Annoying People Don't Exist

"Guh, you're such an annoying person!" He didn't slam the book down, but might as well have done. She levelled her eyes at him, but held her peace.
"Oh right, what now?"

She felt like such a cliche, "Nothing." She let it hang in the air.

"It is never 'nothing'." He was careful to enunciate each syllable.
"It's just that.. well.. Annoying people don't exist."
"What?"
"They don't - annoyingly.. It's a projection on the part of the person who's annoyed. They project on to another person their own failure to deal with the situation in hand."

He stared at her. It was bad enough when she was straight with him, but these moments were always almost impossible. Sensing the need for explanation, she thought for a moment.

"There's a la.." She stopped herself. "Let's keep this gender neutral to stop any unhelpful ideas - a person is travelling on a train."

Calmly and gently the scene was set.

"They're sitting at a table, on the seat next to the window, normal carriage, you know the set up. No one else is at the table. They're reading a book."
"Where are they going?"
"Unneeded detail. But let's say it's the Transpennine express, towards Manchester - just so there's some lovely countryside. They look out of the window as they come to turn the page of their book. Unconsciously, they lick their finger (index, right hand, if you must know) before sliding the paper over. It was something they picked up from their Grandmother. When they were little, Grandma would sometimes read them bedtime stories, and she would lick her finger before turning the page. It was just something that was noticed, and consciously assimilated at a young age; but now in their mid-thirties, they had no idea they did it."

She paused, letting the peaceful picture settle in his mind.

"After a couple more pages, accompanied by the requisite finger licks, the train pulls in to a station. Let's say it was Hathersage. Several people get on, two of them join our bookreader. They look up at the new arrivals. Hmmm.. This gender neutral thing is going to be a pain."

She sipped from the cup in her hand, mentally assessing the new characters.

"One sat next to our friend, the other directly opposite. The one opposite seemed tense. From their bag placed on the otherwise empty seat they get out a laptop and some papers. Maybe they have a meeting, or it could be some deadline; but there are clearly things on their mind. The other new person watches them for a moment, smiles to themselves, and gets out a notebook and pen. They are going to meet their friend's new baby, but also going to take the opportunity for a little shopping, and a list is in order.
"Our book reader reaches the end of another spread, licks their finger, and turns the page. A few minutes pass, may be as many as ten. Everyone is settled into their thoughts. Another page is turned. Our listwriter notices the finger licking, and gently smiles. Their father would do the same, in a rather absent-minded fashion. They thought about their father, and wrote another entry on their list.
"The person opposite had noticed the digit-moistening as well."

She turned her gaze from the middle distance back to his face. Meeting his eyes, it was clear that he was listening and appreciated the new description.

"A few minutes later they notice it again. Then again.
'Why are they doing that?' questions our stressed person. Err.. Stressee? It was behaviour that, now they'd seen it, they couldn't ignore it. But they have work to do - that deadline isn't going away. Papers flutter, keys are clacked. Then the index finger is licked again.
"Now it's starting to get unbearable. The thoughts mount up. 'Don't they know the hygiene issues with doing that? What a ridiculous thing to do. Don't they realise how stupid they look licking their finger? Why don't they just lick the page and cut out the unnecessary movement?'

She took another sip.

"The stressee (nah, that doesn't work, does it?).. worker tries to concentrate on the job before them. As our reader reaches the end of another page, the right hand makes its journey upward. The movement is caught in the peripheral vision of our worker. They can barely contain themselves, but know they must. 'That person is so annoying!' reverberates around their mind."

She measured her words as they came out.
He could see it was coming, but let it pass without comment.
She left the scenario in stasis.

"Was our worker right? Is the reader an annoying person?"

The clock in the hall chimed the hour.

"On their own, the reader was unaware of their age-old habit. They were content in themselves.
"Our list-writer saw the habit, was at peace with themselves and the situation, and got on with their own life without any further fuss.
"However, the worker was stressed. Whether it was a meeting or deadline at the end of the journey, they were in no mood for the foibles of others.
"I'm sure I don't need to labour this any further, do I?"

He was looking down at the table. There was nuance to be argued, he felt. Some people set out to annoy others, their success would surely make them annoying - doubtless she had an answer for that. But the central thrust of her narrative did demonstrate her point.

"No. No, it's fine."

She finished the remnants in her cup.

"Are you getting the kettle on, then?"
"Yes, ok. And - sorry."
"Not a problem."
"But.."
She didn't quite purse her lips. "What?"

"Next time, couldn't you just hold the fart?"

Lucid - This Lonely Town

I have been passed another album - this time by the band Lucid, an album called This Lonely Town. I have reflected thereupon..

Whilst contemporary references can easily be found in the music of Big Big Train, Mostly Autumn, and others with a folk/rock edge, the slide guitar reminded a lot of Bryn Howarth's work on Wally's Valley Gardens LP - indeed, anyone sufficiently long in the tooth to recall Wally will probably find this a very pleasing set of tunes.

Range of vocals is very pleasing, all well sung, and harmonies spot on, never overdone. One might even wonder if the backing singers had been listening to Dark Side Of The Moon. The scope and depth is both wide and deep. There are some very atmospheric vistas created, as well as some quite intimate moments. The mix of near and far elements has been judged perfectly.

This clearly has roots deep in the folk and celtic idioms, blended very proficiently with more traditional rock and blues elements - even a bit of pop creeping in with Simple Things (with its interesting use of Charlie Chaplin's speech from The Great Dictator as the introduction) and Head In The Clouds. The use of acoustic instrumentation throughout is most pleasing, bringing often a lightness to the proceedings, whatever the subject matter may be. Acoustic guitar and piano form the bedrock of the sound, helped out with some fabulous violin playing, occasional flute, and both very atmospheric and stirring sax from Steve Beighton. Even a bit of fretless bass which always warms my heart.

An early reflection was that, for my own taste, I found the dynamic range of the arrangements (and between tunes) slightly less pronounced than I would like. However, as the album progresses this complaint is put to bed. There is plenty hear to engage the ears. The music hangs together perfectly well, both the tunes individually and as a collection. And, from a technical stand point, the overall production and final mixes (by Simon Hanhart) are excellent, as is the final master.

There is a timelessness about this music. It never gets locked in one place, a common feature to many folk-prog albums. It moves from straighter meters to 6/8s, up tempo to slower ballad (This Lonely Town being a highlight here, especially with its occasional drops into some Kurt Weill moments), from single instrument to very full sound.

The sound engineer in me appreciated the emotional intelligence of the sound, and that the depth of field hasn't been lost in overzealous mastering. The musician in me warmed to the arrangements; and the punter in me would be happy to go out and see them live as well as buy the odd disc!

Answering for a friend..

I was asked by a friend about the result of the 2016 UK Referendum about leaving the EU - "the vote has happened and yes it was close, but it was democratic, so why can't people accept it and get on?"

Alas, there is no quick answer, there is a lot of nuance surrounding the issue in terms of arguments before the vote, interpreting the result, and how to proceed downwind of that. Plus there is a fundamental problem with debating the subject - it appears no one's interested if it can't be expressed in a couple of sentences. It's not an attention span thing, nor an issue around intelligence, it appears to be, possibly, more to do with not wanting to examine issues of trust and identity, but that's probably my psychology degree talking(!).

So - I'm not going to even attempt to give a short answer. I will lay out what I see as the central issue at stake, and why 'accepting it and moving on' would be to dismantle, rather than promote, democracy in the UK.

The main problem with what happened in 2016 is one based in constitutional law, and what defines 'democracy.'

Aristotle, Weber, and others upon whom we base our ideas of democracy and governance, set out and discussed many forms of democracy. It's not a single immovable object or idea. The word has problems. Like the word 'love' - when someone says it, what is the context, and what are they actually meaning? Equally, what does a person mean when they say 'democracy'? Drawing lots is blind democracy, everyone gets a go at choosing, though no one has a direct choice in the outcome. There's Representative Democracy, such as in the House of Commons, where groups elect a person to represent a number of people. This itself has a problem - whom does the Representative represent? Is it 'the people,' is it their affiliated party, is it some broader ideal? It's worth bearing in mind folk like Edmund Burke ('the father of modern Conservatism'), who spoke at length about the 'solemn and overriding duty of members of parliament,' said "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion;" and Churchill - "The first duty of a member of parliament is to do what he thinks, in his faithful and disinterested judgment, is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain."

There are many other forms of democracy, e.g. Proportional Representation; Alternative Vote system - about which we had a referendum in 2011 and rightly rejected; and others. Somewhere tucked in amongst all that is just the ordinary vote where the most votes cast for an idea wins - the simple majority. Pretty much every thinker on the subject sees this as the lowest form of democracy, and declare it only appropriate for small numbers of people and for matters of lesser consequence. Weber worries about 'mob rule' (it's proper name, by the way, is ochlocracy), Aristotle goes so far as to call it 'Evil Democracy,' and no one ever suggests using it for anything with large numbers of people, nor important issues - such as determination of matters of State!

One might quickly point out that the House of Commons uses this simple majority vote when passing law - the Ayes and Nays. However, for each law, there are multiple layers and votes - HoC vote on first reading, House of Lords debates and suggest amendments, HoC has second reading and vote, HoL debates/amends, HoC has third reading and final vote. So whilst the voting process is simple, the procedure is not. Being the 'Mother of Parliaments,' with the first modern General Election in 1695, we have had rather more practise at this than any other current nation. Whilst we have no constitution written in a single place, we have centuries of law and protocol set out which guide the processes. Whilst I'm am often iconoclast and have little time for pointless tradition, I'm pleased that our Parliamentary system has some, and though it's not perfect, it's generally fairly robust.

So.. we come to The Referendum Act 2015. Referenda can be set out in a variety of ways, and this act was debated and designed to fulfil a certain function. Page one of the Act states clearly that it was to be 'Advisory,' and here is the first point of contention. Being advisory meant that it was not intended to be binding or the result brought directly into law; its purpose was to bring the electorate's views to a Commons debate about what is best for the country in relation to the EU. We have run very few referenda in the UK, mostly because they are not felt to be 'good democracy' in a land which is governed by a Representative Democracy where there is a countrywide vote at least every five years (originally it was every three, a couple of centuries back..). Other than the AV Ref, none of the referenda have been binding, though Cameron stated he 'believed' the Scottish one in 2014 was, but there was no stated legal basis for his claim, it certainly wasn't in the legislation.

Very few of the referenda held in the UK have had any controls placed on them - thresholds for turn-out, motion to carry, etc. And whilst they have been, arguably, very poorly designed democratically, it's not, really, been an issue as the results have generally not been close. The various Welsh referenda had thresholds stated for motion to carry - in 1979 the motion was rejected; in 1997 it just passed the threshold and so the Welsh Assembly was created. With results not having been close, we've basically 'got away with it.' It wasn't good democracy, but the result covered over a multitude of sins. The EEC referendum in 1975 was non-binding, as the 2016 one was designed to be, but with 67% in favour from a 64% turnout, there was no need to work out how to process the information.

It is worth noting that Alex Salmond tabled an amendment to put in provisions for motion to carry for the 2016 Ref, indeed he proposed a quadruple lock, that not only should there be an overall UK majority, but majorities in each of the four component parts of the UK. His amendment was rejected on the grounds that the referendum was to be advisory and non-binding. Had he proposed a different form of threshold, it might have been accepted. Having said that AV Ref had amendments tabled by the Lords twice to have some sort of threshold, but they were defeated both times by the Commons. The 2015 Referendum Act was debated and passed.

Between the Act gaining Royal Assent and the actual vote, the Conservative party issued a leaflet to every household saying that 'the Government will implement what you decide.' And here is the root of the problem. That leaflet had no basis in law - the Act didn't say that, none of the debates said it. But being in a Govt leaflet gave it an air of authority from which it is hard for a politician to distance themselves without looking 'un-democratic.'

So the day came and went, and the result was a knife edge. If you tossed a coin 35m times you'd get a similar result. Nigel Farage stated a few days before the 23rd June that 'in a 52:48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.' Curiously prescient of him.. The final result was marginally closer than his fears, being 51.9:48.1. There are arguments about the quarter of the electorate who didn't show up to vote, and whether their abstentions should be taken into account; but the Ref Act 2015 didn't mention anything about them, so we'll leave that to one side.

From the result the advice to HoC would be that we had a divided nation, and when they get around to having the debate on whether we should remain in the EU, they would have to tread carefully and sensitively around the subject. That was the purpose of the whole exercise.

Only, that's not what happened. HoC have still not had that debate. David Cameron made the decision himself, declared we were leaving, and walking into Number 10 humming a curious tune. Within 24 hours of the result, centuries of parliamentary constitutional law were bypassed. And this is the bone of contention. Folk like Gina Miller have contested it in court, and the High Court have ruled that the leaflet was not legal, and had no right to have stated what it did. The hearings also raised various concerns about the process, and what the result actually meant.

In the months that followed, it became apparent that the rhetoric of the Leave campaign was flawed. Arguments have been put forward about dishonesty from the Remain group, but there has been little to disprove about their position, as we have lived it for the last 40 years. Now, political campaigns based around mis-truth is nothing new, and whilst it's irritating that folk took in the lies and voted in line with them, as well as their views on immigration, control, etc., they voted that way and that's all there is to it. One hopes they may regret it, and see truth of what happened, but one oughtn't hold one's breath. No one likes to face having been lied to. However, the issue at stake here, really, is due process, and whether we are a democracy.

Fast forward a few months, and the Article 50 White Paper is published. After the Leave campaign championing the phrase 'Take back control,' it was interesting to note that the White Paper claimed on the first page that Parliament has “remained sovereign throughout our membership" of the EU. Issues surrounding the absorption of EU law that were touted during the campaign also appear slightly disingenuous when the statistics show that in the last decade the UK voted with the EU for over 2000 items of legislation, which all became parts of UK law, and voted against around 50 items. Those 50-odd still became UK law against our wishes, but agreeing with 97.5% of the laws put forward suggests that we did pretty well.

January 2017 saw the 'European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017' debated and passed: and still the debate about the referendum result hadn't happened. And this is a problem. Proper UK democracy - the following of laws passed, the conventions and protocols of how our Parliament is designed to operate, the checks, balances and due process - has been willingly and knowingly laid aside. And it's all rather odd. We have recourse to the High Court with this. It should not be seen as a done deal, as 'the people have spoken' - this isn't about the people having spoken, and never was. Advice was sought from them, and that was it. Were 'The People Have Spoken' a thing, one looks back to that first modern General Election in 1695, and it turns out The Whigs won. If The People Had Spoken, then how the heck do we have a Tory government now? It's a meaningless phrase, and coupled with the highly emotive 'The Will Of The People,' makes it very difficult for any politician with an understanding of the complex issues surrounding withdrawal from the EU to voice their concerns.

Deployment of these phrases suggests the spirit of Machiavelli is alive and well.

My friend also said "I thought about the last election, which was very close. So I looked that up and it was something like 42% Cons and 40% Labour. I think those of us who were disappointed but cleverer than me worked out that if it had been counted differently Labour would have got in." This is a valid point, and why our democracy is structured such that we hold General Elections at least every five years. Opinions change, ideas of what is best for the country are not static. Three years after 1695, the Tories won. The Will Of The People, had it existed, had changed, overturning the Will of three years before; and so democracy in this country started to roll its difficult journey through modern history.

Whilst referenda are infrequently used by the UK, there may be an argument for using them periodically to test the electorate's response to an idea outside of the general political process. There have been a few concerning Welsh self governance, each with sufficient time between them that testing the waters may be worth while. Having a second EU referendum some decades following the one in 1975 may or may not have been a good governance. There are some worries from history about the multiple deployments of a referendum as a political tool, and satirical films on the subject, such as 'The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer, bear consideration in relation to the nature of the political forces seeking to use them.

There are fundamental issues with the nature of how the 2016 referendum was run, both in preparation and following it, which I have highlighted here. They could have easily been mitigated. Using a simple majority is an appropriate way of answering questions such as 'should we watch Thomas The Tank Engine or In The Night Garden?' but not for the determination of matters of State. A 'super-majority' is more appropriate if the result is to be binding - yet none was set, as it was both declared during Parliamentary debate and in the legislation that it would not be needed given the nature of the intention underlying the vote.

My feelings about the result, I don't doubt, come through in my choice of words and phrasing, and had the process followed been in line with our democratic traditions, I would have been stoic and less vociferous in the face of a similar result.

However, I hope I have shown, in some way, that whilst the result of the referendum is, perhaps, lamentable and will have many far-reaching consequences to its enactment (there I go again); the problem is not so much the result, but the undermining of our democratic constitution. This is, fundamentally, why we should not 'accept it and get on.'

As a side note, it is worth noting that the civil service in Whitehall are perfectly competent in drafting watertight 'democratic' legislation, one need only examine the laws surrounding a Union's right to strike.

There is a real irony that the path being followed is one that is significantly undermining democracy, whilst being carried out in that name. Perhaps it is the British love of irony that has held most MPs back from following Burke and Churchill's advice.

Addendum

Those who practise science will know that on the proposal of a hypothesis, one develops a methodology to test the hypothesis, then examines the results to look for trends in the data that support or refute that hypothesis. Various statistical tests are available, and depend on the structure of the methodology as to which is appropriate; but no matter which tests are used, one looks for a result which decisive. It is accepted practise to look for results which have a significance of greater than 5%, anything less than that is considered to be noise - it doesn't support the hypothesis and any scientist worth their salt will reject that hypothesis, and go and make a cup of tea (optional, though recommended).

Whilst the 2016 Referendum

• was essentially, a political, rather than scientific, experiment;
• had, as we've seen, a curious methodology; and
• had results that won't even fit a simple T-Test, let alone an ANOVA

the difference between the two votes was 3.8%. As mentioned, were one to toss a coin 35m times the result would be very similar (so long as Rosencrantz and Gildenstern were not involved..).

Intricate matters of law aside, if anyone is willing to base fundamental matters of State on something comparable to the toss of a coin, they should probably re-evaluate what they believe 'democracy' to be.

Mzylkypop - "When Will The Wolves Howl / Kiedy Wilki Zawyja?"

I have been passed an album by Mzylkypop, an outlet for the the work of Michael Ward (Floy Joy, Was (Not Was), Alison Moyet). Having listened to it a few times now (it's still playing.. again..), I wrote some reflections.

"When Will The Wolves Howl" is a concept piece set in the future, with feet firmly in the past and present. The year is 2030 and a right-wing government are repatriating non-desirables, one might be tempted to call it a fiction were it not that it feels so close to reality.

Ward has drawn on his production knowledge from the worlds of pop and radio play to produce a work of depth and interest, taking in psychedelia, traditional Eastern European scales, the world of free jazz, and anything else he can lay his hands on. I hear The Pretty Things, Soviet Bloc folk symphonies, echoes of Aphrodite's Child, the King Crimson of 1971, and in places an air of Godley and Creme's Consequences...

No part of the album is just read off a page, it is 'performed' to within an inch of its life. Sylwia Drwal's vocals are alluring and haunting. Whilst large parts of her contribution are in Polish and, I have to say, beyond my O-Level French grasp of non-English languages, the sensual delivery conveys meaning and emotion. Every track is a journey, and one willingly taken. One is drawn in to the layers of sound, well crafted arrangements with an ear for detail - plastic organs, woodflutes, gongs, flighty cymbals, filtered basses.. oh, it's all here.

The straight ahead psyche-pop elements drive like Beefheart at his best, the more jazz elements conjure visions of beret-wearing Left Bank communes. The laments are sumptuous, and the spoken work sections full of hazard and uncertainty. The band are unfailingly tight, and the production nigh on perfect, melding fin-de-sixties mores with the fidelity of a modern studio (oh, those reverb tails are a work of art!).

This is compulsive listening. The drawing together of futurist concept, psyche-folk elements, and contemporary relevance make for a full Tralfamadorian experience (are Vonnegut references still allowed? Too pretentious? Who cares..)

For those who don't mind knowing in advance that the butler did it, this is how it ends - TV Lives

As you can see, I'd recommend it! It's due for release in the near future (not 2030..) - I'll post back when it's out :-)

FoI

It had been a few years.
There had always been mixed messages,
But, helpfully, she'd sorted them in advance,
Placed along a spectrum, from extreme to extreme.

But what now? What did she think?
And what of then? What does she see?
Can I send her a Freedom of Information request?
Would the modest fee cover the emotional cost?

I brace myself as the brown envelope sits on the table.
I twitch as the phone rings.

I stare at the noise.
It demands.
It begs.
It withholds secrets I cannot know,
Though were I to comply, it may tell me everything.

But my table is bare. My phone dormant.
Her information is free, and that freedom includes the denial of my request.
With my intrigue rests a contentment.
The past, long gone, remains with me forever.

Incognito

I met Sandra Bullock the other night.

It was in a dream (of course), but it was she nonetheless.

It was mid afternoon on the Underground, a sparcely populated carriage. I forget which line. She was sat alone, just sitting, with shades on to mask identity. I was curious, so sat next to her. After a short time I enquired if she knew the time. The turn of head, catching eyes, tone of voice confirmed my suspicions that is was indeed her. After a minute or two I mentioned, sotto voce, that I was a big fan of her work. She allowed me to make conversation, and we chatted for a while.

I had little else to do during the afternoon before a train home, so I silently elected to get off at her stop. We continued to talk, how she found England to be, weather, books, history. I asked if she had time for a coffee, which she needed some persuading to accept. I said I would ensure she got to her appointment in some offices not too far away.

We had just over half an hour.

I found a caff on a back street, with few customers. We shared a large slice of lemon drizzle cake over a latte and pot of tea, and continued to talk about life, love, hopes and failures. It was all very easy and pleasant, no pretensions and no awe.

Leaving the caff, I walked her, as promised, to the offices. Just as we parted company I gave her a copy of my CD remarking "I'm not a doctor, but I think you ought to take one of these." Our warm valedictions included no talk of meeting again, or even being in touch.

I wonder if I'll see her again.

A Taste Of..

well.. it turns out my eldest is a fan of contemporary Icelandic folk.. Today she introduced me to the music of Of Monsters And Men - very nice too.

I have paused to reflect a little on musical introductions.

In our youth, my brother and I perused the record collexion of our father, elements of which helped inform our musical tastes. It worked out quite well - in the very late 70s to mid 80s when we were finding our way, Dad's LPs stretched from the earlyish 60s, through the 70s to a few then contemporary discs; acknowledging some overlap, Simon and I almost divided the collection in two, excepting a few stragglers. The music we discovered from then has remained with us since. My brother finds himself a lifelong fan of the more 60s based music, such as The Beatles, the blues, and rhythm and blues (hit, as they say, it..); I took more from the second half of the collexion, with such diverse elements as The Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, ELO, Supertramp, 10cc - basically the building blocks of a life spent in the environs of progressive rock.


I have three children, and (sadly) do not live in the same house as them. For one reason and another it is highly unlikely that they will give much thought to looking through my LPs. Even were we to share accommodation it would still be an improbable proposition. From what I see there may be a few reasons.


My favoured format is not so common these days, my children are growing up in a culture where their jukebox is based around YouTube and other related phenomena. Whilst they know what to do with a CD, mostly, it seems that they would rather not.
My LPs are at least two formats old. They are not an instant medium. Whilst they offer a degree of random access, it is less than their successors. As we choose to label each successive generation with having shorter attention spans than their forebears there seems to be the expectation that the labels will be correct, and so allow technology to close the gap on desire and gratification. To my children, such ancient tech as the vinyl disc now seems a more than slightly alien concept, and less attractive as a route to music than the click of a mouse.


As an aside, I do question some of the short attention span claims; many youths over the last 15 years seem to be able to handle long films and lengthy series such as LOTR, Harry Potter and Twilight..


A second reason is that my favoured music is further removed from the present than where my adventure began. In the 80s when we were plundering Dads LPs, his collexion was taken from the culture and time he lived through, which was a still a recent memory. A fair swathe of the music was still played on the mainstream radio, maybe not on the hippest shows, but since it was, at the time, between 5 and 20 years old it wasn't so far out of reach. Some of the bands in Dad's collexion were even still making music.

My LPs represent a similar length of time as my father's, but offset by 5-7 years, from ~1968 to ~1983. My taste has never been immediately contemporary, and as such is less representative of 'my time' in the way that Dad's was of his. I do not have anything by Wham!, Duran Duran, Bros, Bryan Adams [errr, OK, I'm getting a little sketchy.. Since I didn't really pay any attention to what was hip after about 1983, I have little idea whom to list here!]. My children are unlikely to encounter the artists whose albums I possess anywhere other than my record collexion, so there isn't the same draw of 'Dad, do you have anything else by..'. It is not the case that there are vaguely familiar names as it was for me.

I believe there may be other factors of perception at play, along with standard generational differences, but they're probably not worth investigating at this point.


This is not to say that I cannot make small suggestions here and there to maybe help my offspring along the way in their journey of music. They may find my record collection irrelevant, perhaps artefacts of an increasingly lost time; but I hope I might be a relevant signpost here and there.

Having listened to 5 tracks from Of Monsters And Men, I was able to suggest some items from Laura Viers 'July Flame' album which were not poorly received. Perhaps in time I might be able to drop in some Fleet Foxes, then maybe a hint of CSNY, Joni Mitchell and Creedence ClearWater Revival.. Well, might as well try make the best of it - I know she'll never go for Genesis or Gentle Giant!