Sunday Mercury - Paul Flower

The Wrong Songs?

2009-11-06T10:09:04Z

My friends and colleagues at Absolute Radio have recently launched a campaign to find the best songs of the last decade, 2000-2009. It's one of those impossible questions that at first seems to be beyond calculation, until you start looking into it and realise that it is even worse than that.

Luckily they put together a web-site to assist those of us with short, or no, memories. It lists other people's picks, the most popular choices of the last 24 hours and allows you to search by act. The latter function has been invaluable to people like me who can't remember one decade from the next or the last, or even what period a decade is meant to cover.

My first thought was not to over-think my choice, to be decisive - pick one and move on. Consequently I went with 'Hey Ya' by Outkast. It was an easy choice because it is one of the few songs that always makes me smile, it never outlasted its welcome. I can still play it today and when it comes on I often press repeat to immediately hear it again. It's a real impact song that I knew was a huge hit as soon as I heard it. I also remember where I was when that moment occurred - in the car listening to the album on CD and thinking that it generally wasn't that great. Then POW 'Hey Ya' came on and everything changed.

The other advantage that 'Hey Ya' had over the thousands of other songs from the last decade was that it was slightly different to most of the stuff I generally like. The bulk of my collection is white guitar music, admittedly this is interspersed with a bit of hip-hop, soul and funk but white indie-rock- is the overwhelming presence on my CD shelves.

Picking 'Hey Ya' also removed my standard urge to be controversially hip, to pick the most 'bleeding-edge' song that no-one else would've thought of. Once upon a time this would've occurred naturally, but I recognise that I'm moving out of the loop and I leave that to others. This was an unfortunate decision for the likes of Arcade Fire and Joan As Police Woman who would've otherwise figured highly. I recognise that even thinking that these acts are painfully radical is, in itself, an admission that I'm too far removed from 'the edge'.

Of course having vowed not to over-think it that became inevitable, particularly as time moved on and I started looking at the choices of others. Like any internet poll it became invaded by the fanatics, those ludicrously obsessed with one act or other - acts that tend to appeal to young people, those who think they're young or once were when this act was at the height of its powers. As nice as McFly are, this can be the only excuse for their presence!

Over-thinking went into over-drive as the choices suddenly became extensive; surely no-one with a love of music could pick just the one song. I started picking more. Recalling some of the best live acts I'd seen in the last ten years I had to opt for some Foo Fighters - another act I can play at any time and get something from them. Opening at V Festival in 2007 Dave Grohl had come on-stage alone with 'Everlong', the band joining him half-way thru - it was a phenomenal opening but even I know that 'Everlong' is over ten years old so that left the opening songs on 'One by One', a great album that begins with two belters, songs that inspired me over many miles of running in the last decade: 'All My Life' and 'Times Like These'. 'All My Life' is the one I prefer to scream along to, hence it got the vote. I used to get some funny looks when I was running - now I know why.

I by-passed The Felice Brothers whose live heroics don't seem to transfer to CD and Amy Winehouse whom I'd seen both good (early) and bad (late) but paused awhile with Doves. A band I've always expected to break thru to the next level, to go stratospheric. It has yet to happen, but it will. No band with such anthemic abilities can remain restricted for long. As ever there was too much choice but 'Pounding' prevailed, possibly because I was once responsible for it being played at the Hawthorns some years back when the teams came out. An achievement I still rank among my finer moments - the marriage of two of the key loves of my life.

In committing myself to one quick choice I'd subsequently picked two others and it was starting to become an obsession. I saved another for an act that has gone 'global' in a short-time during the last decade. Kanye West, possibly another strange choice for me, released two of the best hip-hop albums ever within two years - 04/05 - each containing equally strong songs and many candidates for Song Of The Decade. Limiting my choice to one from each, 'Jesus Walks' and 'Touch The Sky' were easy votes, the latter not least because it samples one of my all-time favourite songs, Curtis Mayfield's 'Move On Up', but also because it was my mobile ringtone for a couple of years in the last ten.

So now I'm on a roll, remembering that Radiohead are still one of my favourite bands, 'There There', 'Knives Out' and 'Pyramid Song' went in whilst I spotted Queens of The Stone Age nearby on the CD shelf prompting 'No One Knows' and 'First It Giveth'.

Could any review of the last decade fail to notice Muse? I don't think they excel in songs but the muscular 'Supermassive Black Hole' had to go in, whilst the memories of Basement Jaxx being the highlight of Isle Of Wight last year meant a vote for 'Where's Your Head At'. I even checked to make sure The Afghan Whigs hadn't released anything since 1998, it was becoming more than an obsession.

Songs of the Decade - there are more than you'd think. Others will mean more to you than they ever could to me, best to go and have your say before I start voting again.

We are family

2009-11-03T12:43:18Z

I've been in Dublin, shaking the family tree. This odyssey began earlier in the year when my mother became reacquainted with two of her brothers, and met some family she didn't realise she had back in the emerald isle.

Within these meetings and subsequent conversations the story was repeated that my mother might have been adopted. It was a story she was aware of but had been unable to prove its veracity, and over the years it'd been put at the back of her mind.

Now resurrected by her wider family it became something we decided to look into. Unfortunately we discovered that it's not quite as easy as they make it look on TV; the key problems being that adoption wasn't legal in Ireland at the time of my mother's birth (1942) and my mother had become estranged from her 'parents' long-before their eventual deaths.

Still we took up the offer of visiting long-lost cousins, uncles and their various siblings in order to look around and present ourselves in person at various offices. We were not alone. Genealogy, it appears, is big business in Ireland. The office where most of the births/deaths/marriage records are kept, The Irish Life Centre, was over-crowded when we arrived there necessitating a 30 minute wait to sit at one of their tables.

The research room within the ILC resembles nothing more than a medium-sized library annex - with rows of tables and a smaller space containing all the indexes. You stand in a queue to fill in a form and pay €2 to look at up to five years of indexes - from these you can trace births or deaths (but not both at the same time) by surname in years split into quarters.

Should you wish to see the documentation relating to those births/deaths you can pay a further €4 per copy for each, limited to six copies per day - any others have to be posted to you. The sheer quantity of people in the room, filling out forms and handing over Euros made it very difficult for a novice such as myself to have even the vaguest clue of what I was doing - and the staff were clearly too busy with others to be able to help. Some of those 'others' had been in the room for over 8 hours doing their research, far more professionally than I was able.

Consequently we were reliant on the advice of some excellent social workers, people who've clearly seen it all before and had the enviable ability to empathise. They were able to point us in various different directions of places where records are kept of the various Irish orphan's homes and adoption societies, noting which were linked to the areas of Dublin we were concentrating on. Their assistance was invaluable and may have led us to some vital information - which we'll only know for sure when we've sent off copies of all of mother's existing documentation.

There were also the family stories of course. Welcomed into the homes, cars and bosoms of our Irish family, we were almost embarrassed by their levels of hospitality. Irish families clearly keep their friends and family close, and socialise more than their English counterparts - or maybe just more than me. It was a fascinating experience to hear stories and see photos of distant family and discover the notion that my mother may have been the daughter of two young & unmarried trainee doctors.

Dublin is a fantastic city to visit; I've probably been there far too many times. Sadly, at the current rate of exchange, it must also rank as one of the most expensive places you can go. It isn't helped by the fact that most of the shops are similar to those we have in England and list both € and £ prices - making it clear that the prices were set when the £ was worth about €1.40 rather than the €1.09 it's currently worth.

The price of alcohol is the biggest shock though. Taxed at 21.5% the cost of spirits in particular was a little scary. I had decided to buy my relatives a bottle of Southern Comfort at the shocking price of €29.99. You can imagine that I wasn't best pleased on returning to England and finding it on offer at two bottles for £25. It'd have been cheaper to buy it and ship it over. Maybe there's a business model here - and the reason why a lot of Dubliners travel a short distance to shop in the north!

Of course it's the thought that counts, and the thought that haunts right now is the one where you meet lots of incredibly friendly and accommodating people, widen your family circle immeasurably and then find out that they're not family after all. I'm sure it won't matter much, but it's considerably more sobering than the price of a Dublin pint.

Questionable motives

2009-10-23T13:17:24Z

How often do you watch Question Time on BBC1? Me neither. Of late they've tried to update it by including panel members from popular culture, comedians and the like. I think they figured that the general public were more likely to trust and engage with those individuals than they were with politicians. I still didn't watch it, I suspect that neither did you.

The invitation to a known and committed racist is a different ball game of course; it attracted far more attention and, inevitably, viewers. Even I watched some of it. What did I learn? Not much, really: that politicians - whatever their political hue - will try to weasel out of answering any question and always talk in general terms rather than specific ones. I already knew this from numerous news broadcasts and past editions of Question Time.

So, what was gained from the questionable appearance of a vile and hated figure on a prime-time political television programme? Whatever the BBC may say - and your eyes and ears may have agreed with them - the appearance of Nick Griffin gave his party credibility. They were seen to be accepted into the political sphere, to have their policies and opinions validated for debate.

It doesn't really matter that we all may have hooted as the odious little man was ridiculed on live television - we were not the ones ever likely to have voted for him. Those who are may have sympathised with his idiotic viewpoints and, if you're of that mindset anyway, the opinions of Jack Straw et al will hardly be of any import.

What of the BBC's defence? Their point was that the BNP has enough support in the UK, verified by poll results, to have a seat at the QT table. It seems to matter not that their victories were in elections with relatively low turn-outs for seats that most Brits considered irrelevant. It matters not that their victories were due to nasty, ill-gotten protest votes.

If this argument is to be supported we can look forward to seeing members of the Jedi religion popping up on the BBC's religious broadcasts, since - during the last census - they polled sufficient results to be recognised as a popular religion.

If we really wanted to ridicule the BNP it would've been better to dedicate a documentary to them, hosted by Jon Ronson or Charlie Brooker or Louis Theroux: intelligent people who would treat them to the scorn they deserve.

What was it all about? Inevitably, and perhaps cynically, I would have to say it was about audience figures. No-one watches political programming on TV, on average QT has an audience of 2.6 million, last night it was 7.9 - three times higher than usual. That's a lot of people to be exposed to an unapologetic bigot, 50% of the available television audience at that time.

The BBC is a public-service broadcaster but it likes to defend itself with popularity - and having enticed that number of people to watch a current affairs programme will do their quarterly viewing figures and annual self-importance report no harm at all.

Of course it's all about free speech, something we all should defend. Free speech is one thing, validating racists for the purpose of ratings is quite another.

Death by scheduling

2009-10-15T12:34:22Z

Summer is over. I know this because the TV channels have rolled out their autumn/winter season - and I know that because the amount of TV programmes I actually want to watch has quadrupled in the last three weeks.

Amongst those progs are included some completely new shows - True Blood & Flash Forward. Both have been fairly engaging so far, but I fear the worst. Based on my past viewing history at least one of three things tends to happen to any major American series I begin to watch:

The storyline becomes so ridiculous that I feel guilty watching it, and eventually I'll abandon it - but not before wasting countless hours of my life, hours that I'll never get back.
The series (or season as they call them stateside, I refuse to do so) becomes so engaging and popular that subsequent episodes are bought up by satellite networks that I don't subscribe to. I'll thus have wasted countless hours of my life, hours that I'll never get back.
I'll accidentally miss an episode or two due to work, other commitments or memory loss and as I don't subscribe to networks like SKY+ . I'll subsequently lose the thread because they'll have put in some random plot twists involving time-shifts, alien spacecraft or polar bears, and I'll have wasted countless, etc.

Sometimes all three happen at the same time. I think this was the case with Prison Break, the story of a guy who managed to get himself sentenced into the same prison that held his innocent brother so he could break him out. I was willing to go with the thread that the prison blueprints were strategically tattooed on his body, but lost it at some point where one of the low-lifers who had escaped with them was sewing his arm back on with fishing line and without anaesthetic, or something similar. Then the subsequent series ended up on Sky and that was the end of that for me.

You can add Lost, Nip/Tuck and Six Feet Under to that list. I also see that the new series of Dexter is on FX so maybe that's now also off my radar and if the BBC do decide that it's not in the public interest for them to bid against commercial rivals for big shows, then Heroes will inevitably join a growing list of TV programmes that are 'lost' to me.

There are a lot of great shows on satellite channels of course, some of which are very highly-rated. The Wire is one of those, consistently talked about by quality papers, educated reviewers and others I like to laughingly think of as my peers. A lot of people said it was the best TV show ever made. It ran for five years before eventually making it onto terrestrial television. When the BBC eventually screened it they did it on a nightly basis at 11.15pm on BBC2, without repeats. American TV series run for 15 or more episodes, how are you supposed to find fifteen clear weeknights or 15 hours worth of free VHS tape to capture that? Then you'd get a few clear days and they'd move onto the next series: 5 x 15 - impossible. I didn't try.

It reminded me of their treatment of Seinfeld. Bearing in mind that this was the biggest comedy show, one of the most popular TV progs in America (it's a huge country, lots of people) when the BBC bought it where did they put it: 11.15pm - BBC2 - consecutive nights and seemingly random ones at that. There weren't even any 'trailers' telling you where to find it - it was truly death by scheduling.

I know you'll argue that I should bite the bullet and install the dish, but I only watch around 20 hours of TV a week - I maybe concentrate on around half of it. I'm way too tight to spend extra money per month for TV that doesn't interest me and I won't have time to see.

I do have freeview of course, and all the joys that brings - not to mention the constant failure of my Wharfdale set top box and the signal in general. One of my favourite programmes of recent years came via freeview & E4: Reaper. If you missed this, you missed a treat - funny, sexy, well-acted, great-dialogue, good effects, almost always enjoyable. I was mid-way through the second (maybe third) series on E4 the other week when they abruptly announced that it had ended, without any conclusion to the storyline. Apparently not enough people in America were watching it, so the show got cancelled.

Me & American TV clearly don't get on. Luckily at the moment I can stick to Peep Show and Harry Hill's TV Burp - moments of comedy genius. At some point we might start making great drama and action to rival the US again, but I won't hold my breath, or install the satellite just yet.

The price (still) isn't right

2009-10-09T13:38:39Z

Some things never change.

Some 40 weeks ago I wrote about the Sony Reader (tech it or leave it - I would link to it but can't remember how), in which my main gripe was that the damn thing costs too much and that digital books or e-books are stupidly overpriced.

This week Amazon released its successful Kindle E-reader (for want of a better term) in the UK. Actually it didn't - it allowed us to import them from the U.S. - but that's a different (and more tiresome and expensive) story.

The Kindle has been big in the states and its key advantages over the Sony appear to be a better user-interface and the ability to download e-books wirelessly. The key disadvantage is that, like the Kindle itself, you can only get your books from Amazon in a particular format that the Kindle uses.

There may be many cultural differences between the UK and the US, and I wonder if our book-buying and reading habits are among those differences. The points I made in the past are still true - so what if these devices allow you to carry 200 books at any one time, I'd imagine the most that any of us can read at one time is 2-3.

Amazon & Sony may have some success with students and this product - students who need to have many books for research and can highlight/save relevant passages, make notes, etc. Those are useful functions but with prices at around £200 perhaps it's not for the student market?

I imagine my book-buying habits are similar to many people who read a lot - I rarely buy anything in hardback, nearly all my books are bought in promotions (3 for 2, buy one get one half-price) and others are picked up in charity shops for as little as 25p.

I like the idea of an e-reader but I don't much like the price of them. Assuming that all my 'top-priced' books average at around £8 the reader is priced at the value of 25 books, about 9 months worth of reading.

Then there's the price of the e-books themselves, and this is where I really start to lose it. The way I see it is: if I'm buying a downloaded book then I'm paying the author for their words and the publisher for advancing the author the money to write, and probably a bit of marketing and a bit of retailer percentage. What I'm not paying for is anything physical like printed pages and covers and the manufacturing and transportation of such.

On that basis it baffles me why an e-book should be anywhere near the price of a physical book. An e-book is electronically transmitted to me, it's no more than a long e-mail, there's no physical cost involved. I can't pass it on when I've finished with it, I can't throw it at my kids when they're annoying me - so why does an e-book cost as much as a printed book?

As much as I love Amazon, and I do - I suspect my first ever internet purchase was from them - I don't want to be tied to them, I want the freedom to look around; to be able to buy my stuff from other retailers. What I particularly hate to discover is enormous and foolish disparities in prices between physical and electronic - such as the price on Amazon for Stieg Larsson's 'Girl With The Dragon Tattoo'. The paperback costs £3.99 but the electronic version, £8.68. Insanity.

The same disparities exist in music, frequently you'll find that the CD version of an album and the mp3 download are either very similar or so close that it makes no real sense. In those instances the physical product wins every time, it's just more flexible and it's something you own - rather than something that might be lost if your hard disc fails and your ipod dies.

The price of music has been coming down over the last few years, but only the price of physical product - the digital story remains the same and suitably stagnant. Streaming is the future of music and renting from digital libraries may be the future of books - for publishing to be this far behind the music industry, particularly when the music industry moves like a one-legged sloth, is stupid.

Here (nearly) every week
Randomly here and there

opinionated arseholes

2009-10-06T10:55:41Z

"Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks."

In their other similarity with arseholes most people's opinions should be kept quiet and out of sight. Sadly, we live in an age where most people share their thoughts on an all too regular basis. Who do you trust, who do you look up to, where and who is the voice of reason?

Currently the volume - in both senses of the word - of opinion is overwhelming. It'd be virtually impossible to read everything on a given subject, even if you had nothing else to do with your life. Over the past few months I've regularly returned to the issue of file-sharing/downloading or recorded-music-theft; however you wish to refer to it there is no doubt that it is an issue of vital importance to the music industry as a whole, musicians in particular and those of us who work in the peripheries.

The problem is that there is a mass of opinion and no real consensus. The ridiculous point is that you can't even get everyone to agree on the simple issue that 'file-sharing' is bad, because many people will jump on the alternate opinion that it's a valuable way to publicise a new band.

The issue has been amplified of late by the arguments over the Government's proposed measures to tackle file-sharing or copyright-theft, the 'three strikes' suggestion that repeated downloaders would have their broadband removed. Ignoring the fact that 'repeaters' are likely to be more net-savvy than their pursuers and that the likelihood of carrying out this action successfully is relatively slim, it seems sad that the music industry can't get its act together and help the Govt to form rational plans.

Instead we had the unfortunate war of words - via blogs, letters, etc - between the various music business organizations (of which there are too many) and certain individual artists like Lily Allen. She was reacting to the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC) whose members had argued that the Govt plan should be modified - offenders should maybe just have their access curtailed. Lily was pointing out that those in the FAC were likely to be established musicians who'd made their fortunes and thus less affected by the file-sharers. Whatever you think of Lily and her music there is little doubt that she is intelligent and opinionated, and someone famous/newsworthy had to say it.

Some were willing to weigh in behind her, but only in the vaguest sense. The problem for artists is that they're too scared to offend anyone - particularly those who are net-savvy who then scatter their opinions far and wide across various networks. Artists want to be your friend, they want you to like them - they can't deal with the thought that millions in the blogosphere will take against them and not buy their records (which they probably weren't doing anyway) or come to their shows.

This is essentially the Metallica-effect, wherein the metal band were seen to be one of the main objectors to the original Napster - making their anti-filesharing views widely known and taking legal action. The backlash was fierce and few artists are big enough to withstand it. Even Lily Allen eventually took down the myspace blog that made her points fairly clearly and fairly.

Artists used to be able to hide behind their record labels, claiming that it was the labels that took these actions and didn't necessarily speak for the individual acts. This, of course, was the classic chicken or ostrich defence. The fact that it allowed the horse to bolt through the unlocked stable-gate, since no-one cares about stealing from what they consider to be major corporations, is why we're in the position that we are now.

Artists were too slow to make their point - there's no living out there if you have to struggle to make music, no job-seekers allowance for those seeking jobs as working musicians. The whole system is flawed, and fraught with problems. It needs to be re-invented, but no-one seems clear on how to take the first step. It's clearly a slow process - but then it's always been a long way to the top if you want to rock n' roll.

As I said, there are opinions and opinions and opinions.

There are so many that I didn't link to them in the text, but you can see them here, here, and here as well as this one I hadn't read prior to writing the above but is pretty similar to my thoughts. So now we all have competing opinions.

Here (nearly) every week
Randomly here and there

the techno trap

2009-09-28T14:55:04Z

Technology's a trial. Naturally we take it for granted. Massive technological advancements that weren't available to our parent's generation, we treat them as our birthright and become indignant when they fail.

I'm trying to adopt this Zen-like approach as I battle through my ninth day without broadband. It hasn't been easy. The first challenge, when your ADSL signal dies, is to actually contact your Internet Service Provider. Naturally your significant dealings with them are conducted via their web-site or by e-mail, neither of which are available when you lose access on a Sunday as I did.

So, it's already day 2 by the time they know there's a problem. You fill in a complicated form which explains how you've already jumped through the hoops of testing the line with alternate routers/modems and line-splitters. All of which you had to retrieve from the loft of course because you'd assumed you no longer needed them, which was actually true. You fill in the forms and then you wait.

After prolonged waiting, they tell you that there's no fault on the line, that you should try it again. You get home and do so. It still doesn't work. A further ten minutes on their helpline disappears from your life, whilst you're forced to listen to messages suggesting that you take a look at their website. Chance. Would. Be. A. FINE. THING.

Eventually you get to discuss your hardware, the details of which you read from the manuals - the ones you had to dust off when brought down from the loft. Eventually, you wait. Some more.

By now it's Thursday and you've had a week without the web, you begin to realise the limitations of the iphone - as perfect as it is - and long for the slow pace of your up-to-8gb speeds and full screen views. Pick up a paper and read how the Govt wants to tax you an extra £6 a year to extend broadband to all. Fume that you already live in a major city and still can't get any service. Yeah, go ahead and take £12 out of my household so some farmers on the Isle of Skye can get access to iplayer and hardcore pornography. At least the sheep will be relieved.

Now all of your technology starts to betray you. The wii remotes won't work either. They are exacting revenge as they've been so unloved, you haven't picked them up in two months and now you want to resume your interest you can forget it. You don't call, you don't write, you've given up on Mario Kart.

As for the digital set-top box, it's always been temperamental. Now it won't change channel. Naturally the solution is to unplug it from the mains but when you plug it in again it wants to spend 15 minutes downloading an up-to-date TV guide. Then it keeps telling you that you'll need to re-tune on September 30th or risk having no digital stations at all. Naturally you fear the worst, even when you know that 20 million households face the same problem.

If it all goes wrong maybe I can send them an e-mail, if my broadband ever works again.

Two wheels good

2009-09-19T09:19:07Z

Celebrity chef James Martin landed himself in a bit of bother last week. Writing in a motoring column he gleefully described how he drove some cyclists into a hedge. Many people were offended, I wasn't.

I don't know James Martin. I rarely watch cookery shows and never see daytime TV. I have written columns and features though and I'd imagine that his claims were most likely to be what some might call 'journalistic license'. James was trying to clamber aboard the bad-boy bus, seemingly unaware that it departed some years back with Gordon Ramsey at the helm.

He speaks a universal truth though: motorists and cyclists don't get on. Regular readers (if such a beast exists) know that I've been cycling for under a year, I'm a novice. Given this status and the fact that I know I'm learning, I tend to do my cycling early in the morning before the roads get busy. Even then - using B roads and country lanes - I occasionally get into strife with motorists.

Usually the rule of thumb is that the bigger or more expensive the vehicle, the less patient the driver. They can't wait to get past you at junctions, or take you out on blind bends. Just this morning - at around 8am - a driver had to speed past me only to pull up and park some 500 metres later. He then had to wait for me to go around him before he could get out of the car, though I'm sure he thought about throwing the door into my face anyway.

I'm 6ft 3in tall and rather big-built. You might want to call me a fat bastard, but only if you can run quickly as I know how to throw my weight around. I'm tall, and I generally wear a fluorescent hi-vi vest when cycling. So, why is it that when I get on a bicycle I seem to become invisible to motorists?

If not cutting me up then drivers seem to take a perverse pleasure in seeing how close they can get to me whilst driving at speed. They'll be unaware of the slipstream or the backdraught because they're cocooned in a few tonnes of metal.

For all the criticism James Martin has received he's also had some support. What the other columnists and broadcasters might like to consider, whilst they crack their gags about how inconsiderate cyclists are, is what it's like to be under pressure from a vehicle much heavier and faster than you. To paraphrase the old adage (and Depeche Mode song) try cycling a few miles in my shoes.

Cyclists aren't perfect; many of us do skip red lights or take the occasional pavement diversion. Most of this we do to avoid getting in your way, it's no fun to have a bus or a lorry bearing down upon you and we know that at lights and corners you'll happily crush us against the barriers without even glancing in your mirrors.

It's in our natures to think that we're better than average drivers, but look up the word average and consider who it refers to if not you. I know I'm not a good cyclist yet. I freely apologise to those motorists I've held up as I try to get up those hills in Kenilworth and Berkswell. I'm also sorry if I've given you cardiac arrest as I wobbled over a pothole - with your fantastic shock absorbers you've probably no idea what a terrible condition the roads are actually in. The fact remains that it won't kill you to wait a few minutes for me; it might kill me if you don't.

Here every week
Randomly here and there

The Mystery Tour

2009-09-11T10:56:18Z

I was intending to avoid writing about The Beatles, but this week it would appear that they're very hard to avoid. In some respects this should probably make us sad, the fact that we're still talking about a band who split up almost forty years ago, but it also gives us an opportunity to reappraise them.

I am no Beatles aficionado, I am unaware of the minutiae around their existence, break-up and recording sessions. Indeed - as a perfect example of this - until watching a BBC documentary earlier this week I had no idea that the album Abbey Road was recorded after Let It Be. They were, of course, released the other way around.

The one outstanding thing about The Beatles, for me at least, is something that has always amazed me dating back to my earliest interest in music (let's call that 30 years). In fact it's two outstanding things - their progression and their productivity. They are two things that seem to remain un-matched throughout popular music.

I would like you to read the next sentence slowly, in fact read it twice and take it in. The Beatles released twelve original studio albums, thirteen EPs, and twenty-two singles (mainly featuring original music not found on their albums) in just eight years between 1962 and 1970.

Even discounting the singles/Eps (which would be foolish), twelve albums - one of which was a double - in eight years is an incredible bout of productivity. It goes from incredible to unbelievable when you think about the musical progression that the band undertook.

Let's say we were to discount the four albums released in 63/64 because they contain a lot of cover versions and are heavily influenced by the rock n' roll/r 'n' b that the band grew up with. Starting with Help, released in August 1965, the band started to become a truly original songwriting and performing powerhouse. Within four months they'd released Rubber Soul, a truly great album, and some eight months later came Revolver.

I accept that the social and economic and cultural and whatever conditions may have been different in those times and there may be sound commercial reasons why bands don't release material in such short bursts these days, but even given those thoughts how many bands do you think are capable of it?

It could be competently argued that the volatility of the marketplace, the fickle nature of fans and the nervousness of record labels might have prevented many artists from making the transition from simple pop band to heavyweight rock stars. I have argued this point repeatedly in the past, but currently I'm moving towards the belief that very few would actually have had the ability. Love Me Do to Strawberry Fields in five years?

In the interests of making this a scientific process, or as scientific as I'm capable of, let's try some comparisons. I love Radiohead. I probably like Radiohead a lot more than I like The Beatles and, you might say, that they made huge leaps in style going from Pablo Honey to The Bends to OK Computer. In cultural terms you could say they might be the closest but with only 7 albums released in 14 years, they're positively slack. Even if we contemplate halving The Beatles output so that we take two of their albums for every one of Radiohead it would mean that Radiohead should have been capable of Sgt Pepper at the time they were releasing Kid A and 'The White Album' by the time of Amnesiac. I'll leave that thought with you.

In terms of actual progression though perhaps a fairer comparison is to a pop band with longevity, The Beatles were very teen-friendly-pop when they started recording. In that instance maybe the closest comparison should be to someone like Take That? Yes, I'm partly doing this to amuse myself but after five studio albums do we think that Take That's next release will be as good as Rubber Soul? Or if we apply the same two for one process it would mean that Take That would have to release the equivalent of Abbey Road or Let It Be next. I'm no Derren Brown but I can assure you that this aint gonna happen.

I'm not trying to compare vastly different musical styles - if I could do that I'd be judging the Mercury Music Prize - just making a point about how the music industry has changed, not for the better. You can try it with any artist you like (I chose a few at random and it's an amusing way to spend 30 minutes if you're that way inclined), and maybe only Bob Dylan bore any comparison. If you find others I'm happy to hear of them.

So, if anyone asks you why The Beatles were important. I guess you send them here.

Here every week
Randomly here and there

My Manor

2009-09-04T18:50:09Z

The last day of the school summer holidays. Tradition in our household dictates a visit to Drayton Manor, even though the weather was suggesting that this may not be my best idea. Since what once used to be a surprise trip has since become an expected obligation off we went.

There is always logic to the decision, it marks the end of the break with an event and as some schools have already gone back it means that the park should be quieter. I have my own theme park tolerance formula: if the duration of queuing time is greater than the sum of the length of ride multiplied by the number of thrills then it's not worthwhile. Obviously I've never properly calculated this, but you tend to get a general idea.

This year I asked the children to eachbring a friend, to solve the problem of them arguing between themselves over which rides to go on. I had no doubt that they'd find something else to argue about, and doubling the number of kids under my control may also have been unwise but I could address those issues as they arose.

Drayton Manor is like an old friend, slightly dishevelled around the edges and having seen better days - but you're always pleased to see them. We have grown up with the park, and it's always had a range of rides that pretty much suited everyone. Although, after this year I fear we may have to upgrade to the older thrills of Alton Towers.

Once within we bypassed the new Thomas-land, as we're definitely too old for that, and decided to hit the G-Force early. It is never a disappointment, though the queuing tolerance was already being tested as the guy behind me seemed to want to get so close that I feared he was expecting me to give him a piggy-back up the stairs.

The length of queue does give you an opportunity to read the graffiti though. My particular favourite this time was 'Nuneton waz ere' as it allowed me to ponder if the 'artist' was really so stupid that they would've misspelled their home town, or if they were trying to be clever and confuse the authorities over where they might be from.

G-Force has a couple of seats which can apparently be adapted for the larger customer. As you'll see from the photo they're known as the Big Boy Seats. I imagine that if I ever had to use one it would be the last time I ventured to any theme park. Indeed the shame of having to use the Big boy seat might help to solve the country's obesity crisis.

From there to Shockwave, the legendary stand-up rollercoaster with cushioning that threatens your manhood as it springs into position between the legs. I couldn't decide if the visible mechanics of the ride were a great reassurance or not. Shockwave is all creaking metal and visible hydraulics dripping with grease (see pic). It's also a blast and consequently we went around again.

Going round twice provides the opportunity to attempt to pose for the in-ride photograph, which still costs a fiver and still comes in a card wallet. As I'm always thinking in marketing terms I couldn't help but wonder why this sales-technique hasn't moved with the times. Surely it'd be cheaper and more effective to charge people via their mobile phones and send all the pics from the day by mms or e-mail, with the additional benefit of data-capturing all those numbers to send offers to in future.

I was never able to improve my pose. I seemed to have gone greyer in the post-ride photos than I remember being, and although I'm smiling my eyes are usually clamped firmly shut.

Onto The Pirate Adventure, the non-thrilling story ride of which we all have fond memories, having ridden it at least twice per visit since before we can remember. Usually it's a good place to hide from the inevitable rain. This ride has definitely seen better days - large parts of what I wouldn't dare call animatronics are no longer working, providing you with sword-fighting pirates who can no longer raise their weapons. This ride left me a little sad.

Fortunately - or unfortunately - depending on your viewpoint Apocalypse was closed. I could never get over the irony of the ride being sponsored by Heart FM, being sure that their listeners weaned on a diet of soft disco, easy listening and ballads would be likely to suffer a failure of that major organ when the ride sends you hurtling towards the floor.

The epitome of Drayton Manor's slow disintegration was when one of my favourite rides - the Wild West shoot-out - failed with me stuck on it. The indignity of being manually pushed out to my waiting children whilst I sat trapped in the 'wagon' may live with me forever. Worst thing was that I love to score higher than the kids but even my guns weren't working.

Saving the water-rides 'til last is our popular Drayton Manor strategy. One seemingly shared by everyone that goes there - who'd want to start their day wet, knowing that in September it'd be impossible to get dry? We temporarily got stuck on Splash Canyon being bypassed by other boats before getting amongst it like some water-borne dodgems ride. I then donned my incredibly useful Hard Rock Café rain-poncho to much ridicule from the children - and random passers-by no doubt. I may have resembled a giant walking condom but I stayed drier than they did.

Of the Manor what more can I say, it's the closest theme park to home and remains great value. I only hope that someone soon shows it the same love that we have for it.

I survived The Blackout

2009-08-26T14:54:53Z

My daughter's becoming a gig-monster. I suppose it should be no surprise, it's probably in her genes. I'm now approaching the 30th anniversary of the first gig I went to (AC/DC at Birmingham Odeon), an event I might celebrate if I could only remember the date. Since then I've been to more concerts than I can hope to remember and seen many bands that I've subsequently forgotten.

For almost 20 years I've occasionally found myself watching bands I have little or no interest in, generally for the purposes of work. Some of those have surprised me, others have disappointed, and a few have been excruciating experiences I never hope to repeat. After two decades of being involved (sometimes loosely) in promoting live music I have become accustomed to knowing which gigs I can get away with avoiding - experience is a valuable asset.

Now I find myself having to attend shows I'd rather avoid. Primarily these are for the purposes of 'escorting' a vulnerable young adult. Except that she rarely shows many signs of vulnerability, and would probably prefer me not to escort her at all. I guess I understand this, I wouldn't have wanted to go to many gigs with my parents - and never did, but this may have been due to the fact that I didn't go to any gigs till I was 15. She's 12.

My first experience of the hell that is being visited upon me was as I stood on the edge of the rampant mosh-pit during Bullet For My Valentine's set at Sonisphere. I can't say that I was impressed, because I wasn't. I can't tell my daughter that I've seen it all before, because she isn't interested. This said I have subsequently taken to referring to BFMV as Welshtallica, adopting the classic stance of the parent ridiculing their child's 'inferior' musical choices.

So, last night I ended up in the sweaty-confines of Coventry's Kasbah Club. The bar area where I've seen a couple of acts previously - notably The Enemy & Soulwax - it's a small space, made much smaller when there's a couple of hundred people in there. I feared the room itself was sweating.

Being one of the oldest people in the room (but not the only parent present) and having been abandoned by my daughter as she went to mosh with her mates, I was able to view the gig with some considerable perspective.

My first thought, as I abandoned peggle on the iphone, was that The Blackout hit the stage with considerable aplomb, launching into a song that was clearly adored by the audience who instantly joined in. I see a lot of gigs and lots of bands get this wrong - even U2 on their recent Wembley appearances made the very odd choice of opening with three new album tracks. It's the height of insanity - you need the audience on-side and bouncing from the off. This, they achieved and carried their energy throughout the set.

As an impartial observer I could reflect on their engaging ability to mesh the hardcore with the melodic in such a way that it did not destroy their credibility but successfully attracted a larger audience of women than is the norm for such bands. I could also connect with their 'business-savvy', putting in a blistering live performance is the way to ensure audiences return, whilst also producing great t-shirt designs at a good price ensures your name is seen around town.

I suspect that new bands realise that there's more money in live and merchandising than exists in recorded music, they should do - there's been enough press about it - and they're probably young enough to know that their peers simply don't buy music. This was reflected in an exchange between band and audience:

'How many of you have got our album the best in town'
Loud roar
'How many of you midlands bastards stole it on the internet'
Slightly muted roar

I can't print what followed that response, even though it was good-humoured. This is a band who clearly knows their market. The problem is in making that market bigger, breaking out to larger audiences - a feat that seems to be getting harder to achieve. It's been a constant in this blog over the past few months; I don't know how a band breaks out or breaks big any more.

Staggeringly, this was a great band of whom I previously knew nothing; a great live band on their second album but still playing to an audience in the low hundreds. They may be headling smaller stages at Reading/Leeds or trying to convert the masses at Download, but is it paying the bills?

I mentioned in a previous week's rant that perhaps young people don't understand what it costs to be out there dying for your 'art'. They don't translate the petrol costs, hotel bills, the costs of living and eating, the studio time, the producers and recording engineers. Somewhere, someone has to pay. There are six guys in The Blackout, how do they live?

Eventually the only bands making money will be those with an older audience, an audience that still has a disposable income and still buys recorded music on physical formats. Younger bands need to reach that audience in order to make money, but may risk their existing audience in attempting to do so. Kids are averse to their parents taking them to gigs; thinking that they like the same music is a definite no-no.

As for the audience, they don't really get it because their parents drove them to the gig and will pick them up afterwards. Or in my case they'll even go to the gig and lend their kids the money to buy a t-shirt. I'm still waiting to get that back, but when I do I'll probably spend it on downloading a few of The Blackout's songs. I've written a thousand words on this topic but my daughter could probably sum it up in two: 'they rocked'.

Hard Work

2009-08-14T08:53:12Z

What's the world coming to? I go away for 7 days and there's a riot on the streets of Birmingham, Renato dies, Birmingham City went up for sale (again) and the football season started way too early. Surely it's still the summer; the variable weather conditions are proof enough of that.

There were also a couple of blogs and assorted news pieces which appeared to confirm my thoughts of the last few blogs. They can be found here and here

Then Thom Yorke weighed into the debate on albums and digital music, which is fair enough since Radiohead have placed themselves at the vanguard of this revolution.

Thom is someone I admire, his band remains one of the best and most inventive groups still playing today, but there are flaws in his argument. The CD was not solely responsible for killing the music industry, or at least not in the way he describes. It didn't really prop up the industry as sales of new material continued to boom for a long time.

Labels may have got slightly lazy in re-packaging and re-selling material on the new format instead of investing in new talent but, in a sense, they were only reflecting what was going on in the marketplace - the dance-music boom turned people away from thinking about bands and the labels just followed the money, as they always will.

The long-form-album is not to blame for all music's ills. The advent of the album, proper, in the late sixties was as a representation of a band's creative ability and their yearning not to be trapped in a short format. Bands have a choice - albums made sense in a commercial world, if the world changes then they're free to adapt and find bunches of single songs that work individually. I suspect record labels would prefer a bunch of hits to having to release albums with just one or two great songs and a bunch of fillers.

What I had intended to write, and will get around to in the next few wks, is a rhetorical question about whether musicians have only themselves to blame. All we hear of them is whinging, slagging off their labels or moaning about how much work they have to do. Whilst I was lying in the sun in Egypt I was reading a biog of Keith Moon , and became quite amazed by how much work bands used to do in the sixties.

Bands like The Beatles and The Who cut their teeth on the live circuit, playing night after night - sometimes multiple times in single days. Malcolm Gladwell's recent book makes much of the 10,000 hours theory - that only by doing something for that length of time will you become expert at it.

That's what it took to break through back then - lots of playing and lots of recording too - many singles and an album every year. Look at The Beatles discography and wonder at how they managed to release all those albums in under a decade. Perhaps bands will get back to this format of multiple releases now that they will have fewer industry-related-hoops to jump through. In the meantime could they spare us the whinging and get back to entertaining us?

Here every week
Randomly here and there

Is free a fair price?

2009-07-30T15:39:39Z

There's no such thing as a free lunch, or so they say. There are many though who believe that the internet is a free market for both thought and art. It's been an interesting week for this debate - or at least for anoraks like me who have a vested interest in it. Let's try to summarise the week, with appropriate links for you to explore further, should you wish to do so.

The RIAA vs. Tenenbaum

The Record Industry Association Of America (RIAA), the US record label trade body, sued student Joel Tenenbaum for illegally sharing licensed music via a P2P network. The RIAA has been quite active in the last few years in suing individuals whom they have been able to prove were involved in illegal file-sharing - uploading copyright controlled music for the use of others. Few of the cases get to court but Joel Tenenbaum sought the backing of Harvard lawyers to create what may become a landmark legal case.

In other countries the music-industry bodes, like the UK's BPI, have pursued a different approach to file-sharing by actively targeting sites that provide the means/platform for individuals to 'share' rather than targeting individuals. So they've gone after Kazaa, Pirate Bay, etc. like (the original) Napster before them. The crux of this thought may be based in PR; they wouldn't expect to get the sympathy of the media or other individuals by chasing down poverty stricken teenagers or students. The BPI has also made a major (media) case of pursuing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to control their individual users, something the ISPs, in the main, have resisted.

The crux of Tenenbaum's defence has been that it's unfair to pick on one individual for something that everyone is doing, and that his case should be subject to a 'fair-use' policy. The labels argue that if it's illegal then it is illegal, end of.

The repercussions will go on, as will file-sharing because (as the next sections show) the World seems to have become skewed with regard to the rights of musicians.

Chris Anderson's long tail and the 'free' philosophy

Chris Anderson is editor-in-chief of future-techy magazine Wired. He's what most people would call 'a player', a man of influence. One of his key creations was the terminology 'the long tail'; originally a Wired article and later a book the long tail refers to the economics of the internet age - where the future of business will rely on selling lesser quantities of a greater range of products over a longer period.

His new book seems to argue that the future of business is actually 'free'. I haven't had time to read it all but the crux appears to be that if something can be made available digitally then it should also be free. That this information is contained in a book currently retailing for £18.99 might seem a bit ironic but I'd encourage you to obtain a free read (or listen) here.

To be fair to him he's not essentially saying that people shouldn't get paid for their work - otherwise he'd have probably wasted his time writing a book - but that there should be different methods of payment and probably different pricing structures.

Personally I'd worry about who sets the price and how, in the future, we're ever going to make money from any artistic endeavours. Do we have to get out our begging bowls, or is it all about the PR?

You gotta PRay to get paid

Spotify launched a clever PR offensive this week. The message was that they've developed an app for mobile use of the service but they were concerned that apple might not approve it for use because if you can stream things then why would you buy them from itunes? They were subtly accusing apple of potentially being anti-competitive; a commercial giant abusing its market-dominance? Heaven forbid, who'd have thunk it, perish the thought, etc.

Common consensus is that file-sharing may be a thing of the past if people can stream any music they want, for free. In the UK Spotify is our leading exponent of this - and very good it is too, I'm using it as I write this.

Educated commentators have always been concerned that it's not a good long-term model and that Spotify can never hope to pay the labels & artists what they will eventually demand for the rights. Most Spotify users currently use the free model which gives you an advert after every four songs, but as every user will know the variety of advertisers and content isn't vast, suggesting that the Spotify business model is very reliant on people upgrading to the £9.99 per month premium offering.

Notably the suggestion is that the mobile model will only be available to premium, i.e. paying, users and may therefore be the prime route for Spotify to take. If apple were to turn it down then as the key player in the mobile + music market they'd be dealing a serious blow to Spotify's chances - and potentially the music business as a whole since it's largely believed that the labels have a share in Spotify. Hence this week's PR efforts.

Is there a conclusion?

Amusingly there was a banner ad on Spotify as I was using it, for Chris Anderson's book. The caption was 'get free for less'. As far as I can tell, free is free - but if no-one gets paid then nothing (of any worth) will get made.

Musicians have some work to do to illustrate the fact that they have to get paid, that people can't live without money - unless they live with their parents of course.

If we assume that most of the people involved in file-sharing, those who think musicians shouldn't earn from their online rights are under-25 then we may begin to understand why they do what they do, and think what they think.

Kids don't understand the costs of living, some of them are barely aware that money doesn't grow on trees. Through their influential role and hold over children musicians could help us educate them about economics - what things cost and why they should pay for them. Perhaps if they understood that some musicians have to live hand-to-mouth to create their art they'd be less willing to steal from them. Maybe.

Here every week
Randomly here and there

The bloggers guide to band management (part 2)

2009-07-23T11:17:24Z

Having established last week that I didn't make a great job of it, you'll hereafter appreciate that this fact doesn't prevent me from sharing my opinions on the subject of music artist management. Sounding semi-educated without testing that ability is the role of every commentator, skilled, experienced or otherwise.

So, you want to manage talent? Frankly it's a tough gig, and probably getting tougher. Breaking a band these days is harder than ever - there are more routes to 'market' or to the audience in general, but finding the right one and 'exploiting' it successfully is extremely difficult.

The future is a difficult territory to map. A manager needs to be aware of trends and understand the elements which will favour his or her act best. Some of this can be gleaned from looking at history and the career path of similar acts. This will be despite the fact that your act might like to think that they're one of a kind.

In the past the aspiration of every artist was relatively simple, they all wanted to get a record contract, a deal with a label, in order to get their music released into the world. Success could be measured by the size of your contract, how many labels were fighting over you and what the winning company were prepared to put behind you.

People can now sit in their bedrooms and get music into worldwide circulation, getting people to notice and appreciate it is a different matter though. Getting people to pay for it is harder still.

The amusing, or distressing, thing is that after all the hype about 'freeconomics' and the ability of artists to create their own social networks thru and with their fans, this has still not resulted in bands having the ability to create their own break-through to global success. The latter element still seems to revolve around finding a large company to manufacture, distribute and effectively market your music. No-one has yet managed to do it solely; no-one can do it without help.

So, what are the roles of the manager? Part advisor, counsellor, life-coach, solicitor, publicist, entrepreneur, accountant and music business expert - combine some or all of those elements and you may be successful.

Everyone talks about the only money for artists now being in live performances, but in order to gain an audience you have to have created a name for yourself - and this is the element which remains the most difficult. A good manager has to know how to 'cut-through' and to make an act 'stand-out'

A good manager acts as a conduit between the artist and the world at large, allowing his charges to create and vent their artistic temperament whilst he effectively 'sells' it. Some acts are capable of doing both but they are something of a rarity. If I were to list the key attributes a manager needs it might go something like this:

• An unstinting belief in his/her artist(s) tempered by a good sense of commercial reality.
• Deep pockets.
• An existing or recent link to a semi-successful act.
• A knowledge of the market - generally and specific to their act.
• Common sense.

Sounds relatively simple, but rarely is. The most difficult part might actually be in managing the expectations of the people you're working with. It goes without saying that most acts have to possess incredible self-belief, a problem which finds most managers jettisoned - even when they may be on the verge of success. The roadside is littered with managers who found themselves surplus to requirements as a band signed to some label or other - simply because the label knew someone who 'could do a better job for them'. Artists are frequently blinded by the promise of success; you can never expect the same loyalty that you may waste on them.

Given that it's such hard and frequently unrewarding work, why does anyone take it on? Inspiration and belief is everything - occasionally you come across an act who you wholeheartedly believe needs to be heard by many more people. When this moment comes you're possessed by a compulsion to do something. Whether you work in the music business or just love music these moments are like revelations, epiphanies - when you've had one you can do nothing but your best to make it work. That being the case I can only wish you luck.

Here every week
Randomly here and regularly there

The bluffer's guide to artist management pt.1

2009-07-15T14:24:17Z

I once thought I'd be a great band manager. Lacking in any real musical ability but having a deep love of music it seemed the obvious choice, a potential career path to run alongside my existing music journalism (which, frankly, has never paid). Then I tried it.

It was the mid to late 80's; the specific point in time has become slightly blurred by the passing of even more time. I was friendly with a number of bands in the general Birmingham area by virtue of hanging around in the wrong places, writing for local media, broadcasting for the BBC (locally) and promoting the odd gig on a random basis.

I had knowledge of music, media, marketing and publicity. I still have some of these skills, partly amplified by time and experience. Consequently I was invited by my friends in a band we should call Red Shoes (because that's their name) to help manage them.

Music managers of the time fell into three possible categories -

Close friends of the band who didn't mind cold-calling to get gigs and helping them to hump the gear around.

People with too much spare cash (but often not enough) who wanted to be in the music business, or to at least say they were.

Ex-musicians or recording studio workers, or people with existing 'successful' bands looking to expand their 'stable'.

None of the above was a reliable formula for success, but there seemed to be a glut of talent around and most of it went un-noticed. Sadly Birmingham was not considered 'cool' in music industry terms, certainly not on a level with Manchester or even Glasgow, Leeds, Sheffield or Cardiff - all towns/cities that have been deemed to have a 'scene' at any point in the last thirty years.

Although the whole Stourbridge scene blew up in the period where I could've conceivably said 'I was there' and I knew a few bands that went on to great success there were a great many more that disappeared without trace. Were it not for recent developments you may have been able to say the same of Red Shoes.

That Red Shoes were accomplished musicians was a given, they wrote great songs and performed them well. The interplay between main vocalist Carolyn and guitarist/co-vocalist Mark was the core of the band and each was the perfect accompaniment to the other, personally and musically.

They slightly defied classification, something I should've played more on - albeit that this was a time when the best way to sell something was to compare it to something else. Right now we'd have termed it alt. folk/Americana but I don't think I'd even heard the term Americana at that time.

It was a period in time where r.e.m. were about to become mainstream but the vogue was for scuzzy indie guitars, shoegazing or electro-pop, Red Shoes weren't easily pigeon-holed and most labels didn't really know what they'd do with them. Perhaps my failings were in not being able to elucidate this for them - this is how it's going to work, and this is how you should sell it.

I probably lacked the self-confidence or self-belief to do this effectively. The one A&R man I did convince of their talents similarly lacked the budget and confidence to make it work, though he spent some time trying. He eventually quit the music business to become a missionary in Africa. I genuinely hope I wasn't in any way responsible for this.

This could easily have become another music business sob-story. Inexperienced manager wrecks hopes of genuinely talented band. For a long time it looked that it might go that way. I had made the mistake of combining friendship and business, things that rarely prove compatible, and when mixed neither usually survive. But........

Earlier this month Red Shoes released their debut album, Ring Around The Land. A masterful piece of work, completed with talented collaborators who understood and appreciated their art. You could say that it's at least 20 years too late, but there's no such thing as perfect timing - fortunately for them great music is timeless.

The full story, written by someone who can write and has a better understanding of music than me, is here. It is worth your time, this is a classic of the 'good will out', and true talent will overcome all adversity - but only as long as you stick at it.

Part two - the proper guide to band management will follow next wk.

Another qualified album review

The Red Shoes guide to Freeconomics is here, tells you a little of what you need to know about breaking through today, it was always about relationships:

Here every week
Hardly ever here and here too often