A 'Free' Scotland?

Sitting down to Burns Night dinner this week marked a sort of turning point for me; it seemed as if all the things swirling around at the moment about Scottish independence came to a head, as if the relevance finally hit. You could blame this on my languid attitude towards keeping current affairs current – I frequently bring up ‘breaking news’ in conversations with my friends three days after it actually ‘broke’ – or you could see it as a realistic representation of the way a lot of people my age view the importance of current affairs. As a general rule, unless it is forced in our faces, there’s a good chance a lot of us will have no clue whatsoever (but don’t condemn all young people – plenty do keep up to date, I’m just generalising a large portion of us). So it should make sense that it would come as such a surprise to me that the topic of Scottish independence would surface three times in one day, and at least twice more over the succeeding week. This is topical; relevant. And a lot of people seem to have opinions about it. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of confusion over what it’s all really about.

Putting it simply, the Scottish National Party (SNP) are aiming for a referendum to vote for independence in late 2014. They want Scotland to be a separate sovereign state, splitting from the United Kingdom. The SNP first rose to prominence in the late 1960s when the decolonisation of the British Empire gave cause to growing assent that imperialism, one of the key attributes to a ‘united kingdom’, was being undermined. Now the issue is at hand again, and since 2007 the SNP have made several attempts to submit a referendum but with resistance from many other parties. Now there are two sides looking at what to do – and I think it’s important that we devise some opinions pretty quickly.

In support of independence, SNP leader Alexander Salmond calls it the most important decision for Scotland in 300 years. He says, “Our nation is blessed with national resources, bright people and a strong society... I believe that if we connect the wealth of our land to the wellbeing of our people, we can create a better country... We shouldn’t have a constitution that restrains us, but one which frees us to build a better society.” Many people are supporting this idea, the basic ideology for the SNP, believing it will help the country to grow, benefiting all citizens.

On the other hand, there’s also a lot of opposition to the independence movement. Some people are writing it off as a brief flair of nationalism; but with the referendum now as a concrete idea, it is clearly no longer a trivial desire for a lot of people. The Calman Commission, established back in 2007 between the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties to ‘review the devolution’ is an example of previous political opposition. Presently however, opposition from the public seems to come predominantly in the form of worries about the effect independence would have on the economy and the amount of debt assumed in the split. Not to mention the referendum also costing £10 million. With the recent recessions causing the economy to be at the forefront of everyone’s minds, regardless of their level of knowledge for economics, people are worried about what the economy would be like after a split – for both Scotland and the rest of the UK.

There are also a lot of issues yet to resolve. For example, what would the decision about the EU be? Would the Euro be adopted? Would a separate military be established? There is a lot to decide. It probably doesn’t help that a lot of rumours and ill-informed guesses are also cropping up and causing much confusion. Just last week I heard someone earnestly declare that if Scotland did gain independence then I would, in fact, be deported and have to immigrate in order to continue studying here. Hmm. Thankfully, this was a sentiment based on nothing but ignorance and there are no plans for a closed border.

Either way, recent polls show that 70-75% of people are calling for a referendum, whether in support of independence or the union. Whilst this may cause worry on both sides about the outcome, at least we can agree that people are getting involved – something that modern politics has been calling for. With Salmon suggesting that 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote on Scottish independence, it certainly seems like this is a topic that young people should be getting engrossed in. I am a firm believer in getting the younger generations interested – after all, we are the future – so I wholeheartedly believe that this is something worth getting fired up for. But I am still just one vote amongst many; we all ought to have an opinion, whether for change or for constancy. Whichever outcome we reach, we will all feel the impact. So why not get involved?

'Whack? Man, That's Lame...'

As an English Language student, I know more about the complexities of crafting words than I actually care to know. I know when a word is a post-modifying adjective or a complement, or an adverb is posing as an adverbial just for kicks, or when all of the above actually want to be defined as an adjectival phrase so as to make life that little bit harder. I spent a week studying the different types of pronoun (singular, possessive, 3^rd person, yadda yadda yadda) and the moods of different sentence types and really, there’s only one sensible conclusion to draw: it’s all irrelevant.

As a ‘young person’, I seem to use more made-up words than I do Standard English anyway, and that makes more sense to me. It’s not a new idea so don’t credit me, but English is evolving - and at a pace that confounds all of us. It always has done; it’s the natural progression. If it didn’t then we wouldn’t have any language at all – how do you think it all ever started? Words simply don’t always mean the same thing anymore. To my age group, ‘whore’ or ‘ho’ is an acceptable term for a friend, male or female (although many older people see it as a kick in the teeth for feminism) and ‘gay’ hardly ever refers to homosexuality. Nine times out of ten the person saying it has no issue with homosexuality, although older generations think we’re being inexcusably offensive. We just don’t see these words in that way. A standard conversation with any one of my friends nowadays will inevitably involve the words ‘filth’, ‘beef’ and ‘gwanin’’, and none of these words will be used in its usual capacity. ‘Filth’ is a greeting, or a murmur of agreement. ‘Beef’ is a bad situation (often used in verb form, ‘to beef’, when you are getting angry with someone or starting some trouble) and ‘gwanin’’... Well, that’s a made-up term that I’m not even sure makes sense to us. The effect of this new language is surely pretty standard-textbook to anthropologists, psychologists and the like; it separates us from the ‘adults’ and the others in our peer group that we have no desire to communicate with. It creates a group identity, improving social cohesion (as they say). And it’s more than a little bit fun. It’s a bit like 40-year-olds looking back at the time they claimed everything was ‘to the max’ or the best put-down they could muster was ‘face!’, or even as I look back to when I was seven and tacked the word ‘not’ onto the end of every sentence to be cool. Not. It’s not a surprise to anyone, yet there are always people moaning - “Speak properly! Pronounce your T’s!” I just think it’s nice.

Slang, or colloquialism to be precise, is a natural convention of human interaction and also, in my opinion, quite a good indicator of societal progression. After all, not everything that I say to my friends is trivial, amassing to a general waste of oxygen. Young people talk about topical events, too. The conversations just sound a little different, key politicians being referred to as ‘this-or-that douchebag’ and the general state of the world being reduced to ‘just a bit shite, really’.  The level of slang that pertains to my group seems to increase when there are more issues present in our lives than when we are relatively stress-free. Exam season was an explosion of synonyms for ‘bad’ (filthy, grosty, grubby, rancidity) whilst the long summer was ‘tasty’ or ‘sick’ (resurgence thanks to The Hangover films) and spent with my ‘homies and sistas’. We’re hardly ‘street’ so I guess we use this language ironically, but it’s still amusing when relating stories to outsiders and having to clarify on the sentence, ‘he was beefin’ up deep, give me some correlation sista’.  For the inexperienced in cult-youth language, there’s always Urban Dictionary, a site that I often have to run to in order to suss out teenage rants (and I still don’t know what ‘ratting’ means these days) and that really is a blessing. It also shows how determined we are to maintain this part of our culture. There isn’t a name for our generation yet – there’s no more Teddy Boys or Mods – but maybe in twenty years or so anthropologists will be able to suss out a term to describe our incredibly diverse group. Even if it’s ‘that anomaly in our educated society’. That’ll be one for the Dictionary.

Spotlight: Great Expectations

The new BBC version of Great Expectations deserves to be blogged about, namely because I find it strangely mesmerising. Released over the Christmas period (Dec 2011), the three-part retelling is written by Sarah Phelps and stars Douglas Booth, Ray Winstone, Gillian Anderson and Vanessa Kirby.

My reading of the book two years ago was hardly the prophetic enlightenment it perhaps should have been. I had the best intentions – I thoroughly wanted to enjoy it and find in Dickens’ words the deep meaning that so many have over the past century-and-a-bit, although I must admit that my disjointed reading habits led to a rather mismatched understanding of the novel. As a result, I would never have expected for this version to appeal to me so much. The sumptuous styling of the locations (the BBC themselves aptly stating it as lavish) greatly align with the costumes, making it a picture-perfect period drama, and yet these do not detract from the performances of the actors themselves. Booth seems to have been created purely for the part of Pip and I find his performance captivating. He’s gotten a lot of stick for being ‘too pretty’ or ‘too pouty’ to play the rough orphan Pip, but I hardly see how this is relevant to his acting abilities. He doesn’t ride on his looks; it’s part and parcel. Vanessa Kirby as Stella, whilst not much like how I envisaged her, is frightfully cruel and stony, much as she should be. The only casting peeves I have are those of Miss Havisham and Joe Gargery (played by Gillian Anderson and Shaun Dooley). The Havisham of my imagination is far older and bitterer than Anderson’s, who, at 43 years old is the youngest Havisham yet, and portrays her with a strange other-worldly presence. It’s not bad, but it doesn’t quite click for me. Dooley as Joe is no real issue, except for the blankness he uses as the void for education; I’d always pictured Joe as inquisitive, and if not intelligent, then at least quick-minded, witty through Dickens’ sharp words. Ray Winstone’s Magwitch is an interesting interpretation to say the least, but I do feel a slight reserve. Winstone is known for his brute image, but I didn’t really feel that from him. But maybe that’s just a personal issue with big angry bald guys.

But then I think that’s the danger with any literature adaptation, particularly with a beacon testament such as Great Expectations – everyone has a different picture in their mind that they feel is the right one. In my opinion, Phelps has done a good job, fixing a variety of ideas into a smooth adaptation that I want to watch again. But that is solely my opinion, and everyone else will feel differently. For example, in a review for the Guardian, Howard Jacobson said that the BBC had “eviscerated Dickens” and that it would have “made Dickens snort”. You or I may find this too severe, or you may take the same view; it’s just a further example of how something as sacred as this will always induce win-lose situations. Even so, 6.6 million viewers is not bad going. Interestingly, whilst Great Expectations is my father’s favourite novel in existence, this interpretation reportedly did nothing for him. He favours one of the older versions, one that I found difficult to remain interested in. This is odd, as usually our tastes are very much in synchronisation. Nevertheless, the oddity hasn’t dispelled my own appreciation for it and so I look forward to the DVD release with much eager anticipation.

Favourite line: "Do not think, Pip. It never leads to anywhere edifying."  - Mr Jaggers, to Pip.

Twi-Hards. Well, actually...

I’m having a crisis of faith.

I first watched Twilight when it came out in cinemas in December 2008 and experienced much of the now stereotypical teenage craze with the series, instantly buying and devouring the books. Since then, I’ve watched the subsequent films that make up the Twilight Saga (New Moon, Eclipse and Breaking Dawn: Part 1) and I am now just pages away from finishing my rereading of the series. I spent so much of the last two weeks reading these books that I’ve reached that curious stage where I feel like I know these characters so well - am so attuned to them, even - that it surprises me to realise they are just a work of fiction. I sit through conversations thinking ‘Bella said something like that’, before catching myself and cringing at my own stupidity. They are not real.

It is a result of this that I stuck in the Twilight Saga: Eclipse DVD hoping for a re-immersion into my Other Reality. You can therefore imagine my disappointment when I realise that my whole fascination wasn’t with an amazing, innovative, influential film-series after all. Because the movies aren’t great. If I focus on the films, I can be successfully sucked in enough to the drama and sappy stuff to appreciate it for simply being a teen-romance film. But having it on in the background, my sparse attention picking up disjointed moments only, I realise the disjointedness of the movie itself. It is just so awkward. It has a nice lyrical score and incorporates many contemporary artists that the audience already like. It uses picturesque locations and lots of pathetic fallacy. The actors are attractive. And it uses some of the lines from the books. But that’s kind of it for my positive feelings. After that, you’re just left with conversations that lack fluency and questionable facial expressions. The writing isn’t bad; the lines are dramatic enough to evoke some gasps, and the embedded acknowledgement of the whole Team Edward-Team Jacob fiasco (“Let’s face it, I am hotter than you.” Subtle...) is even sort of amusing. But the fact that every piece of dialogue is presented in the same register, with not a single voice deferring from a seemingly predetermined limited selection of notes (think B flat to C sharp on a piano) gets me cringing into my seat. I’m almost glad when Bella starts to scream, because it makes for a different sound.

The thing that makes it all so mind-boggling is that they aren’t bad actors. I’ve seen Robert Pattinson, Kristin Stewart and Taylor Lautner in other films separately, and it’s never been as bad as this. I get that the book – and films – have an underlying theme of sexual tension, one that is arguably the founding structure of the teen-romance genre, but this just takes the biscuit. You’re angry? Yell. Scream, even. Just quit the monotone.

Despite the battle for sense that those two hours left me in, I do remember why I bothered. I love the books. And I really do like these characters. I like the way their minds think and the ways that they speak.  I like how they’re just a little bit better than ‘regular people’ and the frequent references made to other texts that I’m partial to (Wuthering Heights and Romeo and Juliet, for example). So I think I might just persevere. I find it interesting to see how my perspective has changed. The first time I read the books, I loathed New Moon for Bella's constant whining and Edward's poor decision-making. Yet rereading them now, I'm much more drawn to it. I like how Stephanie Meyer has presented Bella, aches and all, and I feel more sympathy for her, if not empathy. Perhaps a sign of new emotional maturity, perhaps not. Either way, it's a complete 180'.

So I’ll reread the books –again and again and again – and ignore the instinct to close my eyes during the films because I do support the series. It has become a worldwide phenomenon for a reason, so it would be quite insensible to ignore it. Arrogant, even. Because I can tell you, I did walk out of the cinema after seeing Breaking Dawn and feel satisfied. It was fine, no real pain inflicted. Just a low-lying mushy feeling, which I suppose is the film’s aim after all. This feeling might not last, and might not ever resurface if I watch the film again with the absence of the giant cinema screen and dark, silent room, but you never know - I might just pull a 180' with this, too. Time will tell, and all the rest.

BOOKS: 5/5 – mind-blowing.
FILMS: 3/5 – mind feels slightly melted.

Ben Marwood Talks Things.

Damn, another blog? Perhaps this regular posting thing is getting old. I'll chill it after this one.

However, I had the good fortune of chatting with Mr. Ben Marwood over the interwebs recently in conjunction with a journalism assignment, and it was a little bit cool. He's a little bit cool. Figured I'd post it up, for kicks and whatnot. On Word it had a picture and interesting use of fonts, but blogspot let me down. But that's just detracting from the Big Picture. Read it, or something:

Ben Marwood is a far too little-known musician found regularly in Reading – or in an assortment of bars across the UK where he performs and drinks with his righteous supporters. After a smattering of EPs, Marwood released his debut album 'Outside There's A Curse' earlier this year as recorded entirely in his bedroom, despite being signed with Xtra Mile Records. Now how’s that for artistic licence? Currently in the middle of his ‘Something For The Weekends’ tour, he chivalrously took a moment out to answer some questions.

I was first introduced to your music by a friend who saw you at a Frank Turner gig in Bath earlier this year. I'd say your music shares that Angry-British-Man sound, but of course it's what appeals to me. Would you say Frank is someone who has influenced your music, or are you just inherently similar in outlook?

[Laughs] Angry-British-man is a highly under-acknowledged genre. I'd say it's inevitable that Frank has influenced my sound - he must have, and rightly so because he's a great songwriter and a good friend. The Frank Turner/Franz Nicolay tour in May was just superb - people don't realise how much it takes to have a tour run smoothly, and Frank's team were pretty flawless in their running of the shows, especially tour manager Graham Kay. To have that opportunity is something I will never forget, especially because for a while it looked like it would never happen. Touring with people you admire and get on well with is like taking a road trip with friends doing something that you like. 

To talk about your own music - what sort of thought process goes into your lyric writing?

I really wish I could divulge the secret formula that I use to write all my lyrics, but in truth I don't really know how these songs end up getting written, they just tend to fall into place naturally over time. What I can definitely say though is that nine times out of ten I'll start with the music, then the melody, so by the time it comes to finalising lyrics the tempo and the meter and whatever else is already taken care of. Then it's just a case of crafting the words to try and make a point. Or I could just drop more references to 'Ghost' [the movie].

Such as in 'JJ Abrams'... is there an underlying message of your love for the movie or is that my misreading the connections? Subconscious desires being powerful and all...

I'm not a gigantic fan of that movie, but it was a very important one in the early 1990s and I'm fascinated with the pairing of Whoopi Goldberg and Patrick Swayze. Those scenes where Swayze is beating people up as a ghost is comedy gold.

There must be some real pressures of touring at the same time as doing nine-to-five work [Marwood also has a 'typical' job in Reading]. Is this something you find difficult?

In its own special way, it is a bit difficult. Not a 'working two jobs to stay above the poverty line and feed your children' kind of difficult, nor a rocket science type of difficult, but certainly this approach has its moments where it would be appealing to down tools and go off in a sulk. At the moment I'm doing shows mostly over the weekend, which is good because it doesn't require time off work, but bad because it means I don't see much of my family, friends or favourite drinking establishments. Still, I'm nearly done with the latest tour, and I'm nearly done with the year; and I'm sure as soon as I'm done with this I'll be planning the next tour or next step, so it can't be too difficult or I'd stop.

You’ve had some technical troubles with your guitar over the last few shows – not a dig, I promise. But has there ever been some kind of momentous disaster during a show?             

 Yes, my guitar is a bit of a nightmare! It's a lovely Art & Lutherie, but they just make guitars for beginners and I've pushed it beyond its means far too many times. Most of my mid-show monumental disasters do involve things not working, like PAs, guitars and lights and so on, but the most bizarre thing ever was when I was playing with a band, and I mounted a monitor for an end-of-set guitar solo freak-out... and the monitor wasn't secured to anything so it tipped back and I flew offstage directly onto my bum. Thankfully this was not captured on camera. I'm still living with the physical effects and I expect I will forever, but at least it's a good story to tell in interviews, right?

I have to say, I love your cover of ‘District Sleeps Alone Tonight’. I definitely prefer it to the Postal Service (no discredit to them) and I think it rivals Frank’s version (on-going debate with my friend here).  I think it’s great when someone completely revamps a song with a cover, and there’s people saying ‘I love this guy’s song – oh wait it’s actually really old?’ But is there some song that you’d want to cover but feel like it’s this mammoth sacred piece that you’ll only ever reveal to your showerhead..?

Oh gosh, I'm sure there are loads of songs I'd love to cover but don't think I could do it justice. I'd love to cover Elliott Smith's 'Angeles' but I can't hold a candle to it. I do play it when I'm alone sometimes, but rarely in front of anyone! There are also some Johnny Flynn songs I'd love to cover but he has such a great blues tone I'm not sure what I could do to improve upon it. But I suppose that's the cover debate encapsulated in two examples - I could cover an Elliott Smith song (and do) without having to change it too much because what I do is not a million miles removed from what he did, but if I was to cover a Johnny Flynn song I'd have to change it considerably because of his voice, and the way he arranges songs. Ditto with the Postal Service. I'd have to make that my own because I couldn't do an accurate tribute! I'm not sure if the covers debate is limited to just 'tribute vs. originality' but I'm not going to move from my spot on the fence.

You are obviously a fan of social media [being a frequent tweeter (Twitterer?) and blogger], but what's your stand in the Great Debate: do you reckon this is bad for music with all the illegal downloads etc. yadda yadda yadda, or is it just a better way of getting more people to hear you?

Let's start with social media. Social media is important. I'm not quite sure how it came about, and I have no idea where it's headed, but it's the most useful tool for keeping in touch with people. It supersedes, or at least brilliantly complements, the likes of internet mailing lists and such, and I can't see how social media could be bad for music because it makes word of mouth advertising a billion percent easier than a life without, say, Twitter. As far as digital internet piracy goes, I've met people who have illegally downloaded my album or albums and they seem like normal people. No eye-patches or peg-legs or parrots. It's a shame because it detracts from revenue for the record labels, who in turn can't pass any money onto the artist. But even if the internet didn't ever happen, people would still just be borrowing CDs from people and copying them. The internet just made piracy more prolific, in the same way social media made spreading the word easier. In the end you have to say the internet exists: it has a good side and a bad side for music, and all you can really do is make it as hard as possible for people to exploit the bad side.

So - Vinyl man or digitalised?

That said, I'm a digital man.I don't own anything by Apple, but I have an MP3 player and don't own a vinyl player. I'm still faithful to CDs though, even if I have run out of space to store them. They're just stacking up now...

I guess it's a physical music history/soundtrack for your life, so I reckon it's worth the clutter. However, recently you wrote about a new record/work in progress in your blog. Is this something you can elaborate on?

I think you've summed it up pretty well already! There is new stuff in the pipeline. Things are mostly written but need finishing off, and when they're finished off they'll need properly recording and once everything is done, we'll see about releasing! I'm quite excited but at this stage I'm not going to look too excited because any new release is a long way off at the moment and if I started getting excited now, I'll be exhausted by the time it's ready for release..! Gotta pace yourself.

And finally, out of baffled curiosity - can you tell me about Avril Lavigne's significance...?

Hah. I've been telling this story every night on tour, so yes, one more time wouldn't hurt. My song that references her in the title [‘Tell Avril Lavigne I Never Wanted To Be Her Stupid Boyfriend Anyway’] isn't actually about her, but it's about a short librarian who I thought I was madly in love with once. It turns out I wasn't, but I did write a couple of songs: the Avril one and one from 2009 called 'You Can Hold On Once'. Anyway, around the time I wrote this particular song, Avril Lavigne's song 'Girlfriend' was always on the radio, and essentially it was her telling everyone how much better she was than everyone else-  kinda like the Pussycat Dolls' 'Dont Cha' only much, much less sexy. In the end I was short of a title and annoyed at the constant presence of Lavigne on the radio whenever I turned it on, so I named a song to reflect my annoyance. Really that's it. Not a single lyric in the song is about her. Avril's sadly divorced since she released 'Girlfriend' though, so maybe her other half found out she'd been telling the whole damn world that they should dump their partners in favour of her. That's pretty poor form, Avril.

QUICKFIRE-ISH WONDERMENTS:

* Best band you've ever seen live?

Jetplane Landing, Future of the Left or Frank Turner. I can't decide. All for different reasons, but all truly great.

* Best get-psyched song?

'Surf Wax America' by Weezer would be right up there, as would 'Stereo' by Pavement. I recommend both of these songs, though they are pretty old now. But so am I! So that's my excuse.

* Bizarre fan things that have happened? Because I've been to gigs where people have mooned that band to show support...?

None of my fans have done this, I can report.

* If you could trade places with any other person for a week (living/dead/fictional etc.) who would it be?Could you trade places with someone who was dead? That would be pretty boring just hanging around in a coffin all day. Oh hey, but I'd like to have been Michael Jackson for a day. That would just be crazy. Decision made!

* Superhero power?

I think about this a LOT. It's definitely the power to slow down time. Not completely to a stop, just very very very slow. I just think it would be handy to have as a superhero because you could do things like dodge bullets and do super-fighting. Basically you'd be like Batman.

* Who are you listening to at the moment?

I have the new Jeff Lewis album, which is superb, and I bought the new Death Cab album lately. I was also surprised at how good the Foster the People album is. So... that.

Cheers etc. goes to Ben Marwood, obviously.

Now check out his album.

FRANK TURNER HARD CORE.

Okay, I give in. I wanted to try consistency with this blogging thing, but it's just not happening. Attempt  number #183726:

Frankly (maha), the problem is that He is just so aknfakdd on tour that I couldn't possibly put to words how amazing the show was. I've not recovered yet, and it's been 5 days of constant FT-playlist repeating (titled OBSESS, no less). 

Naturally, the anticipation was such that we arrived at the venue two and half hours early in order to queue, gaining the prime first-place position excepting two girls who had shown up for the support act Against Me! instead, and have no interest in Frank Turner. Therefore they don’t really count. Thirty minutes in and there was a minor panic attack as the venue posted an ‘IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT’ on the door; two minutes of stomach-flipping until we read it to find out that Against Me! have cancelled due to illness, being replaced by Franz Nicolay. He’s an amusing bald guy so this was all very good news. The two girls then shortly dispatched and we were sat at the top of the queue with only two more hours to wait. 

Then we're front and centre, on the barrier, squished into the metal but a mere few feet away from Frank himself. (I don't know how far a foot actually is, but just know that you couldn't be any closer unless you were lucky enough to be one of those miserable stage security dudes). The hall was packed; the standing area solidified with human quantity and the hundreds of seats rising vertically to line the walls were filled too. It’s the mark of a good musician to get the energy pulsing into the deepest depths of the room and I wager none do it like Frank.

But this is where the trouble is and the words stop. Because even though I can tell you ('you' being the nameless non-existing readers of this blog) that his energy on stage is tangible, a physical thing that seems to exude from his very being, transforming him and eradicating any outsider’s doubt that what you’re really seeing is just an unshaven thirty-something jumping around with four thirty-something friends; when in fact what’s actually there is an unstoppable force of opinion, expectation and pride, it still doesn't really explain just how it felt. 

At the end of a miraculous 22-song setlist, Turner appeals to the crowd to join him in 'Photosynthesis'. "And I mean f****** everyone. Not just the diehard, old school m*****-f*****s down the front, but I want the curious parties, I want the people who had nothing else to do tonight and said to themselves, 'you know what, f*** it man, let's see what this Frank Turner man's got to say for himself'; I want the plus-ones, the people whose friends are really into it but they're not all that bothered; I want the boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands and wives; I want anyone who got in to this show on the guestlist to stop  being so damn hipster for five seconds and get down to the front and sing the f*** along, OK? I want the security guards to sing along; I want the boys, the girls, everyone...’ 

The effect on the audience was bordering on insanity. Because how many other musicians pause in the middle of a song to talk to every single one of their fans and tell them that they actually matter to them? It certainly got everyone singing, a powerful unison comprised of mostly off-key singers who don’t give a damn because it’s the message that matters.  And that's basically what Frank's about. Well, 'basically' means nothing here. You can't simplify this guy, he truly is one of those bust-the-boundaries kind of guys, and there is absolutely no denying that that is exactly why he exists. Thank God (or the equivalent for Frank's atheism) for that.

 

No One Likes A Topical Bugger.

It's not a review, I'm breaking the pattern.
It's a pre-review... but not a preview.


It's just 15 days until I get to see Frank Turner. Live.

- Which I will then review.

Maybe. I'm obviously not the most consistent blogger.

But 15 days until I see Him play. This is exciting.
My friend went earlier this year to a show in Bath, and was close enough to feel the spit (she says this was good, and was almost reluctant to wash her face) so now we're braving our better sense and turning up to the gig hours early to queue and feel the spit again. And yes - this is braving, as the gig is in Newport.
I'm not anti-Newportians or anything, just pretty scared of the town centre after wandering around before a gig in March this year. Then, too, we sat on a street corner for 5 hours for All Time Low and that was painful and chilly but we were buzzin' and added to the experience.


Didn't make Newport much better, though.


Either way, it's just 15 days.
Hell yeah.