album of the year

howdy pop pickers

some of you might be in a bit of a rush, or what have you, so to clarify it is so that the title of this post pertains to the album autofiction off of suede. it is far better than any other released this year, look you see, and for the life of me i cannot see anything coming out for the remainder (or duration) of this year what will come close to it. full and true is it that i am well aware my declaration of what is the best or greatest of this (or any) year is of little consequence, but should one ask, there is the answer. 

right, then. i suppose a bit more detail to substantiate this claim, of varying value, may well be wanted by anyone prepared to read on, and thank you for doing so. there is, of course, every chance of me simply being biased as an unashamed suede fan. but then i am a proud fan precisely because they, inexplicably, keep releasing albums like this one. 

a slight history then. suede commenced, at least as a well known band, some thirty (30) years ago. they unleashed three albums which were an astonishing, breathtaking statement of intent, brandishing sexuality, indulgence, vice and assorted emotions as all which should be at the forefront of life. which got followed by two albums not quite so great, the band effectively ending, them coming back after a decade or a dozen years, and making incredible music. addictions, departures and many other last names have somehow not ever stopped suede from being suede. 

for what reason, or why, is this album so good? in essence there's not a single moment of a single song wasted, it is brilliant from start to finish and my inclination thus far has been to play it two or three times in a row, rather than listen once and move on to something different. and that's been happening for well over a week now, and is likely to continue. sure, oh yes, there are songs here which are "more better" than others, but there isn't a weak moment here, not a single "this will do to fill time" song. 

in interviews and what have you (well, interviews) the band have spoken of this being their "punk" album. not for me to argue or disagree with. certainly it is as some dramatics and theatrics have gone, this is the band (almost) alone, no fancy orchestrations or studio trickery. such didn't feature too much in all that many suede albums, but the one prior, the blue hour, yeah, i suppose so. without doubt an unexpected, and very welcome, turn is the predominance of some really heavy bass on a few of the songs. slightly out of character for the "suede sound", whatever that may be. at times the bass is so awe inspiring one could imagine Mani hearing and going "f*****g hell", in instances the bass is so downright dirty one could imagine, and oh if he were still here with us, Prince would blush. 

writers tend to write best when they write of what they know. coming off of a spell of autobiography typing, brett anderson sings of such writing. kind of. again, in interviews and things it is spoken of as to how this, he (and the band) feel this is their "most autobiographical" work yet, but autofiction as a title tells a story too, does it not. however much is truth absolute, or a truth any would prefer, really doesn't matter. this is a band playing and singing with an unmistakable, cannot quantify belief in the music. not unusual, but rare (in this or any other day) for it to come across so stark and so bold as one finds in this record. 

not sure what to write of select songs which wouldn't simply be an echo of comments the band have made themselves. and they have gone into a bit of a promo overdrive with this one, not that they were ever particularly aloof or inaccessible. the three songs most routinely spoken of (and i think they were issued as modern day equivalents of singles) are easily the most identifiable as brett autobiography or partial autofiction, which are she still leads me on, 15 again and that boy on the stage. each is as good a representative of the album as any, but then so are all the other songs. 

my struggle would be to name a clear favourite track. except maybe black ice, for reasons of bass outlined earlier. wow. also some lovely symbolism, or metaphors in the song. or you know, whatever the fancy term is for f*** that sounds good and makes sense. similar true of personality disorder about which brett has been suspiciously vague sounding about, except he is actually right when he says it doesn't matter what the words mean, it's how they sound and make you feel. 

should it be so that i were to list, or name, one "regret", then it is that what am i without you is on this album without its natural partner. go back a couple (or so) albums to bloodsports, which featured the incredible opener barriers. that song was a beautiful, inspired homage to just what it is to love and follow a band, a kneeling worship at the altar of what music can do for you. here is the natural bookend, or other side of that, which is the artist responding in kind. it may be a bit too melodramatic for some, but should i ever make a mixtape (disc) of suede, it will start with bloodsports and end with what am i without you. 

being mindful of the way music works in this modern world, i suppose anyone with an immediate interest in suede purchased this the week, if not the moment, it came out. this album warrants a braver and bolder fate than the disposable ways vibes are treated these days. quite simply autofiction has the markings, the sounds, the brilliance and sheer passion to stand as a classic. it is an album i shall play long beyond the calendar year in which it was released, it is an album i hope people will come to discover in tales of future legend. 

right, well, anyway, off i go to listen to it some more, then. never quite sure if i get across in words all proper how i feel about records like this one. i probably should have written "this record is f*****g amazing go listen to it" and left it at that. 

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

portsmouth telephone box

heya

blimey, already, then, we are in that final quarter of a year where the month takes a double digit numerical form. this is true, at the least, at the time of composition, look you see. should you be reading this in a month dignified numerically in (or of) a singular nature, apologies from the past to your present for any confusion caused. 

so, more observations from the place they call portsmouth. or where it is called portsmouth. actually there are several things i could write of from there, but mostly they concern the roads. specifically their peculiar, unexpected adaptations of standard traffic laws. those are things what i cannot illustrate though, as one is not permitted to take pictures as they drive. which would be a silly and dangerous thing to do. 

when walking around, though (or mind), one is relatively free to take pictures. i mean, yes, all actions have a consequence in some form or another. but i doubt any immediate distress, or concern, would have been caused by my documenting a telephone box ('phone booth' if for some reason american) that provided an impromptu canvass for one or two locals (i assume) to beautify. 

obviously it as the upper (top) aspects of art which attracted my attention. my that is one splendid stencil of Chuck Norris in what one could argue was his prime, being as it is clearly from his 80s days of cinema. sure, indeed and certainly many would suggest his finest work came later, when doing all that quite class Texas Ranger television show. but i prefer Delta Force and Code Of Silence, thanks. what a pity, though, that they couldn't spell 'Chuck' right, unless of course one spells it 'Chuk' down there. or maybe they believed they were evading copyright infringement issues by this slight change. 

i don't really have any wish (or intention) of doing regular sightings of things in portsmouth, but let us see the hand the dealer of live gives me. up to now, mindful of this post, i suppose it's not so bad doing one every now and then, if limited to even number months. 

for the other bit of graffiti, or "street art", if you will, no idea.i mean, no idea if it is connected to the above, or just random. actually, saw a few things with 'scud' added to them with paint, or some form of marker. going on memory, the "scud missile" was formidably popular as a subject of discussion during the first so-called gulf war. perhaps it was painted by an enthusiast of that military device who(m) is reluctant to progress to modern weapons, or maybe it is just a nickname for someone. neither know nor care, really. so, probably best to leave it as is. 

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

more reading

hello reader

and once again i commence a post of this nature with an observation of benefit to no one in particular. it really, or truly, does feel like my book related activities (reading) have fallen away of late. by of late i suppose i mean the last couple of years, look you see. whereas i retain if not maintain a passion for reading, just feels like life, or what have you, gets in the way. distractions, mostly. 

so yes, then, i have read some more novels. no, not just one, and nowhere near so many as three or more, just the two (2). as has become my custom to do here, here we go with a brief look at them, followed by whatever comments come to mind. 

before progressing, if you have not scrolled down yet, indeed that is my smart new bedding on display in the background. yes, it's 'baby yoda', or grogu for the pedantic. indeed i am quite close to one half of one century of age, but never stop liking what you like; dig what you dig. 

first, of course, a 'spoiler free' overview, as it were. starting in the order as they are above and of how i read them, The Nameless Ones by John Connolly is - and is not - the latest in the series of Charlie Parker, who no longer gets called Bird so much, novels. i had reluctant and limited expectations going into it, and yet it turned out to be quite excellent. my second choice of reading is the "much anticipated" third novel from Paula Hawkins, A Slow Fire Burning. whereas no, not of the huge, immediate impact on a reader that her debut novel had, it seems (or feels) certainly closer to it than her second, which in truth i cannot on the spot recall much of other than i read it. 

with that being pretty much all you would need to know of the books (both were good, very much so), next comes some abstract musings. do take caution if you were to wish to read either (or both), though, and you should consider one of them *** SPOILER WARNINGS *** in place. 

to begin where i did, and indeed where the picture commences, is to have a look at The Nameless Ones off of John Connolly. many of you would consider the provenance of my copy of any novel to be quite important. in this instance, for those in the UK the tell-tale, distinct £5 sticker gives every indication of both cost paid and that it was off of Morrisons. purchased on sight, it was. sure, i could have waited and probably got it for 50p less, or fewer, at Tesco, but see it, get it, bought it. 

plot? revenge. long time friends (guardians, really) of Charlie Parker, Louis and Angel, get quite cross when a trusted contact in Europe, along with his family, get(s) brutally slain, viciously so, by notorious Serbian ganglords. and so, with a suspiciously large amount of assistance from the authorities, off they go to extract the revenge they see fit. 

it has been an interesting, or curious, spell for us Charlie Parker fans. we are, and i dare speak for a majority, all keen to see how the usual protagonist's story progresses. and yet prior to this we had The Dirty South (or The Reckoning, which i believe it got called in some place) which was a prequel, and now a set in present day sort of "spin off". indeed Charlie does feature and is somewhat pivotal, but this is predominantly Louis taking the lead. leaving the disappointment aside, i read anyway, and was soon rewarded with a brilliant, yet dark (at times close to unbearably so) read. 

make no mistake, John Connolly has not lost any of his penchant for being brutal and upsetting with how he presents, well, how it is. one can imagine, if he indulges such, a stiff drink by his typewriter as the words to describe some sections needed to be typed. stating the obvious, routine and regular readers of his work will know to expect no softening, and yet here all seems to go darker still than before. that said, in persevering, one gets a really, really good, gripping and indeed exciting thriller. 

as something of an aside, there does appear to be quite a subtext on the go here. in describing the horrors of the Yugoslav war and subsequent rise of Serbia (and the Serbian criminal gangs), particular disdain features for how much of the rest of Europe simply shrugged and elected not to trouble themselves too much with what was happening. for some reason (i shall confess ignorance to the specifics of history) it is the Dutch who get singled out as, to be as brutal as Connolly, the "most guilty" in this regard. perhaps this is an obvious thing to draw attention to, how Europe tends to do this, but then also quite timely with the current events happening not so much on the doorstep as right in the hallway. 

from what i can make out the next novel, the name of which i keep forgetting, shall indeed return us to what is wanted, the ongoing tales of Charlie Parker. although these last two novels have been superb reads, bring it. so much so in terms of bring it on, i nearly bought the hardback of it a month or so ago, but relented, for i am happier reading a paperback, thanks.

going on to the next book, then, and that would be A Slow Fire Burning off of Paula Hawkins. to get the issue, or question, of provenance out the way, surprisingly WH Smiths. they had it at a straight "half price" offer, which they generously rounded down, making it available for £4.48. lovely. also, or as an aside, this is a 'Richard & Judy' exclusive edition, whatever that means. looking at the back, some sort of interview by them with the author, and looking at the front some comments off of them. i think they do some daytime show. 

the plot? for risk of needless spoilers i am reluctant to draw it down to a word or two. as short as i can, a young man is found murdered on one of them canal boat things. witnesses alert the constabulary to some potential suspects, with their reasons being (of course, this is a thriller mystery) somewhat shrouded. the novel progresses in telling of numerous interconnections, motivations and reasons for actions. yeah, which again is kind of describing how a novel works, isn't it. 

no, to be honest or upfront, it isn't quite so jaw-droppingly brilliant as The Girl On The Train. being fair, asking any author to top or equal that would would be something. still, it feels close to it in some ways, and certainly a more better, more involved read that the previous. whilst i "get" why this novel has the name it does, from about halfway through i could not but help thing Stolen Stories would have been a more direct, symbolic and perfect title for the work. oh, well. 

plausibility of probability mindful of the suspension of disbelief when reading fiction, then. indeed that is rather a convoluted statement, but a pretty straightforward measure. at no stage did anything i read here feel "outlandish", or contrived, and nowhere near preposterous. one who lives a life where they encounter others shall certainly sense familiar themes, if (hopefully) not actions. 

how do i, following on from the above, word this carefully? the "twists" which are somewhat obvious tend not to be disappointing when they are revealed, whereas the ones one (at least i) did or do not see coming are plausible (oh for a better word). overall, a highly engrossing, most excellent read. i do indeed look forward to her 4th novel. 

so, a bit of a lucky streak there, what with me reading two (2) books which did not disappoint. true, going into them with slightly lower expectations than what i would normally have possibly, or even potentially, assisted that. but, still, these books "jumped the queue" of the dozen or so i have at any one time sat ready to read. there was a level of enthusiasm for reading.

where next for my reading exploits? i have that one by that bloke who writes of the copper what sits in a pub to have a little think on any particular crime, usually ending with the culprit handing themselves in and confessing for no apparent reason. although the last couple of novels have seemed to be less and less (or fewer and fewer to use a popular word randomly) about the usual protagonist. from there, who knows, but i see a former president (of the america) has had another bash at co-writing (ahem) a novel, and the first one was surprisingly very good indeed. 

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

still on the trail of the thirteenth

hello there

well, a bit of a "throwback" to a post i did five or so years ago. perhaps more of an update, look you see. the idea, or notion, that a thirteenth episode of Fawlty Towers secretly exists is one that has always fascinated me, even if only on an "on and off" kind of way. oh yeah, the original post, looking at some of the best theories around it, is found by clicking here. 

a recent "find", or rather something i have stumbled upon, has given me reason to write more on the subject. no, there is nothing "new" as in new new here; undoubtedly many are aware of this one. i, however, was not, and so there is every chance others didn't know this existed. well, others that are as interested in the whole notion as i am. 

oooh, some might say (you know what some might say), a familiar yet unfamiliar image of Basil Fawlty at reception, with the telltale timecode in the corner. with the latter suggesting an unfinished, unreleased and thus unaired bit of footage. of the three, unaired is technically correct. this isn't from an episode of Fawlty Towers as such, but rather the unaired (yet somehow made it out) pilot episode for Not The Nine O'Clock News. which, if you are unaware of it, was a brilliant comedy show. 

someone somewhere posted a link to the episode on that there you tube thing. i thank who(m)ever that was very much indeed. let me pass on that link right here. from what i can work out, or ascertain, it was an intention (or idea) to have the new comedy show (Not The Nine O'Clock News) broadcast either before or after Fawlty Towers. so, in a bit of surreal, unexpected fourth wall breaking kind of move, and this would have been not the norm in the 70s, they had the pilot episode "bookended" with the Fawlty Towers credits and a couple of scenes. 

in the footage, which i would rather encourage you to watch than just read here, Basil can be seen apparently talking to someone in control of the BBC, flat refusing to do another episode. during this he makes reference to the strike action which was disrupting shows at the time. going back to my original piece, and looking at the various plot details of the "thirteenth" episode most commonly shared, this would tie in (a bit) with the idea of the one called The Blackout. 

perhaps some people saw this unaired pilot and, over the course of time, had memories clouded, leaving them absolutely convinced that they saw a tape of a secret Fawlty Towers episode. once more, going back to my earlier (rather than future) post on the subject, most who claimed to have knowledge of the thirteenth were linked with claims that "someone that worked for the BBC smuggled a video out". certainly someone smuggled a video out of this Not The Nine O'Clock News, for i doubt very much that the BBC themselves uploaded it to the internet. 

for a further theory, for all anyone knows it is possible that some variations or messing about in character turned up on one of the BBC VT Christmas tapes. what's that, exactly? a kind of open, yet dirty, secret. you can find a decent documentary on the subject here. effectively, and in short, both the video tape (VT) departments of the BBC and the regional ITV stations made 'Christmas tapes', exclusively for those in the industry, to be shown at end of year parties. whilst featuring outtakes and mock news reports, they invariably featured nudity (accidental, deliberate and sometimes, it is said, dubiously obtained) and obscenity. getting your hands on those tapes, particularly the early ones (late 70s or pre-84) might be more exciting and explosive than a thirteenth episode of Fawlty Towers. my presumption (or assumption) is that they are all long since destroyed, for by all accounts a lot of footage would destroy entire careers, reputations and legacies. 

ultimately, and with regret, all of this kind of strengthens my view that, really, there is no such thing at all as a thirteenth episode of Fawlty Towers. really hope i am wrong, though. were it to exist, then surely it must do in a way that The Day The Clown Cried did (or does), where the only complete copy of it was on a tape Jerry Lewis had firmly locked away. on that note, or as an aside, apparently that notorious (infamous) film will be screened, in 2025. yet, also, no. at least that film is known to exist, or its existence is confirmed. for John Cleese to have done similar, to have the only copy locked away, and absolutely no one ever confirming it actually exists, well, that would be some story. 

to clarify, i in no way present myself as an "expert" on this subject, nor do i profess to have any firm knowledge. just a simple, curious fan intrigued by this wonderful myth. 

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

decades after day of release

howdy pop pickers

quite the lovers of paradox, be the Manics. for just about their entire existence, or at least not long after, they have always categorically stated that they shall never, ever release a live album, for they view such releases as being "a bit of a con" and a means to rip off fans, look you see. yet they absolutely do not get tired of repackaging, reshaping or re-imagining their albums. which is how we are here, with a traditional in life yet unusual for the record industry non-decimal 21st anniversary release of Know Your Enemy. 

being fair - and honest - in the majority of cases when the bad do re-issue an album it is well worth the purchase. the 10th anniversary editions of two landmark albums (in a career filled with records which could be described so) of The Holy Bible and Everything Must Go were particularly superb. the few which have been less superb are easily avoided. it was easy, for instance, for me to say "thank you, no" to a 2 disc and book reissue of Gold Against The Soul (my least favourite anyway) for an alarming £50. i skipped the reissue of This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours for it felt like i had 90% of it already. and Send Away The Tigers was a no as the reissue still included Autumnsong like it was an actual, proper song. 

this one, though, was far too intriguing to say "no" to. well, kind of. a sort of "luxury" or "deluxe" 3 tape (disc) set looked overpriced for what you got and, as we shall get to, kind of self-defeating in the aim of revisiting the album. but the two tape (disc) set, for just south of 40% of the cost of the three variation, looked like a wise purchase. 

why, exactly, do we, the world, have a "new" version of Know Your Enemy? seems a strange move, in particular when the band have, within the last year (give or take) had a number one album out. it would appear they, and this is perhaps more Nicky Wire, took a decision that now was the time to put the record out kind of as how the band debated doing it at the time, which is to say two albums, rather than the one we got. 

for the most part the linear notes do a rather understandably better job than i could in explaining this. but as we are here, the band (at the time) had two records worth of material, one being mostly of the reflective sound of their previous (This Is My Truth), one being closer to their much more aggressive, confrontational style from debut onwards. names were to be Door To The River and Solidarity, respectively. the record label were keen, sensing double money. ultimately the band opted against it, but this does explain why, presumably as a compromise, we got two (2) singles on one day, with So Why So Sad and Found That Soul respectively representing the sound of each album. 

understanding the temptation to release two albums on one day is kind of straightforward. all of the band were huge Guns N Roses fans, and of course they did this trick with Use Your Illusion I & II, about ten years before. however, the band clocked that selling one record was going to be tough. this was 2001, where CD record technology made home taping easy and of quality, and also this new thing called "the internet" made it even easier. rather than release one record straight off and then the next some 14 to 18 months later (which in retrospect would have been wiser for GNR), which is what, say, Bowie would have done in the 70s or Prince in the 80s, they simply sliced and diced the tracks to create the lengthy Know Your Enemy tape (album). 

provenance of my copy was, on day of (re)release, HMV. all sorts of fancy "preorder" versions of the record were available on their website, most of them signed. being a regular Manics purchaser, however, means i have stacks of things signed by them, which is lovely but still, enough is enough. in the end, the ludicrous postage costs for their online store was the defining factor. as in, it was 50% cheaper to get a bus to town and buy it than it was pay their postage costs. no, the bus has not got cheap. 

right, so, anyway, the actual album(s). admittedly this was kind of an autopilot purchase, even when the last two or three (four?) re-releases were not. i was not expecting that much from it all, being reasonably happy with how KYE sounded in its original form, and yet the idea of hearing an original, or initial version of a "rough draft" was intriguing. two previously unreleased tracks (which the band had thought had come out as b sides) was also a slight selling point, but not much of one. 

stressing, or emphasising, that i had no quarrel with the original release, this was a welcome, surprising and interesting thing to listen to. maybe this is stating the obvious, but this "split" into two records of vaguely same style music does create a really enjoyable, smooth listening experience. after a week of playing this new version at home, i loaded the original up as i drove around (for verk) and now cannot hear anything but how disjointed it all is. which was actually a complaint from many at the time, even though they had no real idea or sense that it was two records welded into one. 

i am not too sure there's much value in spelling out what song from the original has ended up where, what's been omitted (Royal Correspondent, though, on the two disc set) and what has come in, well, nit in detail. biggest surprise was the two mentioned singles appearing here in remixed forms, with at least the So Why So Sad one featuring in a few other releases. my understanding is that a lot of the tracks here have been 'remastered / remixed" or what have you, but them singles having their (decent) album versions replaced entire was a surprise, to be sure. further, the inclusion of previously standalone (and first new number one of this century) single The Masses Against The Classes was unexpected. as was the ace cover of We Are All Bourgeois Now, which previously was a hidden track on the CD. 

exactly what caused me, other than the obvious (and initial) economic argument, to go with the two tape (disc) version rather than the 3 (three) disc one? frankly, the three disc version seems to defeat the purpose of the exercise. assuming that the third disc, all demo versions, would get played two or three times at best, tapes (discs) one and two had four or five extra tracks on them. which is nice, but also rather going against the idea of presenting the album(s) as originally intended? 

my favourite tape (disc) of the two? slightly tricky, this. oddly i quite like the "Sean Penn Mix" of So Why So Sad included on (in) Door To The River. also on that one is probably the best of the at least two new(ish) songs, Rosebud. further, now isolated as the closing track of an album (technically), one is aware of just what an incredible song Epicentre is, with this more than most probably being unfairly drowned out by the chaotic nature of the original release. 

yet it is Solidarity which is probably the closest to the Manics i love. well, i really love all Manics, except of course Autumnsong, but i really, really love the Manics on this one. although Solidarity does have Wattsvile Blues on it, the rest is superb. things like My Guernica and Freedom Of Speech Won't Feed My Children are the precise reason why Nicky Wire once, when dismissing critics, said he believed the band were "a bit too clever" for some. plus, my favourite song off any version of the album, the brilliant, damning Baby Elian, resides on this one. 

normally it was quite rare for Bowie to speak of "regret" for any album. yet he spoke of how he wished he released 1.Outside (link) as a double disc, as it was "too much" in one go. that's pretty much what the Manics have clocked, or rather addressed, with this variation of Know Your Enemy. also, the new artwork feels less like someone shouting at you. for the surplus of music, well, i would suggest (if not argue) they had learned the lesson, as about ten years after Know Your Enemy they did indeed release two new records not much more than a year apart, Rewind The Film and then Futurology. 

depending on what, exactly, the record industry throws my way for the Christmas market, and indeed on how the Bowie Moonage Daydream gets classed (probably soundtrack), this is realistically likely to be the "best re-release of the year". although i am tempted (but economically momentarily stopped) by this Toyah Anthem re-release, mind. believe me, there is a lot more to the story of this particular re-release, but you are better off buying the tapes (discs) yourself and reading the linear notes. 

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

curse of transformers

greetings

some time has passed, even at time of writing. but i am not sure it has all sunk in, look you see. i speak, or rather write, of the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, or as i would be prone to compose HMQE2. now we live with a new reigning monarch, His Majesty King Charles III, or HMKC3. unlike as was the case with HMQE2, one suspects no (valid, let it be said) concern of the numerical value across the entirety of the United Kingdom. whereas Scotland had no Queen Elizabeth I, this was not so with Charles I and II. just in case such arrives in conversation. 

it is odd how the mind works, here with particular regards to association of things. the avalanche of news, be it from the wireless, the television or various written forms, can be and indeed has been overwhelming. one would simply need to consider, for instance, the coverage - and indeed phenomenon - of The Queue, which i certainly hope them what do wikipedia delete. 

my assumption is that all exposed to this news do, at some point, latch on (for want of a better term) to an incident or aspect, and let it be so that they are taken, in mind, to their own thoughts. this certainly happened to me when, in passing, someone somewhere (likely the BBC) brought a report of Royal Mail, who do the post and that (sometimes), confirming that no further stamps featuring HMQE2 would be produced. 

which means that the last, or final stamps of the UK to feature HMQE2 are the most recently issued special edition ones, which so happen to feature - or if you will, celebrate - Transformers, them imaginary robots what turn into cars, or vice versa. sure, undoubtedly they will produce some specific stamps to honour and commemorate HMQE2, but then they had also just done ones to mark the Platinum Jubilee. and any further stamps shall surely be marked with the distinct silhouette of HMKC3. 

the "curse" of Transformers, then. i would like to think i am not the only one to have made such an association, and perhaps you have already too. but yes, indeed it was the case that the last credited cinematic performance of Orson Wells was Transformers The Movie. he passed away shortly after he had completed his role in the movie. 

anyone looking for some deep, symbolic meaning to all of this are likely best doing so searching somewhere else. really, i just kind of had this association in mind, and for catharsis thought it best to get it all out, here (as usual) rather than keeping it within. maybe, after all, someone else made this curious association, and sought affirmation. if this is such, then here it is. 

not really, not really. no. that would, one could reasonably presume, be an answer to the question of whether either Mr Wells (since he was associated first) or HMQE2 wished it to be so that one of their last acts was to be indelibly, historically liked to Transformers. i have no issue or quarrel with anything to do with Transformers, for clarity. from what i recall the Commodore 64 game of it was quite class. i just find it peculiar that one of cinema's most celebrated artists, and certainly one of the most admired monarchs the world has know, would share such a seemingly unexpected final(ish) act. 

yes, pedantic fans, i am quite aware that someone somewhere "edited" and released a motion picture in the 21st century featuring Orson, but that, some 30 years after his passing, surely does not count? much like, i dare to state, that the inevitable tribute stamps to HMQE2 won't replace these being the last produced with Royal Mail, in theory based on the name, being in her service. 

one recurring subject (that i can recall) here on this (my) blog is, the "ownership" of swans. well, so far as i can answer that one with precisely no (as in zero) research, it is indeed the case that to all intents and purposes yes, the reigning monarch of the UK does "own" them all. messing about with one, then, would presumably be a crime against the crown. also very silly, as they are as vicious as they are strong as they are uber defensive. 

does it make the slightest bit of difference to the swans who their current custodian, or if you will protectorate, is? one could very easily go off on a perhaps whimsical, partially metaphorical and certainly philosophical diversion on this subject. except, of course, the answer is reasonably no, probably not. 

from what i recall, the image above (which yes, is in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode) and the video below (yes, we've got a video) were taken on the first weekend of these swans finding themselves under the protection of HMKC3. this is, as intimated as recently as the previous paragraph, likely a change which they have adapted to faster than anyone else. 

change comes, then, to the ultimate symbol of stability. just now we shall have all new banknotes, coins and, of course, stamps. as far as i am aware, all current variations of these shall remain perfectly valid, with them being phased out "naturally" or over time. if i remember how it was reported a few days ago, at the instance of HMQE2 acceding to the throne (if that is the correct term) one in their pocket would likely have perfectly "legal tender" coins featuring two, possibly three, different monarchs. 

realistically, and absolutely, none of this post was intended as any sort of tribute, or mark of respect. also it is true none of this was intended to spark distress or debate. just letting out various associations which came to mind, that's all. 

UPDATE oh. it turns out Royal Mail are issuing further stamps with the silhouette of HMQE2 on, a set celebrating (or in celebration of) our armed forces. well, a booklet i got said so, at the end of this month, which is September. 

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

flush

good day

believe me, no, i do not go looking for specific bathroom or lavatory related things to write of or post here. yes, true, my chum Spiros would have me write of nothing else. well, so long as it all addressed such intended for the gentry alone, look you see. but here we are once more. 

not really, i suppose, directly pertaining to the usage of such facilities, and certainly not of how Spiros uses ones open to members of the public to meet like minded men. instead, something of an unsolicited and possibly slightly interesting insight into my housekeeping efforts, now of course in my place of exile. 

actually, or as it happens, i have absolutely no idea what the 'proper' name is for this. even allowing for how it is presented in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode above (but not below), the name of the item - product, not brand - is absent. what it is, and many will know this anyway, is something what you latch onto the "business end" (inner circle, so to speak) of your lavatory, where the water ushers out upon operating the mechanism. the purpose of this, presumably, is to both enable a level of hygienic cleanliness, and emit a pleasant fragrance. 

figuring that one of these is pretty much the same as any other, normally i would simply purchase the most modest priced variation. which is to say the cheapest. as i stood considering the variations, engaging in some mental arithmetic (or mathematics) to establish the best value one, i noticed this one; a unicorn edition. magic unicorn, no less, looking again at the packaging. 

these, i was pretty sure, were going to get bought (purchased) irrespective of the cost. but i did do the working out of numbers, and most satisfactorily it turned out this double pack was the most agreeable to get on the pure economics of it. and to clarify, indeed, one gets used at a time, with the other being retained for when the initial is exhausted.  

indeed i do, presently, or at time of writing, have one of these installed, or in place. should you be expecting a video, or even an image, of it in place then i am afraid you are quite mistaken. that, i believe, would be a bit too much. 

how does it perform? seems to be doing that which it was bought for, really. the scent released is subtle yet distinguishable. generally (or strictly) speaking i would not have a clue as to how unicorn is supposed to smell; certainly not in a bathroom environment. let me trust that it does smell of so. 

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

viewing pleasure endeavours

hello

well, not sure what (exactly) came over me, but i went on a bit of a bender watching some tapes (discs) of late. as would be usual, then, some comments. this blog of mine is not the only outlet for airing such views, look you see. except, mostly, i suppose, actually it is. 

indeed i opted (or elected) not to use the term "films" or "movies", for at some points i watched different sorts of tapes (discs). as point of fact, also i watched some broadcast ("streaming") stuff too. but, well, if you read on, you will see what's what. or, you know, scroll down and see if any of the images i have chosen to beautify this with take your fancy. 

quite a few of the things what i have watched are in the above image, presented in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode. well, no. i think there's 14 (fourteen) titles below, which sounds like an awful lot of writing i have committed myself to. oh. anyway, mindful of my maths not being too good, i suspect what is shown is a 52% to 48% split of things watched. should the modern world have taught us anything, it is that this is a definitive and conclusive margin. 

just in case, yes, one of them much fabled *** SPOILER WARNINGS *** is in place for all of the remainder of this post. 

no, i am not going to present these in any particular, specific or pacific order. except, maybe, them what i watched on those "streaming" things, because why not. and to start with, then, a disclaimer or maybe even a qualification. often, when i do these things, i wonder why, thinking (or assuming) that anyone what would wish to see any of them would have done so already. and then i go, well, it has taken me somewhere north of 35 years to actually getting around to watching Death Race 2000.

surprising that it took so long, really. i mean, i am to be found kneeling at the altar of the video game that is Carmageddon, which was inspired by this. probably never saw it before now as it was either banned off of the bbfc here in the UK, or shredded to ribbons by same censors. and then likely i just forgot about it. but then there it was, cheap and apparently uncut on a market stall. 

after such a long (but not necessarily intensive) wait, was it worth it? yeah, maybe. the thing what stuck me most was the David Carradine character, being in all black, wearing a black helmet, and being more machine than man underneath. some two (2) years before Darth Vader out of Star Wars. go figure. in terms of the most important part of any film, yes, there is an agreeable and interesting level of nudies in it. also one Sylvester Stallone, pre-Rocky, is in it, as a nasty character. clearly made on the cheap but inventive with resources, it was enjoyable. no doubt the recent(ish) remake is a cgi nightmare. 

on, then, to the murky world of "streaming services". and, as it happens, and believe me by accident, first up indeed there is a (sort of) link to the above, for it is Obi Wan Kenobi what i watched. which wasn't a film, but a series. that maybe they should have made into a film; indeed i am aware that someone has edited it down into one, of sorts. 

back to the realm of the Star Wars prequels, then, which i am delighted are finding acceptance and love in audiences these days. some people were right nasty about them, but at heart they were the pure fantasy escapist entertainment what the films were always intended to be. wonderful to see key members of the cast back, the new additions are great, and the story is amazing. 

with regards to (or in respect of) the story, well, wow. famously, or infamously, them what do these things now, Disney, wildly misjudged what sort of "subvert expectations" Star Wars fans would be interested in or open to. stuff like having the original cast back but not at the same time, and quite a bit of The Last Jedi, for instance. but note perfect here. everyone knew, from the original films, that Kenobi hung around on Tatooine to act as a protector for Luke, and the trailers for this series made it look like that was the direction here. big surprise, to be sure, and a welcome one, when it was all an Obi Wan and Leia adventure in the series. see, Disney, you can make subvert expectations work beautifully. 

the series is six (6) episodes long, and each "thematically" echoes Episiodes I - VI of Star Wars in a subtle, brilliant way. at times the series could have been called Vader and that is not a bad thing. you are left wanting more and more, but you know what, leave this here. some sort of Darth Vader thing, or his presence (felt) in another film or show would be good, but this is the perfect "bridge" story between the much loved original films and back to the growing in love prequels. yes, he says the line in it. 

for many, many years i pretty much avoided watching Breaking Bad. yes, i was aware of the good reviews, and it looked interesting. but, ultimately, it struck me as likely to be too linear. certainly i eventually saw it, and indeed it is (was) brilliant. partially i watched it because of friends and contemporaries urging me to, the celebrated Anthony Hopkins letter was a factor, but mostly it was down to me being intrigued by the sound of a spin off called Better Call Saul. that immediately sounded like my sort of thing, and it was clear i'd need to have an understanding or the parent show before watching. 

in a lifetime of making some poor, or ill-advised decisions, watching both proved to be very wise and very rewarding. true, Better Call Saul might not have followed the path or narrative structure i or others had expected, but the way it went, simply genius. some have gone to the extent of saying that this series is even better than the show from which it spins off, if that is worded right. i would be hard pressed to say which is "better". certainly, absolutely it is so that Better Call Saul benefits from the learning curve of the original, as in what worked well and what didn't work as hoped. ultimately both are very much worth the many hours of viewing needed. 

moving on to the third and final watched by streaming means Prey. which is a Predator film without having the name (or word) 'predator' in the title. bold, brave move to get that past the marketing types, so hats off. a lot of people have gone off on one, declaring this the "best since the original" and complaining that this one really should have been a cinematic release. um........

up to now i have not met a Predator film i didn't like. obviously the original has a special place in the heart for me and everyone else. but the rest have had "moments", and been more good than bad. this is very much the truth of Prey. but that doesn't mean it is "better" than Predator 2, or Predators, or even the wonders of South Park Imaginationland. yeah, likely better than The Predator but still i did like that one, at least until the stupid "uber Predator" turned up. 

lots and lots have been said of the great things of Prey, so i guess i can chip in on the weaknesses. first off, no, this was clearly made for a home audience. absolutely none of the visuals say it should have been a cinematic experience, thanks - it is perfect on a big tele at home. most disappoint was how, well, quite sh!t the Predator looked sans mask. the look in the original Predator and for that matter Predator 2 was iconic, brilliant, scary and also added to the dark humour of the creature. no idea why they went ahead and changed it to one that looks worse. maybe i didn't like this one all that much, for i cannot see circumstances in which i would want to watch it again. the others, certainly i would. 

of what i have watched of late (in terms of this batch), which was the worst? are you asking that? if so then the answer, somewhat regrettably, is an Arnold Schwarzenegger film called Maggie. 

no, me neither, in answer to any (and all) comments about having never heard of it. somewhere on the internet i saw one of them "things" with a picture and text, saying how it was "Arnold's greatest ever acting performance", and how he did it for "free" (the acting yes, the "executive producing" maybe not so much) because he believed in the project so much. indeed i was suspicious about how good a relatively unheard of film with such a big star (i assume he still is one?) could be. especially when one could buy the tape (disc) of it for south of £2 on the internet. but yeah, tried it. 

plot? mindful of this being mid 2010s, some sort of "plague" has decimated the world, turning those infected into zombie like creatures. as it happens, Arnie's daughter (the titular Maggie) gets infected, and the film is him wrestling with this, not wanting to "let her go" in any sense. 

it's sh!t. there really isn't any other review. no, Arnie does not deliver an acting tour de force. the story is tired, and has been done before. pacing is a complete mess, and it drags on in a dreary, dreadful way. further, they do that Game Of Dragons last series ("season" if American) or so thing where they make everything so dark you can't see and are soon persuaded to lose interest. avoid this one.

happy days, then, with Witchfinder General. there was absolutely no way that a film of that name, made in the 70s, and with Vincent Price, could be bad. especially not at (i think) 50p off of a market stall. the plot is something something English civil war, something something witches, something something. for the important stuff, yes, in this "restored" version, a most agreeable level of nudies features, although at times a bit disturbing. 

what i really, really loved about this tape (disc) is in the last sentence, but oddly not the nudies part. it's ace how someone has sellotaped this together from various sources, and those sources are very much of varied quality. a few would find this frustrating, but i loved it when the picture (and sound) quality dramatically dipped for a scene or two; it really felt like you were watching something only unearthed recently, or even better something that you were never supposed to see. leave it dirty and scratch. it was boss when the "restored" The Wicker Man did this on tape (disc), but not when they went and cleaned it all up on the other, other (blu) tape (disc) release. 

but is the film actually any good? well, it kept my interest. don't believe it was made by them, but it certainly has the feel of those classic Hammer movies. also, for a generation of us, it is a bit difficult to take Vincent Price seriously, so perfect was the parody of him on Spitting Image in the 80s. i felt very much like i got 50p value, if that helps. 

pretty sure i have (somewhere) made the point before on this blog (well, i have been writing it for, what, 16 or 17 years), but here it is again. in that screenshot from U2 Zoo TV, what you are seeing with them lights in the audience are not mobile phones videoing it, but cigarette lighters, which were the norm for people to have in general and to wave as such for a "ballad". likely due to it not being practical to take candles to a gig. my, how times have changed. 

kicking around somewhere i have the fancy 2 tape (disc) version of U2 Zoo TV, but then i saw the 1 tape (disc) version in a charity shop and went, oh well. watched it again, of course. quite a tricky one to call, this. just like every concert video which isn't Stop Making Sense off of Talking Heads or Sign O The Times off of Prince, it is very badly filmed, frustratingly so. also, the band aren't giving what you would call one of their top ten performances, not helped by how you can't even just listen to it, for the sound recording is not great either. but it remains a document for an interesting concept. if one takes the premise of it (mindful of it being early 90s) - the sense of so many tv stations vying for viewers that you ended up channel hopping, facing an avalanche of too much information to comprehend or process in a way you would normally do - and applied it to phones and/or social media in the present day, it was absolutely bang spot right on. best U2 live video (disc) in my view is that one which was in one anniversary or another set of The Joshua Tree. recorded in France, to a clearly not capacity audience, just after the album came out. essentially it captures them, arguably for the last time (obviously) at that point where they went from promising band with a growing audience to the biggest thing in the world. for a time, at the least. 

sheer, unbridled merriment was what i experienced, indeed felt, when i found a copy of the tape (disc) of Harley Davidson & The Marlboro Man on a market stall. not seen it for a few years, and whenever i have thought to have a look for it on tape (disc) it's always been a bit expensive. on watching it again a quite vague memory of the first time i tried to watch it came back, tearing it out of the video (for it was an actual tape) in disgust at bon jovi being used for the theme. 

in this, my more mature and sophisticated era (by comparison if not fact), i let that slide, and watched all of it again. pretty decent, standard "buddy" action film, of course. within the first twenty (20) minutes one gets two scenes of unnecessary and most agreeable nudies, and you get to see both Don Johnson and Mickey Rourke get their f*****g heads kicked in. do you really need any further review of excellence beyond that? 

for a "critical assessment" thing, my word there is plenty wrong with Harley Davidson & The Marlboro Man. all to do with the "baddies". this, as far as i am aware, was one of the first roles what Tom Sizemore had, at least of any prominence. presumably very few casting directors saw it, or chose to generously write it off. worse is Daniel Baldwin, who is absolute junk in this one. oh, you didn't know about the other, other, other Baldwin? he is in this one, showing exactly why he was not in so many other films after this. anyway, the film features smoking, nudies and violence - in particular from some dudes dressed like how people did in The Matrix some 8 years after this came out - so yes, it's really, really good. 

yet another re-watch after a few years next, then, with Perfume being one i wanted to see again. so yes, then, perhaps there is a subconscious pattern to how i am presenting some of these films. quite likely one could find my original (or initial) views on this film somewhere in the history of this blog, somewhere over ten or so years ago. likely more. from what i recall, i was impressed when it came out.

alas, it has not aged well. from the perspective of first watching it, i suspect i was impressed that someone had managed to "pull off" filming Perfume, due to the number of "failed" attempts to do it. once Kubrick was reportedly "interested", and that's what drew me to the novel in the first instance. years later it was circulated that Scorsese wished to have a go, but that came to nothing. 

looking at it again with some "distance" in place, and yes, it kind of more or less gets the essence of the novel, if that is not an unfortunate turn of phrase. also, some of the slight but significant changes work really well to convey the same point. as a constant from then and now, yes, absolutely, Ben Whishaw was perfectly cast, perfection in the role. the same is true of most of the supporting cast. alas, the performances of the two "star names" - Rickman and Hoffman - feel very phoned in. no, i am not happy to write that, but both could have done the roles so much better. 

perhaps the most baffling thing of Perfume is that the notoriously prudish, nanny state, wet nurse ban everything bbfc only gave it a 15 certificate. i would argue, for all the flaws in the film, the first 20 or so minutes are the most distressing and disturbing things possible in a movie. and yes, also there is an absolute pile of nudies in it. no, i doubt i shall watch it again. from what i can gather there's a new, and modern setting, version of it on NetFlix or similar. will give it a pass. 

on watching things again (continuity), i saw the tape (disc) of the complete series of Police Squad, so yeah, bought it. as far as i am aware they never released a "partial" series tape (disc), but just saying what it says on the box. 

should any of you be unaware or unsure, Police Squad is (or was) a tele series done by the brains and quasi star (he is the one you remember, shirley) of the motion picture Airplane!, only doing it with the police instead of airline pilots. exactly the same "out there" deadpan humour and visual gags, yet for some reason (and they talk of why on a documentary on the disc) it failed with audiences. oddly, when they went back to this and made it into motion pictures (The Naked Gun) it was a huge success. maybe some things are not meant for tele. 

but still, i loved it. whether they were arresting a monkey or the bizarre "guest star" for each episode, it is just really, really funny. on procuring this tape (disc) i put it on more or less straight away, thinking i would watch an episode, maybe two. yes, indeed i did end up watching all six (6) binge watching, that is what i think the kids call it these days. although watching all of it takes less than 3 (three) hours. 

yes, then, clearly a pattern has formed, for the next watching experience (pictured above) was also coppers, as in the constabulary, but decidedly not for laughs. i happened to be in a chapter of HMV recently, and they had a sale on. the tape (disc) of Electra Glide In Blue was on sale for south of £2, so i picked it up. mostly i always wondered what the title meant, for when i first heard the name of the film there was no "internet" to look it up. except teletext. turns out Electra Glide is the type of motorbikes what the coppers rode, and the in blue bit references police uniforms. oh. 

rather odd, this one. at times (in particular at the start) it moves so slowly that it might be boring enough to make you think it's a Sidney Lumet film (i checked, it is not). and yet it is always compelling, indeed interesting, thanks to the superb acting. not sure, echoing earlier comments, why this is an '18' as it is not really graphic. also, not sure why over the years some have described it as "fascist propaganda for the police", as the police (overall) do not get painted as looking all that wonderful. fits in very nicely with the other classics of 70s "gritty" or "realism" cinema from America, yet does not feel like a movie one would call "must see". still, glad i got to see it, eventually. 

moving on, then, and another "re-watch". for some reason someone somewhere decided that the world required a fancy blu ray tape (disc) reissue of Whoops Apocalypse, being the film of that name and not the original, very similar but radically different television show. recalling - fondly - a brilliant turn by Peter Cook, an excellent early appearance from Kramer out of Seinfeld and an as usual bonkers performance by Rik Mayall, i clicked order. 

if anything, Whoops Apocalypse is (somewhat) more pertinent to today, or more "relevant" as a parody than it was at the time. absolutely no way in the 80s could we see a PM of the nature that Peter Cook portrays being real, yet here we are. lots (and lots) of the plot really does make it feel like it has been made more recently than the 80s, but i dare not say too much, for, you know, spoilers. surprisingly well is how this film has stood up, especially with the three (3) performances mentioned. go seek it out. 

but, if you wish to save some pennies (and who, today, does not), avoid the blu ray tape and get just the dvd tape. trust me, the extras on the blu variation are, mostly, a disgrace. sure, the section which is an interview with the writers is ace. but then there's one with three people who made the film, one i think was even the director. none of them seemed interested in it, and don't speak kindly. worst is the boom operator, or "man that holds the microphone", who appears to just want to moan about how most of the a-listers (stars, if you like) didn't want much to do with him. go figure. but the biggest disgrace is a section marked as intended as a tribute to Rik Mayall, which features a few minutes of someone saying that they had no wish to talk about Rik Mayall. 

something i had wished to see for many, many years was One Plus One, although these days it is known by the renamed title Sympathy For The Devil. in a comment that would be unlikely to surprise many, then, it features The Rolling Stones, and documents the recording of that song. many note, or observe, that it was made by "that twat Jean-Luc Godard", but that is a little harsh as he is only half French. not sure if "half twat" is a term in common use, but there you go. 

what an utterly, utterly, utterly wasted opportunity this film (documentary, really) is. absolute gold on film, a pivotal moment in the history of the band and the world, but no, the French side of the director came out, all avant garde. essentially you see the creation of the song, one you could argue is of the greatest by the band. but no conventional recording or moment, and no i am not talking about how in it Bill Wyman looks like he would rather be somewhere else and Charlie Watts looks like he wants to be going home for a cup of tea. recording progresses at a time in history when it became necessary to change the lyric "who killed Kennedy" to "who killed the Kennedys". also, you watch Brian Jones just disappear from the band. incredible stuff, ruined by that twat (who might as well be full tilt French) inter-cutting it all with scenes of black panther and then white right wing extremists for no apparent reason at all. i mean, no statement is made. 

famously, or infamously, The Beatles for many (many) years didn't let the original Let It Be film be shown, as in their words it "made it look like band split because Yoko sat on a speaker". the celebrated re-edited version of it, Get Back, tells a whole different (and you have to assume correct) account of it all. it will never ever happen, but it really should be so that someone re-edits One Plus One in a similar way. unlikely, as everything about the twat who made it suggests he wouldn't let someone come and make an actual proper film from it, and the Stones are notorious for airbrushing their history. 

blimey, last film (or bit of watching) for this update. and a bit of a full circle to the first thing featured here, for it features one Sylvester Stallone. when browsing a charity shop i observed, with interest, a tape (disc) of First Blood for sale, for 19p. as it is one of my favourites and i had not seen it in many, many years, i went yeah, go on. 

just a touch south of 40 years since i first saw it, then. in shame and in disgrace i cannot recall which friend, exactly, but they had a pirate tape, and an actual video tape at that, of this and Rocky III, so that was where i saw them first. likely that ten or so year old me was rather impressed with all the senseless violence. nearly 50 year old me is sat in awe, or revelation, at the perceptive brilliance of First Blood. we were really mean to Stallone in the 80s, deriding him when he was clearly a f*****g good actor. looking at this film now and it's all allegorical, metaphor or what have you. brilliant portrays how mental health issues are brushed aside and the dangers of that, the perils of police believing they and they alone define the law, untreated (and/or ignored) post trauma stress, and then some. of course, yes, it is so that the "action" bits are brilliant, but really we should have been concentrating on the other bits in First Blood what Stallone was doing. 

oh. no, hang on. yes, there is indeed one more thing what i watched. quite like some of the above i failed to mention it in the most recently previous post of this sort, so let me not leave it again. 

it was with the mixed sense of curiosity and reluctance that i elected (or opted) to give Pistol, being a telling (or another telling) of The Sex Pistols, a go. on the one side i felt as though i was quite aware of all which could be said, be it via folklore, legend, documentaries, The Great Rock N Roll Swindle, Dead On Arrival, The Filth & The Fury and indeed Sid And Nancy. also John Lydon had tried to block it, well kind of (deny use of music in it), with his comments being they would not let him see the script before he approved it. yet the cast and crew were excellent, and surely it would be a reminder of when music was important beyond just itself; when it could both represent and invoke a change in the world. 

exactly how accurate, being based on one member's memoir, i know not. but yet, truly, it is inspired in its brilliance. Lydon comes across not as evil personified, but a lonely, alienated poet, longing to belong and live in a decent world. far removed from the "genius svengali who planned it all" is McClaren, showcased here as riding of good fortune as well as being horrified (and scared) by what he had ended up unleashing. Jones, unsurprisingly (for it is his memoir) comes over considerably more sympathetic than he has ever been presented; one even warms to him. 

truthfully, i get the wider Lydon concern. perhaps the story should be left to myth and legend, passed on in whispered tales of naughtiness from generation to generation. but, once again allowing for having no idea if it is any more or less accurate that previous tellings, this is excellent. at once the highlight is the most disturbing chapter, Bodies. very brave to select this as showing how their songs came about, yet perfectly illustrates how and why it was the band came to be in society, what they reflected, what they were created from. 

phew. that was quite a bit (as in a lot) of writing. also pictures, and animated stuff. well, let me take a slight break from that sort of thing. 

hopefully some (unlikely all) of this has proven to be of passing interest. 

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