not seeing the fire for the smoke

hello there

indeed this is (yet) another post on the subject of cigarettes. as would be the standard, or perhaps expected, for such a disclaimer that smoking (cigarettes) is, on balance, quite bad for you and you should either not start the habit or otherwise seek assistance in quitting. well, that or cut down. so no, this is not an endorsement of smoking, no matter how much i enjoy it, look you see. rather, or if you prefer instead, this is some "filling in the blanks" on a recent news article. 

them over at the BBC have gone done an article they claim is "in depth" on the problem, or if you will "scourge", of illicit (or bootleg, counterfeit, illegal, what have you) cigarettes being sold in the UK. yes, indeed i do have the link, you are most welcome to click here to go and read it. being fair they do feature a lot of precise information, yet they fail to join the dots. that or they are too afraid, or are simply not allowed, to state the obvious issue. 

above is an image to illustrate what they neglect to point out, no matter how obvious it is. that's three standard cartons (or sleeves) of 10 (ten) packs of cigarettes. each pack has twenty in it, so that 20 x 10 x 3 which comes in at 600 cigarettes. i procured these off of what i would like to call an independent retailer, one who(m) i consider myself to have a good working relationship with. had i walked into a so called "proper" shop and used the same money to purchase government approved (as in taxed) ones then i would only have been able to purchase 1 (one) of these cartons. 

yes, i get it. a "sin tax" is applied on cigarettes, under the pretence of "encouraging people to quit for economic reasons" but done because they can get away with it. most impressive has been their campaign to have people believe that "the world is only evil or bad because of cigarettes". over the last ten or so years, though, this "sin tax" has spiralled out of control. which is exactly why the more independent sale of cigarettes are soaring. 

quite a bit of maths (or "math" if American) is going to feature here to illustrate some points. let's look at this tax business first. going off of memory a packet of 20 cigarettes back in 1990 cost you around £2. think it was a bit less, but no matter. by 2015 this was up to £5.50. this £3.50 increase over 25 years works out at more or less a 14p per year (or per annum) increase, so a packet in the shops here in 2025 should, with that admittedly gung ho economies of scale applied, cost around £6.90. round that up to £7 if you like, or even £8. doesn't matter, for the actual cost here and now is well north of £15. 

every year i purchase but one (1) packet of "legal" cigarettes. this is a pack of Marlboro Red, and done so on my birthday so as to honour Gran, who would get me such each year. yes, probably silly, but i am certain your family has something that would seem just as odd. anyway, on this instance a packet of Marlboro Red cost me £16.45. illustrated above is that i can with ease get two packets and have some change for the precise same money. 

with a warning that the next picture you shall see (unless you scroll fast) is a selfie, here's a breakdown of the cost of a packet of Marlboro in the UK right now. surprisingly the actual taxes and what have you were well hidden, but i found the information. some "reverse engineering" was required and i did indeed make use of a calculator. so, if you go to a "regular" shop and buy a pack, here's that breakdown.

actual retail price £5.40

16.5% sin tax on retail price £1.07

SUB TOTAL £6.47

another sin tax added £6.69

VAT £3.29

Sale Price £16.45

take the VAT out if you like, which is a given on any "legally" purchased item, and still the random application of taxes triples the price. so far as i can tell this peculiar £6.69 one is the one that has cropped up over the last ten years and really ramped up the price. 

but yet they seem "surprised" that smokers are seeking alternative cigarettes, with prices on the independent market usually being around £5. if you get lucky you can find slightly cheaper, and as you may have worked out these Eastern European Marlboro cost a bit more. that someone can get them smuggled in here and still make a profit at that price is most impressive. 

from what i can ascertain our succession of beloved governments spectacularly failed to factor in the idea that people might turn to the "black market" (if it still gets called that) rather than simply quit smoking or, as they would have preferred, paid the ever higher prices. apparently, going on that article, they are going to throw £100 million at "tackling" this "illegal" cigarette market. good luck with that. 

bit more mathematics for you above. a very good friend kindly purchased a packet of Benson & Hedges for me, which was a lovely gift. the cost of them is £18. why they cost more than Marlboro i know not, but anyway. above is the three (3) packets of Manchester i can get for that, plus change. 

certainly i am aware that my purchase of these independently distributed cigarettes is likely "funding terrorism" or crime syndicates. up to now i have heard that the money off of these goes to institutions such as Chinese Triads (a new addition to the list), Hamas (or whatever), Al Qaeda (if they exist), the IRA (provisional or real, same difference) and funding the Russian war effort. does this bother me? yes, but not enough to stop. i am not preventing more acceptable "rivals", such as Ukraine or who(m)ever it is Hamas is angry with, flooding the market with their own cheap cigarettes. also i am not stopping our government from, you know, reducing the taxes which have inspired the proliferation of the more independently sold ones. 

mild humour exists in the warning that these "independent" cigarettes might or could have harmful things in them like asbestos, rat droppings, human waste, unspecified chemicals and what have you. oh right. so does that mean the heavily taxed cigarettes are in some what healthier and more better for you?if so, why is there such a significant sin tax on them?

no government, of course, is going to reduce tax on cigarettes. back in the Brexit vote thing if they could have got away with it all they needed do was say "we shall reduce the price of cigarettes to that of other EU countries like Spain and Greece" and they would easily have bought enough votes to get what they wanted. so far as i am aware not even that Farage bloke has suggested he would stop either victimising or exploiting smokers. hey ho, so long as the criminal or underground network somehow manages to evade whatever the government wastes money on trying to stop them i should be all right.

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

trying to throw your arms around the world

howdy pop pickers

blimey. forty years ago today, then. well, 40 years ago at the time this got published, look you see. quite likely a lot further (or longer) back in time (or history) when you read this. oh, as for "what", i mean Live Aid, which i feel an unusual respectful need to use actual, proper capital letters for the name of. 

just what is it i am going to write (yes, poorly, no doubt) about? mostly memories of the day. these will, of course, all be informed by what has happened since. if you are looking for an accurate or exhaustive history of the day, i would suggest this is not that. simply the tale of a, what, 12 year old boy quite impressed that it seemed everyone in the world was just watching bands play music for a day. 

forgive, if you will, any "historical accuracies" or such. again, this is an attempt at capturing memories, yes possibly before they slip away from the maze of my mind forever. 

and the lesson today is how to die

maybe just a little history, then. according to the legend, Bob Geldof was so emotionally distraught at the news footage of the famine in Ethiopia that he put a jar in his kitchen, insisting anyone who visited him donate to charity to help. his aim was (if i recall right) to raise £50 (more than you might think in terms of 1984) and was surprised at just how fast he hit that target. surprised and inspired to do more, which of course he did with his mate Midge Ure in terms of a song, and then going full tilt global with the idea of Live Aid. 

you are welcome to dismiss this as sentimental, hyperbole or what have you, but change in the world really, really can (and often does) start with one person. anyone doubting this, i give you Mr Geldof. 

what a f*****g start

sure, ok, the actual first "act" as such was a (i believe royal) brass band playing. but the bit what everyone remembers is the inspired decision to kick it all off with Status Quo doing Rockin All Over The World. 

could have backfired, i suppose. at some point someone will have gone "isn't that going to be a bit naff or obvious" or even "cringe" before the word got used to describe anything remotely embarrassing. no, it was absolutely perfect. remembering this was a time when music stars were if not strictly speaking aloof in a negative way they were "mysterious", distant and not in the public eye all the time, as it so often feels they are now. Quo kind of bucked that, as they always appeared open, down to earth, would make time for absolutely anyone and, most importantly, were dedicated to everyone having a good time all the time. we were tuned in for something important and serious, but they said we were all going to have fun whilst doing something. 

my then favourites were on surprisingly early

i got to spend a good deal of that afternoon not watching Live Aid, as it happens, since they were kind enough to put a lot of my "top vibes" on at the start. without looking it all up i seem to recall that The Style Council and Adam Ant were the first ones on. think it was around the time Paul Young decided to open with Do They Know Its Christmas that i opted to take my bike out and see mates. it just felt wrong watching him do it not so much in July but without the other artists. 

quite a lot has been said of Adam Ant and Live Aid, probably a post here or there from me on the subject. he did seem to get quite hard done by, as it was his time they cut away at when more and more artists joined the bill. exactly what happened is unconfirmed, but he has spoken of his regret at "doing what Bob told him to" which was just his latest single rather than a classic hit. as much as he is loved, cherished and admired to this day, it was that Live Aid marked his last day as a true a-list star. 

snowman melting from the inside

to state the obvious Live Aid was "global", with the main concerts being London (innit) and Philadelphia. something forgotten is other countries also held gigs. due to the joys of time difference the one in Australia, featuring someone (remember this was 1985) called INXS, happened "the day before" in proper time. 

yet a surprise came in the middle of the day. we got shown footage of a band called Autograph (me neither) playing live from the Soviet Union. huh. this was all very much "business end" of the cold war, and we were all taught things like rock and pop were "banned" there, and that those in power blocked or manipulated world news to give it a pro-communist slant. it turned out that the Russians were just normal, actual people not too different from us, then. amazing how media, news and leaders can blind you from reality. 

actually, it was excellent

never in my days did i think i would ever write a defence of Phil f*****g Collins, yet here i am doing precisely that. sentiment or age has got the better of me, maybe. 

of all the Live Aid "things", time and revisionism has not been kind to this one. for those unaware, Phil, who was easily at least one of the biggest stars of 1985, decided he was going to play the same song at both of the major Live Aid gigs, playing early at Wembley and then taking Concorde over the Atlantic to play in Philadelphia. as an aside he also played with Sting at Wembley and an in all but name reformed Led Zeppelin in Philadelphia. 

people have since dismissed this as a prime example of all wrong with 80s excess, that such a move was callous, self-centred and entirely inappropriate when the day was supposed to be helping the poor. well, i am telling you now, such a retrospective view is (and i am no fan of his) utter bullsh!t. it was an excellent, amazing thing to do. now that i think, between this, No Jacket Required and the extraordinary Invisible Touch album off of Genesis, i really miss this Phil Collins. 

ascendency 

it would, i imagine (or assume), be difficult for anyone post 1987, or 1988, to think of U2 as anything but a huge, massive group. they really weren't in 1985. they had managed a couple of hits, in particular Pride which is on the Now That's What I Call Music 4 tapes i love so much, but were not, say, Duran Duran, Wham or Frankie Goes To Hollywood big. hence them being "shoved on" early in the afternoon, and hence me being quite surprised to see U2 flags in the crowd. 

getting all carried away would be to say that here, at Live Aid, is where U2 "started" their path to becoming (arguably) the biggest band in the world, but it certainly feels like it was a huge step in that direction. with the day being all catchy pop songs and limited time it was certainly a bold move for them to unleash Bad on a (fairly) global audience, what with the song clocking in at north of six minutes. from what i remember Dad bought the album (on record, or vinyl if you prefer the term) The Unforgettable Fire not long after Live Aid. it was not the usual sort of tape he would get. 

safe to say that the U2 set was one of the "most" iconic moments, in particular of course Bono jumping into the crowd and the lengthy hug he gave a lady, to the confusion (and frustration) of the rest of the band. perhaps it was all of this, their involvement in Band Aid and then Live Aid, that gave them the confidence and courage to bear their souls and give everything they had to The Joshua Tree. after that album, yes, the rest is indeed an ongoing history. speaking of iconic.......

crowning glory 

describing any gig as "the greatest in history" is a bit misleading. who decides that, with what criteria and how many concerts had they been to so as to declare such a thing. that said, the 20 or so minute set what Queen did at Live Aid regularly gets described as "the best ever", and if we are honest it is actually really f*****g difficult to immediately suggest one that tops it. 

this was a performance no one saw coming, it really did feel like it came out of f*****g nowhere. of course Queen were great, but there was a sense they were "past it" and no longer headliner stuff. that's why, perhaps, they were shoved on early evening, before the "big" acts. 

on instances when i consider the life i have had the Queen performance comes to mind. for some reason all of us - me, Mum, Dad, Richard and Gillian - were all watching it together. we certainly hadn't watched all of the day together, i think mostly i watched on a portable tele in my room. probably around tea time, or dinner time (if posh), likely we were all waiting for The Who. i can vividly remember all of us being spellbound (or whatever) by the performance. every now and then i glanced at Dad and saw how much he was loving it. that twenty or so minutes shall forever be a "happy place" for me. should i ever end up in a coma (more likely than i would like to think) or in some vegetable state, then i can only hope my mind takes me there, leaving me to reside in that memory until i expire. or come out of it. 

it's only rock and roll

certain bits of Live Aid became famous for perhaps not the best of reasons. for a start you don't find the performance of A View To A Kill on the official videos (discs) box set with good reason, for Duran Duran kindly requested it be dropped. one of the biggest selling points for the gig was The Who agreeing to perform at it. 

unfortunately if you were not at Wembley you didn't get to see a significant chunk of this highly anticipated performance. i can remember us all sat in the lounge watching it, watch the band start and then watched as the picture on the tele froze, just before cutting away to an apology for some technical issues. a generator or something had blown, apparently. 

when coverage resumed it turned out they were doing songs that, at the time, i wasn't really familiar with. at that stage all i knew of them was Tommy, and even then the Ken Russell film of it what Mum and Dad had taped (on actual video) and thought was quite class to let us kids watch. so, no, then, i likely did not appreciate this as much as i should have. 

in regards of the other reunion, i would suggest that i had no idea who or what a Led Zeppelin was at this stage of 1985. might have had some vague idea that a version of one of their songs was used as the theme for Top Of The Pops for a bit, but that would be it. don't think i even watched any of their set from Philadelphia, sorry. 

do i really even like this David Bowie bloke?

at this stage my devotion to Bowie was (very much) in its infancy. i shall not link yet again, but scattered all over this blog are tales of the Tonight tape i "borrowed" out of Dad's car (yes, still have it right here with me) and i liked what i heard. well, Blue Jean and Loving The Alien. so yes, i was fairly excited about seeing him live at Live Aid. 

perhaps anticipating the sense of entitlement more commonly associated with this century i eagerly anticipated his performance, reasonably expecting Blue Jean at the least, possibly Loving The Alien too. well, they were his most recent singles. instead we (i?) got "heroes", which i was aware of, Modern Love, which had the least interesting video off of the Let's Dance album and, i think TVC something that i had never heard of. oh. 

for a "not to be" moment, the original idea was for Bowie and Jagger to do Dancing In The Street as a live duet. alas, they tested it, and the broadcast technology at the time meant the delay between London and Philadelphia was so significant it was just not possible. wonder if our "lightning fast" communication technology of today would allow for such a thing, you would think so. no matter, and for those interested, Dancing In The Street was class, and yes i have indeed previously taken to task some harsh criticism of it. 

the American version

got quite bored of it really, then tired. from what i remember i was asleep before most of the favourites i had hoped to seen had played, and i hadn't thought to set a video off recording it. 

coverage of the American Live Aid in the UK was really bad. it had that gaudy, faded colour to it and the sound wasn't so good. just as well they didn't try that Atlantic duet, then. i think i can sort of remember at least seeing Phil Collins, and also have a vague memory of being disappointed that Madonna didn't do any of what i considered to be her "hits". 

end of the London set

it more or less finished on time, nearly everything went as planned and the finale performance was one of those great moments. no, despite rumours and mythology , there was no "Beatles" reunion, Ringo and George did not "sneak on" to join Paul at the end. nice to think that they would have, if anyone had thought to suggest it before the gig. 

could this ever happen again?

a question to which the obvious (or immediate) answer is "no" but actually i think "yes". no matter what i think of the sorry state of modern music there are still some huge, major acts out there, and in terms of popularity or audience reach reasonably on a par with what there was in 1985. mostly it's a shame that, 40 years on, there are likely causes that would need this kind of thing. is this the world we created, indeed. 

doubtful that many causes would have the general (it was not overwhelming, with some American acts in particular kicking off against it all) support Live Aid did. we live in a decidedly divisive world, and as the fiasco around the 40th anniversary of Band Aid showed, there are certain acts that will be critical of anything (charity or otherwise) if it helps promote them instead. whereas one would hope there is never, ever another incident like it again, in the modern world it would be that Manchester concert which was closest in spirit, community and giving to what Live Aid was. 

ultimately, or in the end, the only thing to remember is something Mr Geldof said. i don't recall the exact words, but it was along the lines of if you participated that day, if you contributed whatever you could, then someone got to live as a result of that. just because you can't throw your arms around the world doesn't mean you shouldn't try. 

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

just why

greetings

unfortunately yes, then, this post is a return to the somewhat murky and often unpleasant world which is of lynx deodorant. or axe, depending on where you are in the world. possibly not deodorant but rather fragrance, look you see, for they appear to have dropped that word off of the branding. it may, however, please you to know that no, this is post has nothing at all to do with their utterly bonkers decision to make some sort of spray specifically (if not explicitly) for ones private parts. perhaps if we all just ignore that one then it shall go away. 

instead, then, this is quite the moan and (or) groan about an old favourite of theirs which, for some reason, they have opted to rebrand. generally yes, i am of an age where "if it isn't broken don't fix it" appears to be quality guidance. that said, if you must change something, then be entirely sure, if not certain, that you are totes doing it for the better. not sure they have gone done that. 

yes, as in no, you are not wrong. they have indeed gone right ahead and changed the branding for gold, the one really, really no questions asked decent "fragrance" (or whatever) that they made. i have little doubt that some "branding executive" got paid a (large) six figure some to conjure up this hideous new look and goodness knows how much more was spent producing it. at least, as a small mercy, it still smells the same, just now looks awful. exactly how "bad" were sales that they felt the need to do this to their own product to try and boost income? 

sadly i have met, or rather encountered, the sort of retarded neanderthal (i think that's the modern day politically correct terminology) this will appeal to. full well can i recall it. i was enjoying a cigarette in the designated smoking area outside a hotel (down in that there London) when i was joined, unsolicited by the way, by the single biggest d!ckhead or (if you prefer) bellend you could wish to see. he was smoking some lightweight cigarette, holding it between thumb and forefinger like he had presumably watched De Niro do in a snippet of GoodFellas, had patchy bum fluff red facial hear, wore a glitzy, gaudy baseball cap with "king" or "icon" or other such rubbish in shiny letters on it and had a couple of clearly cheap gold necklaces over his horrendous tracksuit. to complete the look he appeared to be forever fidgeting, which i took as a side effect of the microscopic elements of cocaine in his heavily stepped on baby power. also produced so much phlegm it is a miracle (or pity) he had not drowned himself. this momentary presence was almost enough to make me (at least) consider quitting smoking so as not to be associated with such trash, yet this is exactly what sort this new branding of lynx gold appears to be the target market for. 

of course i am still going to use this product because, as mentioned and as a mercy, it still smells good, with it being just about the only one of theirs that is not overtly all musk. no, hang on, now i look properly it does still say deodorant on the tin, just quote small at the bottom. this, of course, i shall have to reconsider if i encounter an further dregs of humanity like the one described, only starting to carry a familiar scent to them. 

there are indeed a lot more important things (and all that) going on in the world that outweigh my plight in just wishing for some normal (smelling and looking) deodorant. i have, however, always taken it as a given that anyone reading this was, like me writing it, looking for a brief break from it all. 

VAGUELY INTERESTING UPDATE

no sooner (well a bit later) had i gone done writing this and i walked into a shop to find the "classic" design cans being sold. and you know what, now that i look at them, they're not all that much better than the new look, i suppose. still, way better. 

economics fans may be interested in this bit. these cans, the 150ml (whatever that means) variation, were priced (presumably to clear) at £1.95. at the same time the "new style" 250ml cans were on offer at a coin cost of £8 for 4. as you can see (my most recent koala purchase for scale) i purchased 8 cans of the £1.95. ones. let me get the calculator out. for £15.60 i got 1,200ml of lynx gold (in comparatively proper looking tins) instead of paying £16 for "just" 1,000ml. quite the case of less is more. 

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

quite hasty praise

hello there

not so long ago i got, well, if not all excited then a bit carried away believing that them what do the apple stuff (technology, not fruit, look you see) actually deserved some credit. this was in relation to an early model of the ipod, details of which can be found via clicking here, which remained armed and fully operational after several years of being laid dormant. fear not, for this is no tale of overt woe, as the device still works. it is just, of course, that at heart (or essentially) apple does wish it were french. 

having grown somewhat tired of the existing vibes on the device when i fired it up (see that link for the music what i had on it) i decided to change a few songs. my plan was to just take out one or two songs and replace them. in terms of replacement music the kind of vague idea (or intention) was to simply use some of the songs what i had bought off of itunes, since they were mine (in theory) to do what i wished with. 

my first step into what i (foolishly) assumed would be a world of quickly changing a few songs on the ipod was to remove one or two already on it. yes, indeed, If I Can Dream off of The King, Elvis Presley had been selected for such, as i remain at a loss to explain why on earth i ever added it. did this go well at all? not really, not really, no. 

no matter what i right clicked, left clicked, double clicked or highlighted it was simply not so that the apple software had any interest in letting me remove any tracks. i had authorised the pc, it was all logged in and what have you, but no. vaguely i could recall a reasonably similar scenario the last time i attempted to do this, having a sense that the only way the f*****g thing was going to allow me to change one or two songs was via doing a "factory reset" and thus changing all  the songs. great. 

for some reason i thought it would have been a good idea to show off the weight of this ipod in the previous post. i simply forgot to weight it, meaning (of course) no picture to add. this has been rectified with the above image, then. cannot think of who(m) this may be of interest to, but there you go. 

right, where was i. oh yes, the simple task of removing and adding songs. once the ipod had gone through the "restore factory settings" thing, which (to be fair) didn't take that long, off i went to my library on that itunes software. the intention was to download a few of my purchase and add them on. before it would let me download any of my purchased a thing flashed up (surprisingly in english, not sure at this stage why they don't put it all in french) saying i had to agree to the new "terms and conditions" before i could download them. not entirely unreasonable, except every time i clicked on the button to go and glance at them (momentarily) and just blindly click ok the whole f*****g thing just kept f*****g crashing. great. 

doubtful that to many of you shall be all that interested in what i have playing as i go out and about on strolls, or the occasional train ride (when the trains are running and not being french). on the off chance that one or two of you are interested, here you go. 

pretty decent mix, i oh so modestly say. mostly i am annoyed that i have momentarily "lost" some favourites from the Starstruck soundtrack. infamously this magnificent set of songs has never been released on compact disc or as a "digital download" (that i doubt apple would let me download anyway). i have no doubt that i have the mp3 files on a hard drive somewhere. just not sure where, exactly. 

to just sort of load the device (the ipod) up and get on with it "for now", all of these songs are mostly from purchases i made where the people paid have a decidedly non-apple (or if you like non-french) approach and let me download them again. beyond that it's songs which were on rather more easily accessible external drive things which took my fancy. will for the most part let the songs speak for themselves (if you can be bothered to read through them), except to say that Disintegrate off of Suede, played via this device sans audio limiter, just gets better and better the louder you play it. i very much encourage you to test this. 

otherwise, all remains (surprisingly) good with this quasi resurrected device. i did have concerns that the battery may have deteriorated over the years, which not even me at my most annoyed with them could i really blame on apple. not so, merrily, for it seems to be holding out just fine. i use this for at least thirty minutes to a whole hour (or close enough) each day. the battery test light has remained on green and i have had no need to charge it for a couple of weeks. unlike other apple things. 

well, that's that. unless there's some unexpected clamour (or similar demand) for me to share the details of any further changes i make to what's on it i am not sure there's all that much more i will have to say abut this ipod. things do change, mind. 

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

reading eventually returns

greetings reader

well after a somewhat unexpected pause in such it is so that me (moi) and reading is once again a thing. there are indeed reasons (or a reason, look you see) for the delay in posts on this subject, but i have every confidence i will be referencing that as i go. or we go, if you keep reading.

as would be (reasonably) usual, then, a look at the two (2) novels what i have most recently gone done read, followed by a "spoiler free" overview. from there on one of them rather exciting spoiler warning things should be considered as existing. but, as usual, i would imagine the overwhelming majority of people with an interest in either would already have read them, and there's not that many inclined to go read something on my suggestion. 

from the left (if i have got that right) it's a return to the world of a "proper" and real time tale of Charlie Parker in The Instruments Of Darkness by John Connolly. this one was mostly all right, which is a worrying thing to say when usually the are breathtakingly brilliant reads. and then it was on to what i believe (or think) is going to be the final posthumous novel from Michael Crichton (completed, it says here, by James Patterson), Eruption. not a bad novel, per se (if that means what i think), but one has the sense that the much missed Mr Crichton didn't get round to finishing it off with good reason. 

once again, for the dozen or so people who will read this (and my thanks for doing so), you are given every caution that a **SPOILER WARNING** is here for you to note or ignore. should for some reason you have an interest in my reading habits, indeed these two did skip merrily over a rather large pile of books what i have here to read. 

it would, following on from that last paragraph in a neat if somewhat unexpected bit of linear writing, be usual for me to go ahead and read any John Connolly novel as soon as i can after getting it. there was to be no exception for this one, The Instruments Of Darkness, although a delay did happen. yes, provenance fans, my place of purchase was Tesco, and from what i recall i didn't even wait for it to be "book of the week" or anything like that, paying a straight (or flat) £6 immediately to get my hands on it. 

plot? a lady is accused of murdering her son, despite no (to be blunt) corpse (or body) and somewhat scant evidence (more on that in a bit). her lawyer is entirely convinced of her innocence, and so enlists haunted (to put it mildly) private detective Charlie Parker to help him work the case to prove her innocence. doing so sets them against public opinion, a prosecutor and law enforcement agents set on getting her convicted for purely political reasons and an apparent malevolent force hiding in plain sight. unexpected help comes in the form of someone who shares Parker's gift or curse for having the troubled deceased communicate with them.......

hmn. my reading of this novel was, alas, interrupted for a bit due to that medical intervention where i suspected i might end up no more. i did indeed (for now) live, and was eventually able to resume reading this novel. not sure if that affected, or otherwise tempered, my reading of it. certainly i would have liked to read it without any unpleasant medical interlude, but there we go. 

his novel had all the key features of a classic Charlie Parker novel, just assembled in a way that was dangerously close to "colour by numbers". by no means is this any sort of insult, but at times it felt a bit too much like Connolly was trying to be "a bit Stephen King" with the structure. this i felt mostly when it all went off on a tangent with quite a lot of pages dedicated to a back story of a side (but important all the same) character, which is kind of what King does. undoubtedly Mr King was a profound influence on Mr Connolly, of course, for it cannot be accident he based the protagonist of so many of his novels in Maine. 

my main irk, or disappointment, with this novel was the flimsy, patently obviously false bit of evidence which was grounds to arrest the mother. appreciating something was needed to push the political agenda on the go in it (and move the plot along) it was so obviously misleading that it became a distraction. also there was Louis and Angel turning up towards the end purely, it seems, to shoot some people. that is what they do, after all, sure, but it felt like having them there was a "do i have to put them in" moment from the author, or a misguided idea of "fan service". still, a decent enough read, and nowhere near being close to a big massive "f*** you reader" from the author as, say, The Year Of The Locust turned out to be. 

above is an image i threw together on the off chance i search my own blog (doubtful but still) for something like "what John Connolly novel will be in paperback 2026". there was indeed a temptation to pick this hardback up, but rather let me wait. also that new Stephen King one looks quite class, and so will likely get that next year too. if, of course, i make it to 2026. such things i no longer take as a given. 

yet another immediate purchase next, then, in the form of Eruption off of the late (and great) Michael Crichton. happily, for provenance, this was one of them Tesco book of the week things, so cost £4.50. after the somewhat dark realms of John Connolly i fancied a change of pace, and so yes this skipped ahead of the dozen or so novels i have sat here to read. 

plot? scientists monitoring seismic (which i think is the fancy or posh way of saying volcanic) activity become aware that a big massive huge eruption is about to happen in Hawaii. this is rather bad in itself, but gets made a good deal worse when it turns out that the US military has something hidden on the island which will get hit the worst, and the consequences could be the end of life on a global level........

fairly standard, if (sadly) possibly for the last time, stuff off of Michael Crichton, then. by that i do indeed mean that this is mostly humans vs science vs technology vs nature. nearly all of his novels can be broken down as that, i suppose, except maybe Disclosure, which in retrospect brilliantly (and frighteningly) predicted just how much impact all that (at the time) new "anonymous electronic messaging" stuff would have on the world. one doesn't really need me to point out that Jurassic Park was his crowning glory in terms of this theme. no, alas, this isn't even close to that. 

the problem here, oddly, is that a volcano erupting being at the centre of a plot is quite dull. no, hear me out. it doesn't give much of a sense of tension or drama, does it? what else can you do with a volcanic eruption except get the f*** out of the way of the lava and try to keep the lava away from things that it would be quite bad if it hit. running away from lava holds only a finite amount of interest and can only be done a finite time. proof of this was them two "big budget" films, i think late 90s or early 00s, on a similar subject which didn't make as much money as hoped. 

yet it's not a bad read at all, really. whilst not as riveting or exciting as one may have hoped, there's still a fair bit going on. scientists vs eccentric billionaire and annoying tv personalities, for instance, was enjoyable enough. also the bits when some went "woo hoo, volcano erupting, let us fly over it, what could go wrong". in regards of how it all ends, and you were given a spoiler warning, well, Michael Crichton was always rather fond of that "nature finds a way" line......

both of these novels have (or had) what i call the "100 page syndrome". it's that feeling one gets when there seems to be a fair bit to cover (or wrap up) yet only a hundred or so pages of the novel remain. you fear that it will either be a "to be continued...." thing, which i always feel like short changes readers (there is no law on how long a novel may be), or it's all going to get finished off in a hurry. with both novels it was more in the area of the latter. again, though, i would not say i regret reading either. 

well, as ever (or usual) with posts like this i have not much else to add except to say if any of this was of some use, or passing interest, to any of you, so much the better. many thanks indeed for taking the time to read, or to just have a gander at the pictures. 

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

variations on the stone roses

who is and who isn't

yes, so once again it's the anniversary for me (and others) of seeing The Stone Roses at Heaton Park. way back in 2012, look you see. making it thirteen years on, at least at the time of writing this. if, and it's a slightly big if, i have the mathematics all correct there. 

long ago was it i had exhausted anything possible to say on the subject of the actual gig, of course, and within the last couple of years i had suggested that i would not be doing any more obligatory posts in celebration of it. so here we, of course, are. 

a slight change this time, as a chance encounter with a new friend (at the Holly Johnson gig) led to a conversation about the ostensible debut album off of The Stone Roses. yes, i have indeed got some (a few) of my copies of the eponymous record out (so to speak) to showcase, if not show off, here. 

to avoid being here all day (which assumes you haven't left already) i have kind of limited this to just copies of (effectively) the same album which are (somewhat) different. oh goodness me, yes, i have quite a few more of it tucked away. when Liam Gallagher said that he bought four (4) copies of the record because it was brilliant i thought nice one man, and also amateur. 

beginning at the (very) beginning seems wise, then. although i am told (no i haven't checked, i rather have conversations than just google stuff) that one of these is a sort of pre-beginning edition, if that is even a thing. so, here we are, The Stone Roses as a single disc release in three (3) variations. one of which is rather bad.........

well, yes, strictly speaking there are four (4) copies there, with the (a) vinyl edition being used as an impromptu backdrop. indeed there are some that will argue the "only way" one should play this album, or any, is in record format (not all records are made of vinyl, but i don't have that much of an issue with people calling records vinyls). this is probably true if (like Jimmy Page, one of the most vocal for this view) you have staggering high end (and expensive) equipment, not the players you can get off of the shelves. failing that (assuming you don't have Mr Page's resources) a decent brand CD player and some quality speakers will deliver optimal sound, thanks. no, also i did not dig out my "special edition" DVD of the album, sorry. 

purely and in its simplistic brilliance it is the original, as intended 11 (eleven) track version of the album where the astonishing genius of it all is. the modern world may not understand this, but once it was so that careful consideration and planning went into the running order of songs on an album. now of course it is (alas) so that they all just get shot out (or "dropped") on streaming services in whatever order you like, chances are it will all just be in a "shuffle mix" or what have you anyway. 

if you noticed that (in the pic before the one directly above) the lettering seemed "darker" on one of the copies of it (the bottom one), well, that's the American edition. quite the monstrosity it is, too, with it featuring thirteen tracks. someone down the record label decided that shoving Elephant Stone in between She Bangs The Drums and Waterfall was a good idea, when it isn't. totes breaks the vibe created, man. also having Fools Gold at the end disrupts the magnificent coda of I Am The Resurrection, being the symbolic, significant and revelatory bookend to the opening, I Wanna Be Adored. 

more specific to the image (directly) above (well above the paragraph prior to this) you will note that one of the copies has a white back. spine too, as the pic below will show. at first i assumed this was some homemade bootleg, or pirate, when i saw it down the market. yet i felt compelled to purchase it anyway, "just in case". i threw images of it out onto the internet to see if any fellow acolytes had ever seen this. what came back to me was news that this was not rare as such, but still a quite nifty find, as it was (is) a "pre-release" version of it, whatever that means. nice that it lists the band and what they do, but i am reasonably sure i have seen "standard" versions with the same on. i probably do have one like that in a box somewhere. 

for the conversation about the album which (vaguely) suggested this article, well. we were all in a pub prior to the Holly Johnson gig and were, of course, discussing music. vibes, man. someone mentioned that they didn't particularly care for The Stone Roses. when it was (not by me) pointed out that i was quite the fan, it went very the English way of doing things, with profuse (and entirely unnecessary) apologies being offered and a pledge to go and play the album again. to be fair one of the dearest friends that i have ever had (doubt he reads this, but on the off chance, hello Ro) dismissed them at the time as being "tree hugging hippie crap" before such a term was popular, and i doubt his view has changed. 

on, then, to the "special edition" releases of the album. surprisingly there has only been (up to now) just the two (2) such reissues of this, with them being the 10th anniversary edition and the 20th anniversary edition. i was surprised (and disappointed) that 2019 brought no 30th anniversary edition, but by then i think they thought people would not buy more copies (ahem) and besides the fall out from the most recent of splits around then probably put paid to any conversations about it. 

rather likely that my "favourite" copy is the 10th anniversary edition of The Stone Roses. in the picture above that's the one at the top, resplendent with a Squire style paint splattered Reni hat. you get the proper version (as in 11 tracks) of the album on disc one, and on disc two you get a few extras (which were mostly if not all on Turns Into Stone) and some "enhanced CD elements". basically videos that you could play on a computer, back when computers still had CD and/or DVD drives. you just needed a CD drive to access this. 

some would argue that the definitive, perfect, best (or what have you) release, at least as far as this format is concerned, is the 2019 20th anniversary edition. this, it is claimed, is the only release where the album has been "properly mastered for compact disc", whatever that (exactly) means. well, kind of. rather famously all of the band were invited to the "remastering", but only Ian Brown turned up. so, if anything, it sounds "like it should on compact disc for the first time" according to Ian Brown. in the booklet you get some class stories from Ian and Mani, with Reni chipping in an odd, abstract thing that either makes sense to someone in particular or no one at all. sadly, alas, John Squire gave no input.

certainly the 2009 edition of the album sounds really good, but then all copies of it do to my ears. the trick is, of course, to make sure you play it at the correct volume. what irks me about this edition is, as you can see above, they go and shove Fools Gold on the end of the album again. quite a shame, they could have just put it on the second disc which features a whole load of supposedly "lost" (yet had been freely available on the internet for years) demos. ahead of writing this i did indeed play the demos again. sound quality is smart, and it's sort of interesting to hear the songs with a more "flowery tree hugging hippie" feel to them. 

a further thing on the 2009 set is a DVD (so far as i am aware they have not ventured into blu ray video) which contains (yet again) the celebrated Blackpool Live film. you get the era related promo videos too, but if we are entirely honest only Fools Gold and One Love are "proper" ones that stand up. yes, the one for Waterfall is quite class, but it's just a compilation off of Blackpool Live. 

oh. now that i have gone done dug it out, wouldn't you know the DVD what comes with The Stone Roses as a 20th anniversary set (which is also called the "Legacy Edition") is just disc one off of the previously mentioned DVD. somehow i had forgotten it was a two (2) disc set. 

my memory was somewhat off, then, as i thought this DVD had one of them fancy DVD audio versions of the actual album on it. rather like the Definitely Maybe DVD off of Oasis, and yes, something on them in a little while. still, this set (albeit second hand) seems to go really cheap online these days. totes worth it for disc two alone. on it you get most of the "Complete Stone Roses" video (minus the hideous voiceover that had), including the celebrated "amateurs, amateurs" performance of Made Of Stone. 

my stereo of choice is a quite decent, mid if not top range Sony "ghetto blaster", resplendent with a tape deck as well as CD player. just the standard FM/AM(MW) radio, mind, as it was made all before this new fangled "DAB" was the norm. if you are wondering what the point of this declaration is it's purely to clarify how i judge "sound quality". by no means does this allow me to differentiate between the variations that much, but to be fair the 2009 copy does seems to have marginally better, or crisp (hello, Faye) sound in comparison. 

you can, as a kind of (quasi) early conclusion, indeed purchase a "bad" copy of The Stone Roses off of The Stone Roses. as exceptional as the song is, the versions (or variations) which tag Fools Gold on the end simply distract from the overall, overwhelming experience of the record as was intended. but no, generally if not strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a poor experience of the album. go and get as many copies of it as you can if you wish to live my kind of life. 

no idea at all why, exactly, they have ceased to "milk" this album. just because (so far as is known) every recording from the time has been released doesn't mean they can't package it and send it out to the shops (or more like online things) again. assuming my dream release, Christmas With The Stone Roses By The Stone Roses (if Bob Dylan and Barbra Streisand can do Christmas records so can they) is now never ever going to happen then i would like at least one (1) more "greatest hits" or "best of set", if just to get Beautiful Thing on CD. yes, i have the limited edition vinyl and two purchased (!) downloads, but still, would be nice to have a disc of it. they hoyed a (one track) CD single of All For One out. 

what of Second Coming? of the many copies i have of it (but not as many as this one) there's only three differences, and even then not much. on top of the standard release i have a "limited edition numbered tour edition" off of Australia, which is literally a slipcase (numbered) over the release, and then a two disc set what came with Crimson Tonight, a four (4) track live EP, showcasing not the best four songs off of the Second Coming album. doubtful any "special editions" of that album will ever come out, i suspect. beyond a general lack of interest in the record (fairly or not) any "unused" recordings most probably got recycled by Squire for The Seahorses (infamously an anagram of "he hates roses"), and then Ian Brown took Can't See Me with him for his solo career. 

right, that's very much "it" for The Stone Roses in this post. well, kind of. something related to it is a bit of a related post i gone done years ago, and a fairly easy to guess at resurgence in interest in it. 

briefly i did wonder why a post i did on a guide to Heaton Park from 13 (or so) years ago was all of a sudden getting 200 - 300 hits a day, and then i remembered. oh, yes, that's right, Oasis are playing there. well, if people are pirating (or linking) to whatever i put on that post, nice one, hope it helps. 

i am indeed not going to be at any of the imminent Oasis shows, a reunion which always seemed best described as inevitable when The Stone Roses was felt to be improbable. cost of tickets and the ludicrous costs of getting to and from the gigs or staying overnight ruled it out. there was a temptation to write a "humorous" yet ultimately cynical thing about all of this, not unlike my post concerning the frustrations i and several million others had about trying to get tickets. you know what, though, i would rather express the sincere wish that the overwhelming majority get beyond their wildest hopes from it all; that they are left with an impact and memories akin to mine of The Stone Roses at Heaton Park. 

who is and who isn't, who is and who isn't

you know you're chewing bubble gum, you know what it is but you still want some

hello there

well, this is slightly unexpected. i did not think i would ever feel compelled to write about the subject of toothpaste ever again, look you see. quite a few years have passed since the dark days of being involved with the murky (if not seedy) underworld of smuggling toothpaste what had love beads rammed into it for no given reason. yet here i am, or but here we are. 

mostly this stems from me wishing to get a modest size tube of toothpaste for my recent travels to go and see Holly Johnson. it seemed a bit ridiculous to take a "regular" size tube with me for one night, even if in this ludicrous century it is so that toothpaste has become the main victim of "shrinkonomics". off i went shopping to see if i could find one of them quite small packs, meant for people intent on travelling as lightly as possible. no luck, alas. surprising, really as since we are in "summer", or at the least a time when people are off on holiday, i had assumed the usual shops where one gets such things would have them out (so to speak) for sale. won't be surprise if they only appear for sale around October or so, and then at a "reduced to clear" price. 

that there above is the only tube of toothpaste what i could find that i deemed small. well, not, not the only one. beside this "peaches and cream" flavoured one they also had a lime one. neither, to be honest, seemed like good ideas for a toothpaste flavour, but this appeared to be the lesser evil. oddly, going on how many packets (or boxes, or tubes) of each remained on the shelf, the lime one appears the more popular. just who is it that brushes their teeth on a frequent (or regular) basis and has been saying that they wished the experience was more lime? well, the marketing types heard them. 

provenance of this peaches and cream toothpaste? after trying a number of shops more renowned for stocking medical and/or health stuff, it was Poundland where i found this. yes, indeed it was one of the items which they still sell for, as the name of the business suggests and used to confirm, £1. whilst this tube was somewhat bigger than the "travel" one i wanted it's entirely possible it was cheaper than what i would have likely paid for that which i sought, so there is that. 

above is my trusty and now (exceptionally) well travelled Bowie bag. i bought it a few years ago when there was the rare instance of a "sale" on the official Bowie website, which meant prices of items were slightly reduced to be closer to the real world cost of items, rather than what Iman (or whoever) thinks they are. quite a few of my friends (i don't have too many) were surprised when i went with this one, resplendent with a "Japanese" style, expecting me to go for a more well known, or if you like classical, design. this one just "spoke to me", and to be fair it has won many over. also i have had conversations with people about it, as people observing me wandering around find it quite striking. striking enough, at the least, to have speaks with me. 

of the many class qualities this bag has, and yes i appreciate it seems i am side-tracked from toothpaste but hold on for it will all make sense (kind of), size and space is not, alas, one of them. when it landed my immediate thought was that it was somewhat smaller than i had hoped. doesn't even have pouches or pockets on the sides. decent "kangaroo" pouch (with zip) at the front, though. my dedication to using it does have a price, then, and that cost is having to be very selective about what i take with me in it on my travels here and there. hence me looking for a small tube of toothpaste. 

it actually took me a lot longer than you might think (or reasonably expect) to confirm that this peaches and cream flavoured toothpaste was even toothpaste. not sure if you can see in the first picture, but the front of this tube makes no reference to it being such at all. on the back it does, in quite small print, but don't strain to look as it's unlikely you can make that out in VHS mode. you shall just have to chance it here, take a little risk and trust me. curious that they should hide this.

so how was it? as in (or i mean) using the toothpaste? well, it got the job done, which is all i really expected. very foamy for a toothpaste, if i am honest. also the taste was, pretty much as i had anticipated, something that created the sense of brushing your teeth with gum, be it bubble or chewing in nature. unusual, but not all that bad. as i am both cheap and not keen on waste i suppose i will end up using all of this, mostly to get rid of it as throwing it out feels just wrong. 

did the best i could to get a picture of the peaches and cream toothpaste "on the brush", so to speak, and that's what you have an image of there. i took it as a given that no good could come from me attempting a selfie whilst using it, and i certainly was not going to go around the hotel asking anyone if they would like to come back to my room and take a picture of me brushing my teeth. 

risking sounding like my Dad and his fetish for the love bead loaded toothpaste i am rather surprise and certainly disappointed that spearmint flavoured toothpaste appears no longer to exist. normally, or usually, i would just get "whatever" toothpaste as a preference, usually just the cheapest of the known named brands. of late i have had a weird inkling to use a spearmint one, yet cannot find such anywhere. maybe they have rebranded it and i missed out on hearing the new name. strange that somehow there exists a market for peaches and cream (and lime) toothpaste, yet none no more for spearmint. 

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