well) north of four thousand posts i have put up here over the last, what, 15 and a bit years. blimey, have i really kept all of this going for quite so long. a most splendid diary, i guess. maybe i should read it one of these days. 

and, remember, 

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

faster

heya

well, what can i say. here we go, look you see, with the first car wash of the year (2021), being reported in the third (3rd) month, but actually it happened in the 2nd (second) such month. indeed, yes, of 2021. sorry, only really had chance to share it now with all you car wash presented in Commodore 64 mode enthusiasts. 

to give the only remotely possible point of interest away relatively early, indeed it is so that these images, and yes one of them shiny animated gif things, are the first of a car wash to be taken on my still momentarily (relatively) new phone. otherwise, i would expect you will find all of this is much the same as the, oh, dozen or so posts on the same subject already done. well, maybe not a full dozen, but close enough. 

above is an image, then, of the great big floppy flappy spongey brush thing what spins round and round, going over the windscreen in a north direction. should you take north as being up. i think i quite like the stark, sparse, spatial minimalist imagery provoked by this particular image. and to clarify, yes, presented in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode. 

perhaps this is simply stating what many of you more enthusiastic readers know, or are expecting, but for the benefit of all others it seems the animated "gif" things are a bit different on this new phone. they appear to be slightly faster, which may well be a quicker (or higher) fps, frames per second, or what have you. as i mentioned the last time i observed this, probably due to them microchips and ram rom things what are all shoved into phones these days.

sure, yes, as you can certainly see, that's the big massive floppy soapy brush cloth thing gently, yet also firmly, going past the passenger side of the vehicle, cleaning away. well, as has been discussed before, the passenger side in relation to where one drives on the proper and correct side of the road. for our friends in America, an other places (like France), this would indeed be the "driver" side getting washed, since your cars and trucks and what have you got built the wrong way around. 

it may well be that some of you might be interested to learn that although this was the first use of a car wash facility, it wasn't my first proposed one. as it happens, i went a couple of weeks prior to this adventure, but was told that the machine was switched off. when i asked why, the said it was because it was too cold and the thing does not work proper below a certain temperature. 

quite likely that you have no need for me to point this out or explain, but for the sake of something to write here, that is the floppy brush thing going past the driver window on a proper vehicle. once again, this would be the passenger side in countries where they do not drive on the correct side of the road. 

right, well, anything else that i add here is just going to (possibly) distract from your enjoyment of the above images, so let me leave you to it.

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

three of two for south of six

howdy pop pickers

yes, more music acquisitions, look you see. i do indeed appreciate that vast (large) swathes of the world are all moving towards all this "streaming" business (nonsense), but no, not me. my preference is to hold, to appreciate, to cherish and to play music. long may this continue. 

so, i have been browsing the great (virtual, i suppose) car boot sale of the internet, looking for, or if you like seeking out, releases which may have passed me by at the time, always for reasonable prices. alas, it is quite often the latter which proves troublesome. but, patience pays off. i have learned (learnt?) not to panic buy. 

indeed, as seems my perpetual (yet happy) plight, it amuses and pleases me so to more or less limit these searches to the works of Bowie, although from time to time i will consider other artists. not often, but every now and then. and if it is another artist working with Bowie, well, splendid. 

two cd singles, then, what are (at time of writing) about 22 years old, since they were released in the very Prince friendly sounding year of 1999. ah, what a year. 2000 onward was all going to be amazing and brilliant, we were promised. and yet, here we are. also and yes, a dominant presence of David Bowie, with him featuring directly on (hang on whilst i fire up the calculator) just north of 83% of the tracks here, or if you like 5 (five) of the six (6). 

purpose of purchase? mostly it was they were of an agreeable price, and were not in my collection. do not think that i am obsessive completest for my Bowie collection, as there are several releases i have no interest in. but, every now and then, when i spot one i do not have and the cost makes it move from beyond tempting to worth it, i generally do make the effort to get it. and why not. to this end, or extent if that is the correct use, i think the cost of both singles added together, and postage, all came in at a coin of money cost south of £6. maybe with some postage it was a little over, but the two discs in themselves were certainly below that price. 

a look at each? certainly. with it being the oldest song of the two on feature, why would one not start with Under Pressure. i am not 100% certain of this being the case, but i am pretty sure that this was released as a means of promoting the Queen Greatest Hits III thing released around that time. certainly the focus would be more on the Queen aspects of the song than the Bowie ones, since David himself does not feature on the artwork, or anything like that. but visually on the disc, what i will get to. 

one thing entirely absent from this disc is, as you can note in the above, the standard, original or if you will proper version of the song. recently, or of late, there has been much in the way of nostalgic retelling of how the song came to be recorded. probably (as in likely) because nothing ever quite so cool happens no more. in essence, the legend of the song is that David Bowie just happened to drop by a studio in Switzerland where Queen were recording (Hot Space, at a guess), they sat around, caught up over a cup of tea, reportedly did an astonishing amount of [name of illicit substance removed], John Deacon jammed the infectious bass, Bowie and Freddie freestyled some lyrics to it, they mashed them together and et voila, so Under Pressure came to be. 

something of an accurate way to describe the three tracks (proper) on this single is "twelve minutes of ladadedahdedah", for the emphasis is on all them whimsical vocal things what Freddie did. this is, believe me, no bad thing. vocals for both Freddie and David have been sharpened, accentuated, made to sound a trifle crisper (hello, Faye) and louder. which is lovely. as for the "remixed" music, well, it has all the elements of late 90s dance to the sound and beat, which sounded immediately dated at the time, which has not changed. but, still good. 

for the "enhanced" element, which one gets via putting the disc in a computer, one gets an interesting video that i had certainly not seen before. someone had taken footage of Queen doing Under Pressure live, and moments of Bowie doing it at the Freddie Mercury tribute concert (Freddie Aid, if you will), spliced it up and made it seem like they did it live together. a really remarkable and very good indeed editing job, especially including some "backstage" moments to make it all seem more authentic, and yet weirdly my abiding feeling was the whole thing was very (very) unfair on how ace Annie Lennox was at the Freddie Aid performance, since she is erased. 

disc two (the second) purchased, then, was a "promo" of Thursday's Child, which someone had taken a marker pen to, but no matter. this, i believe, was the kind of thing sent out to radio stations and, when we still had them, record stores, so that they may play it and promote sales of the record itself, back in those days when one generally had to buy music in order to hear it. this song was indeed lifted off of the hours..... album. one which was welcomed at the time for not sounding anything like the previous album (hey kids, i am down on your sound, here, hear Earthling) and has stood up exceptionally well over the years. 

basically this is (arguably) also three versions of the same song. and yet, and i had no expectation of this, the differences between the three are intriguing enough to make it sound like quite varied listening. i think breaking up the "single edit" and the album version with a "rock" mix is what does that. on an initial listen level, the "rock" mix appears to do what all so-called mixes of this nature does, which is to simply slam a loud electric guitar over it all. but, no, the vocals have been accentuated and lifted, and the song has indeed been mixed of a much more hard rock nature than the original would suggest it ever intended to be. should that make sense. a lovely, accidental and incidental, addition. 

usually these two releases go for (in terms of coins of money) well north of what i paid for them collectively on an individual basis. the Under Pressure single, for instance, is one that i did not ever see for less than £10 anywhere, just before i was able to procure it for south of £1. happy days, and win all around, then. 

right, let me get on with some other stuff. also, browse for more of what one might, if they were inclined or of a mind to do so, consider to be Bowie bargains. they exist, they are out there somewhere. 

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