Direct link to twitter:
Direct link to podcast:
Or click on the massive iTunes button to subscribe to the podcast...

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes


I'd forgotten how good Oasis were

I'm currently wedged deep into a massive Oasis period. I had my podcasts blazin' away on iTunes as I was conquering the world on Civ4. Next thing I know on comes some random tune I'd not heard in ages. I was using the iTunes DJ thingy which, when you run out of preselected audio, picks something at random from your library. I didn't know what it was at first but I instantly thought it was good.

Then Liam started singing the opening words "How many special people change..." and I recognised it as Champagne Supernova. What a crackin' tune!

That was about a month ago and I am now considering getting some form of psychological help.

I've consumed loads of YouTube videos, listened to the first two albums back to back and have even tried to listen to their newer stuff. Some of it's actually alright. Even the infamously bad album Be Here Now is partly alright. It's just badly produced. Listen to the acoustic version of its opening track on YouTube and you'll know what I mean.

Oasis were not my generation's Beatles. If you were determined to put that crown on someone it'd have to be Blur, they were far more musically creative. Oasis are my generation's Rolling Stones. Just as The Stones took old blues riffs and re-worked them Oasis plundered old glam rock tunes and Coca Cola adverts. However, in step with the intellectual "post-modern" culture of the 90's they went further in admitting their influences. The most amusing instance being the piano opener on "Don't Look Back in Anger". There's no need for it, it's clearly exactly the same as John Lennon's Imagine and it's obviously been stuck on as a little afterthought. A sort of in-joke, a musical wink. Like I said, they're quintiessentially postmodern.

See what I mean? I need help! I'm loving Oasis music without any sign of an end in sight.

Link to the acoustic version of D'You Know What I Mean

Definition of postmoderism for any readers who didn't waste three years mucking about at University doing English and European Literature.

The Royal Wedding vs Celebrity Culture

Years ago my ancestors will have been confronted with the following drama. As they picked turnips and slop up from the fields of the North of England, or wherever it was they lived, some bloke from The London will have rode up on horseback and demanded money in tribute to his mighty mate. The penalty for not meeting his demands will have been death on the end of this psycopath's sword. "He's already killed Dave," one of the villagers will have warned breathlessly, "he reckons we've got to give him tribute or some guy called King will burn the village down".

Terrified villagers will have in the main relented and those that didn't would have gained a fascinating insight into pain.

Over time this arrangement will has turned into "taxes" instead of tribute and the concept of "some guy called King" will have evolved into a Royal family. The world in which we live has many events like this propping it up.

You, unless you are bloodline royalty, will have ancestors with similar experiences. Doesn't matter where they were from in the UK that's what, approximately, will have happened. Some people have ignored this obvious fact regarding the institution of Monarchy and over time come to love their servitude. These people are called Royalists.

From what I can work out there are two kinds of thinking Royalist. One lot who believe it's a conduit for nationalism and another lot who think they might get something in return at some point.

Firstly, as regards nationalism, if a monarch is intrinsic to our national character then no one ever informed me. Ever. I grew up in this country. I've hardly ever left it. If we didn't have a Queen I reckon we'd still be living in England.

Secondly, with regard to attempting to curry favour, I often wonder if people with access to the media have an OBE in the back of their mind when they support the monarch.

Let me make myself clear: without reservation the oncoming spectre of a royal wedding does nothing other than turn my stomach.

I'm therefore heartened to read a story in The Daily Mail which reacts with a level of horror at the news "We’d rather watch X Factor! Schoolchildren are more excited by reality TV than the Royal Wedding".

"The Royal Wedding may be just six weeks away - but most British schoolchildren would prefer to watch the X Factor, according to [...] Chris Rojek, Professor of Sociology at Brunel University [...]

Professor Rojek says that school-age children do not view the Royals as exciting as their chart-topping favourite acts, as he told the Daily Mail: ‘Getting to be famous by being born into the right bed, like Prince William, is now seen as somewhat dubious, in a way that it wasn’t at the time of Princess Diana and Charles’ wedding."

The tone of the article is (possibly intentionally) amusing but speaks to something I've always argued in the past: reality TV "stars" are actually more worthy of respect than the Royal Family.

Unlike The Royals they've had to make an effort for their fame. Unlike The Royals they are there because they're liked. Unlike the Royals if you ignore them they will go away. And finally, most importantly, unlike the Royals they do not demand tribute from you every month.

Here are a few of the counter arguments to my stance which I've come across:

They're good for tourism and earn more money than we pay in.

RESPONSE: Great, lets stop funding them and allow the institution to become self sufficient.

Who would you replace them with, the likes of Tony Blair?

RESPONSE: Yes, because at least he got voted out. Years from now as 'king Charles takes to the throne Blair will be an unpleasant memory. However, 'king Charles will never get voted out. He'll die in that job regardless of how well or badly he performs.

It's tradition.

RESPONSE So was burning Catholics, denying women the vote, serfdom, jokes about the Irish, etc etc etc.

In the unlikely event that you are a monarchist I'd be interested to hear any other arguments in their favour. Pop them in the comments section. Post anonymously if you like.

Further reading:

Royal wedding could be damp squib for tourism, says official

Visit Britain research chief warns that evidence from previous events points to visitors steering clear of UK around 29 April

Follow by Email