Describing Chelsea's Season So Far

Post a moral victory over United, a description for the start of Chelsea’s season so far is an illusive substance. After nine games, we sit at the top of the league having suffered only one draw and defeat respectively. What’s there to complain about? After three games in the Champions League, we sit second in our group with our destiny in our own hands. Chelsea is comfortable and playing attractive football. Given the anticipated problems of integrating new players and forging a new approach, everything looks much better than expected.    
    Yet, however pleasing a positive result may be, don’t managers tend to reflect on the performance first and foremost? Winning a match because the referee sent off two of your opponent’s players is not nearly as constructive as winning a match through effervescent flair and determination. Losing a match because of a poor, potentially complacent performance in a distant second-world country is worse than losing because you were ‘Clattenburged’.
    The point is this: Chelsea have not won a game without playing well. Let’s not underrate Shakhtar, they are a formidable prospect for any team at the Donbass, where their record is nothing less than astonishing. Chelsea started poorly, were second best, and were consequently beaten. Against United, Chelsea started poorly and eventually suffered because of it, leaving aside the cloud of controversy which refuses to clear over Stamford Bridge these days. If winning without playing well is a mark of champions, than that is something we have not yet seen from Chelsea.
    But what about the ‘tests’ which Chelsea have overcome so far? Is that supposed to mean Arsenal away? Seriously, that wasn’t a test, that was a match against a team that sells its best players, buys dubious ones, and whose approach to any game is as predictable as Wenger is dogmatic and anachronistic. They suffer an inexplicable reverse, then are utterly hopeless for a period thereafter - probably finish in the top third nevertheless.
    And Tottenham away? If their inferiority complex had perhaps lifted given results in recent years, injecting a Chelsea-reject as manager and deploying one as captain can’t have been in the psychiatrist’s recommendations. Missing Bale and Dembele also meant that Chelsea were playing against a Spurs team bereft of their most dangerous components. We can say that Chelsea were tested, but it was not a test.
    Chelsea’s genuine examinations have come against United and Shakhtar and both games were lost. Apart from not turning up until halfway through the first-half in both games, Chelsea currently have an obvious tactical weakness. Their transition from attack to defence is shambolic. This is not necessarily the fault of the player’s, even though some of them might be a little too impetuous. It’s the system that is to blame and it was ruthlessly exposed in our two defeats. The full-backs have to provide width to Chelsea’s attacks, which leaves them exposed in two possible senses when Chelsea lose the ball (which happens far too cheaply and frequently): Firstly, they are often too high up the pitch to defend their nominal zones when teams counterattack; or secondly, are left outnumbered because there is no one to help in front of them. 
    Ferguson saw what happened in Ukraine and was inevitably going to exploit the evident weaknesses Chelsea have immediately after losing the ball. Other teams with effective wingers will have taken note. Teams which choose to play a counter-attacking game against Chelsea (probably most of them), know they will get some joy that way. We have seen in the past that a reliance on out-scoring your opponents is not a successful long-term strategy.
    So how would I describe Chelsea’s season so far? Too busy enjoying the beauty of it all to see the minefield. KTBFFH!

Poland vs England - Sad But True

Yes, you know what this is - another bucket of vitriol to pour over another entirely underwhelming England performance. Let us begin with a brief overview of the player's performance:

Hart - Not a great deal to do, but got it completely wrong for Poland's equaliser.
A.Cole - Mediocre. Did not do much wrong and was unable to go forward thanks to Poland's pace on the wings.
Lescott - Man City have leaked goals so far this season, and Joleon was beaten for Poland's goal.
Jagielka - Lucky not to pay for a potentially catastrophic mis-kick but otherwise one of England's better players on the day.
Johnson - Showed very little of his attacking strengths and often courted disaster in his own half, particularly with his headed clearances.  However, he did make a lot of excellent last ditch tackles.
Cleverley - He scored a fantastic fluke against Newcastle and now insists on hitting every long ball like he did that goal. Did nothing of note and plays like a panicked child in the headlights.
Carrick - Wow. Another pathetic passing performance from Carrick who is supposedly England's possession man. Managed two decent forward passes in the second-half. That is it.
Gerrard - Again England's best hope for creativity. His forward passing was dangerous if not always successful, and his rare forward runs caused some chaos. Another set-piece assist is something.
Milner - Hard-working Milner does not play for Man City, so he should practice his crossing for when he gets selected for England (again). Poor end product.
Rooney - Disappointing. Got the goal which came off his shoulder off a defender into the net. You take them, but a menhir in his position would have scored that one too. Should have buried another but did not.
Defoe - Had virtually nothing to feed on. Was constantly asked to receive long balls which is not his forte.
Welbeck (on for Defoe) - Did not manage much which was not his fault. Use of space admirable but left England with no one up front. Failed to win a penalty.
Chamberlain (on for Rooney) - Industrious and direct, but again not much to say for him.

I should mention the fact that the pitch was dire, thanks to the unimaginable ineptitude of whoever was charged with the roof last night. The ball moved slowly (and not just because of England's passing), but I am pretty sure that the opposing team played on the same pitch, so let us forget what should be a minor discomfort for highly-paid professionals.

Now we have established that England's players were individually poor on the whole, let us discuss the themes that emerged from the team's performance.

• England cannot pass the ball for shit. A.Cole, Lescott, Johnson, Cleverley, Carrick, Gerrard, Milner, Defore and Rooney all play for teams who are likely to have the better part of possession in most of the games they play in the league, but as per usual the team cannot pass successfully with any regularity. The fact of the matter is, so-called 'lesser' teams retain the ball better than England.

• The root of the above problem is the paradox of impatience and lack of tempo. England should be able to dominate because the players are good enough to play with tempo. However, tempo was singularly missing, and when you combine this with minimal movement, England always end up playing speculative passes, both short and long. It is understandable that difficult passes go amiss when they are part of a quick sequence of play, but trying passes that are not on is unforgiveable. Crazy passes without the context of urgency just does not make any sense. 

• England's players are woefully lacking in technical ability. The amount of times the midfield had to pass it back because they do not have the skill to turn quickly and open up the pitch for a forward pass was hugely frustrating. England need players that have got the skill to take people on, even if it is just a question of pace. Commit opponents and space opens up. Unfortunately, Chamberlain did not have enough time to make something happen. 

• Why did Hodgson play a 442? Is not English football trying to swerve madly away from this ancient and much discredited formation? How long has England tried this formula unsuccessfully? To my mind 442 is only good for one thing - lumping and crossing into the box. If you want to retain the ball, two men in the midfield is not enough. Productive retention of the ball is clearly a dream that England can hope to fulfill only in the far future. Decades in all likelihood. England, therefore, need to put at least 3 men in midfield to hold the ball, even though there is not any trickery available that could put that possession to good use.

England showed determination and energy but lacked other crucial qualities: creativity and composure. Only more gifted technical players will bring that to the current set-up. And where are they? Rotting in Lille and on the league match benches. If Hodgson is going to play 442 he needs to put players in that suit that system. Put pacey crossers of the ball on the wing, and have them and Gerrard lob balls at Carroll, who would almost certainly profit.

Sweet Jesus, why not bring in Sam Allardyce and let him maximise the strengths of England's players - Pace, power, energy, and a direct passing inclination. Oh no! Not Mr trollhead 'anti-football' himself you say? Get over yourself, England do not have the players to play like Barcelona and will not have them in time for 2014, let alone tournaments in this half of the century. Nobody will complain very loudly if England manage to batter their way into a semi-final. Until England have players who can pass there is no point trying to play a passing game. 

But England have never overcome a quarter-final playing long-ball 442 you say? Think about it people, if England manage to get into a semi-final that would put them amongst the top four teams in that tournament. Do England deserve that status? Don't think so. Do you really care how they get into a semi-final? Nope. 

It's sad but true, so deal with it.
 

Dubstep O'saurus

Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, a man became obsessed with dubstep. To the exclusion of all other forms of music, this crazed loon would consume his free time doing nothing but discover dubstep. He trawled YouTube playlists, perused forums, sought recommendations, and did many other myriad tasks in the name of dubstep.  

Autobiographical introductions aside, it is time to announce that the treasure trove of dubstep the above fanatic constructed is now available for online dissemination. Click the link below to find yourself a musical experience you knew you liked, but never admitted. (For best results acquire decent sound system - much bass required:)

Art Bugmann's Awesome Dubstep List

England Expects At Euro 2012

There's a funny paradox with England this year. It's thought that in the past, high expectations have been detrimental to England's performances. Now that we're supposed to have low expectations for England, we expect England will do better. The English media is apparentley in tune with 'reality' when it plays this song. 

What were the hopes for Group D? It wasn't the toughest group but it was tough nonetheless. France - the old enemy - conjures up all kinds of amusing glances into history: France and England were fighting each other on and off for more than a hundred years at one point; and Napoleon got beat. The result? We drew 1-1 against a team full of quality attacking players.

Sweden - The Bogey Team. This country just causes frustration. Sweden were undeafeated by England in seven competitive matches (I'm sure you already know that) before that date in Kiev. England had beaten them in a recent friendly however. Furthermore, no team had gone eight games unbeaten against England. One is caught thinking: Surely England will win? How long can a run last? And when England are 1-2 down, only to go on to win 3-2, it must be fate. The statistical storyline has come through.

Ukraine - U-who? An ancient star player, but that's it. A vociferous and numerous home crowd. Surely England will get enough at the Donbass to progress? But be careful! It is dangerous to play for a draw. England win 1-0. 

What was all the bother about? England came through the group stage undefeated. England nearly always gets through the group stage. Roy's boys are unbeaten in five matches. That's decent form going into a quarter-final. They say it wasn't aesthetically pleasing, but the prettiest thing in football is success. Would you rather win or play 'good' football, whatever that is? England definitely wants to win. 

So despite the conscious dampening down of expectations, we find ourselves believing England can defeat Italy and actually win a quarter-final! The last time we saw England win a quarter-final was in 1996. Even with that woeful record we would still be disappointed if England lost. Has everybody forgotten the possibility of defeat? We are giving them the chance that we would give most teams in the quarter-finals. It's 50-50 win or lose, and England does have the quality to make a game a 50-50 chance. It just seems everybody is betting on England. Write England off at your peril, because they have a chance like everyone else does.

If expectations were low before the tournament, then they have certainly risen now that England need only win two games to reach a final for the first time since you know when. This has completely defeated the point of maintaining low expectations. 

However, you need not worry. England has not lost in the past because of the media and national expectation. England has lost football matches because that's football. Teams go on awful runs. In the case of international football, the cycles are biannual, so they are relatively rare occasions for a team to find some form. It's difficult out there people.

Plus, it is so very patronising to assume that the ramblings of the media have any real effect on England's players. If those players did not want to win they wouldn't be there. These guys are supposed to be highly paid professionals, whose job it is to play and win football matches. What would they be if a little bit of tabloid effrontery swayed them from the simple fundamentals of their profession? - Not very good professionals. Hopefully, we can assume Roy can tell the difference between the two.

So let's stop pretending to be clever when we profess lower expectations, but then predict England will reach a semi-final for the first time in sixteen years. England could win it next month, or in 2014, or in 2016 or whenever; as long as qualification and group stages are negotiatied as per usual. Let's be patient. Eventually, it will be England's turn, because that's football. 

And if England loses to Germany in the semi-finals then that's football as well.

Chelsea - Champions of Europe

Chelsea have won the Champions League. YES! Those of you familiar with my previous posts will know that I have mentioned just such an event. If Chelsea won the CL, it would give the fans that kind of unadulterated joy which vindicates all the emotional investment of the past. Even now it is still difficult to believe. However, I am sure that in the fullness of time we will come to appreciate what last night's heroics have done for CFC. It is now a club raised above  the majority - Chelsea is now one of the European Cup winners.

     The media however, have been quick to paint it thus: 'Abramovich finally gets what he spent hundreds of millions of pounds for'. This is crass. Certainly it has been no secret that Roman has always wanted the CL Trophy - but doesn't any club with ambitions in the competition? The joy is not limited to Abramovich, who by the way isn't a football-trophy-window-shopper-extraordinaire. He is one man, one fan; just like every other fan of Chelsea. It's just that he has been lucky enough to make a difference. His joy, when Drogba gave him the chance to lift the Cup itself, was not the joy of some banker seeing a long-term investment come good, it was the delirious happiness of a fan. You could see it in the coverage - get on mate!

     The real story of last night was the long voyage which has taken Chelsea to the pinnacle. I don't just mean this season's campaign which has been dramatic in the extreme. I mean the whole series: woefully losing to Monaco after finally beating Arsenal in '04, losing a semi-final to Liverpool under Mourinho in '05, losing the final on penalties to Man United in '08, being robbed by Ovrebo against Barcelona in '09. It is a painful litany. This is why Drogba's words were so poignant when he dedicated the triumph to all the previous Chelsea players and managers he had played with. They all shared in the dream and suffered the disappointments. Their hopes have finally been redeemed.

     And in what style! The media have also been quick to remind us that Chelsea were not the best team in the CL this year. What!? We won the bloody thing didn't we? Is it so easy to forget, that when in a football competition, the aim is to win it? You do not get medals for playing 'pretty' - just ask Arsenal. You get medals for winning. Ever since that remarkable victory over Napoli in the 2nd leg I have felt that Chelsea have been determined to NOT GET BEAT. How many times have we looked down and out? Chelsea have represented England with a whole lot of courage and determination. We looked doomed against Napoli, and most of us hoped that we might at least make a decent effort. But on the night, we hammered them! There's some football for ya. With confidence brimming we despatched Benfica, albeit with a hiccough. Then Barcelona. Oh dear - apparently the best team ever? Certainly the most boring team ever. They couldn't beat us, so given the knockout nature of the tie, we beat them. Pure balls. 

     And then the German giants, Bayern Munich, in their own stadium, who have won it four times already. We defend for our lives and give one up in the 83rd min. That man equalises in the 89th, question answered. We give away a penalty in extra-time - Cech saves, question answered. Penalty shoot-out. We miss our first, they score their first three. Cech saves and Ashley Cole scores to equalise and top off the real man of the match performance, though you can't begrudge it Drogba. Bastian Schweinsteiger - the ultimate German, steps up, and misses. Drogba steps up and the rest is history - it was written he said.

     Ever since the ambition to win the CL became tangible Chelsea has tried manfully and much has been suffered. This time however, we refused to be beaten and won. Managers have come and gone but that hardcore of players have remained, and their determination to win is something that money can't buy. So let's forget money, let's even forget people's perceptions of how football 'should' be played, let us instead consider these: courage, resilience, and ultimate victory.

The Eurovision Shite Contest

So Engelbert Humperdinck will represent GB at the Eurovision Song Contest. Great. Let us hope that the site of Engelbert crooning into a bus-pass is no more ridiculous than the other musical atrocities that will invade your ears come the event. But it's not like GB can do any worse than it has previously. 

     

Yet Humperdinck or not, it is difficult to deride the Eurovision as a song contest.  In the first place, it's hardly European anymore given that countries like Israel feature; and this year the thing is being held in Azerbaijan! Secondly, the Eurovision isn't a song contest - it's a national popularity contest.

     

Time and again we see the same patterns: The Scandinavian block will resolutely back each other, GB will be inexplicably unpopular, and Germany will vote for Turkey because of the large Turkish minority there. Indeed, if Tunisia/Algeria featured, then France would vote for them, if India or Pakistan featured, (don't count it out) then GB would vote for them. 

     

The Eurovision is more a shameless political barometer than it is a song contest. It reflects the pro-activity of national minorities within the countries involved more than it does the musical quality - which is always low. Perhaps the dire nature of the music is why the 'contest' degenerates into national sniping. I don't know or care who is 'competing' in it this year, but if Greece and Germany are in it, you can be sure that they won't be giving each other any points.

     

How will GB get success next year? 

1. Do not deploy a zombie to rep
2. Ensure Libya is in
3. Join the Euro

 Whatever.

The Roman Empire Strikes Back - AVB Sacked

So Abracadabra went and did it. After what has proven to be a torturous season so far for Chelsea fans, our man who was supposed to manage an inevitably painful transitory period, has been sacked. It has not come as a surprise, but it does leave the immediate question - WHAT NOW?!

     Well, for the meanwhile it seems we have Di Matteo in charge. Don't get me wrong, Chelsea fans will have time for Roberto 'That Goal' Di Matteo, since he has Blue Blood. However, are we really going to do any better under him than under AVB? It's difficult to make that assumption, which makes AVB's sacking all the more questionable. Often when a new manager comes in, it gives a brief boost to the club and translates into one or two good results. If this proves to be the case and we manage to blag our way through tough matches against Birmingham and Napoli then that would be nice. But then what? Can Roberto take us all the way? I hope so... More pertinently, Chelsea FC is again shaken by instability thanks to the meandering and dilatory approach of our lord, Roman Abracadbramovich.

     AVB did look out of his depth, and much that he did and said was imprudent in the extreme. But I had hoped that Abra would have learned some patience and allowed his toy to suffer a little in order to come out the other end stronger. Another manager has not been given a chance and now anyone available for the job will think very carefully before putting their neck under the Chelsea guillotine. Yes, the results were dire with AVB, but he's certainly not the only blameworthy figure amongst the shambles on Fulham Road. Many Chelsea players have not performed to their best abilities so far this season - we can all name a handful.

     So what now? I do not know. Let's just hope for some cup progress, a top four finish, and that Roberto plays some of those promising youths we've invested so heavily in. It can hardly get any worse can it? Good luck Chelsea fans, because we are going to need it.

A Philosopher King, Democracy, and Aliens

Recently, I finished reading a book called, 'The March of Folly From Troy to Vietnam', by Barbara Tuchman (1984). The book won the Puliter Prize twice and is lauded by reviews from eminent sources as The Times and Sunday Times. However, it is little more than a quaint work, aiming to do nothing more than bring into the glaring light, the great follies of human history. It is a book whose premise is wholly based on retrospect and superficial parameters. She chooses to focus on the Trojan Horse episode, the corruption of the Popes who presided over the road to Reformation, the British loss of America, and the Vietnam War.  The compelling narrative is somewhat lessened by the obviousness with which the author reveals herself to be American. Furthermore, much charm is negated when the occasional (probably unconscious) racial stereotype is thrown in unheeded. It is nontheless, an enjoyable read.

     Average though this tome may be, it did provoke some thought on the nature of human government. This seemed pertinent given the current circumstances at the moment, where the Coalition Government is taking a lot of criticism over its every manoeuver. Given that folly in government affects many more people than an individual's folly is ever likely to, should not those who govern us be particularly talented at not making and propagating mistakes, but also have nothing but the national interest at heart? Find me a politician who won't tell you they have the national interest at heart. Find me a politician who agrees with the other. Who is right? Or, should it be more important in a democracy for our representatives to actually represent the views of their constitutents? Are voters even qualified to pick between policies, or express their wishes in a format conducive to the machinery of government? Economics and social policy are not compulsory subjects for the electorate. Is our system, legitimated by history and imbued with Western Liberalism, ever going to produce consistent results? Or perhaps the fact that our politicians are mostly men of ambition and/or principle is an inherent obstacle.

     Election-time then, a cynic may conclude, is nothing more than a whirlwind of propaganda and empty promises. These people, desperate for power and/or change, march about trying to please as many voters as possible by making popular promises. When in government, they probably try to implement their promises but discover that the realities of government deny them. At least that's what they should say instead of spouting sophistry. (I feel sympathy for the LibDems, who have lost all credibility because of the realities of coalition and now have no choice but to hang on with the Tories in the hope that things get better). When the next election comes, the government is desperate to win either to retain power and/or continue its program. How are we to go on with governors who are cyclically subjected to the differing and melanged urges to power and continuity? And if a new government with new ideas comes in, won't that destroy the progress that had been made? And who knows if they're right? Only time will tell, but recurrent elections means continuity is not given the chance to pass the examination of time. Therefore, politicians are inclined to win votes by any means in order to safeguard continuity - so disenchanting voters along the way. It's helluva tough out there guys.

     So what of a solution to the paradox of our democracy, which both demands and denies honesty of its politicians? I think there is one system of governance which holds a secret and cherished place in the minds of many intellectuals - that of 'benevolent dictatorship'. Given today's connotations around the term 'dictator', perhaps a more palatable label would be, as expressed by Socrates and Plato, 'The Philospher King'. Such a King (or Queen), would be bred for ability, and taught the ways of philosophy in order to gain wisdom. Born to rule, their capacity would be undoubted, their intentions unquestionable, and their actions correct and good. It is an idyll both elegant and unreachable.

     Tuchman tells us that President Kennedy had a decent chance of pulling out of Vietnam before it became disastrous. However, he would not take the chance because election-time was drawing near and he could not risk a withdrawal provoking the political Right from excoriating him. It would damage his chances. Then his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, also refused to consider withdrawal. Despite consistent and mounting evidence to the otherwise, he refused to be the first President of the USA to preside over defeat. After much unnecessary death, the lessons of human pride and politics really ought to be learned. It would be a thankless glory for those politicians brave enough to sacrifice their careers and prejudices in the national interest. But what are we to utilise to govern ourselves if not ourselves? Aliens? Discuss...

Should Harry Redknapp be the next England Manager?

When Fabio Capello resigned as England manager there was much surprise and relief. I was surprised that he did not want to try and right the record and do better than last time. (Perhaps an ignominious quarter-final defeat on penalties anyone?) There was relief because Capello's reign had become tainted with what happened in South Africa, and because we knew he was leaving anyway. No doubt he was relieved to be out of the media firing line, and happy to be avoiding the poisoned chalice that is leading England in a major tournament. There are only so many media missiles and miserable defeats a reputation can absorb before it dissolves under the relentlessness of it all. 

     Can you remember what happened the last time a foreign manager of England left the job? Unable to get the 'Golden Generation' past the quarter-finals, we were glad to see the back of Sven 'Play Scholes on the Left?' Eriksson. What was the outcry? We want an Englishman! Then what? Steve 'Umbrella' McClaren presides over the embarrasing failure to qualify for the Euros. Happy that the experiment with an English manager had failed the FA decided to try and buy a trophy by throwing money at the eminent Capello. Now he's gone are we seriously going to let the jingoistic howls for an Anglo-Saxon hustle another hapless Englishmen into the job?

     I imagine the idea with 'Sex Scandal' Sven and 'Hardballs' Fabio was to hope their club records would pervade their England record. That precedent of hiring success hardly fits the Redknapp silhouette. What are his achievements? Promotion with Bournemouth? Promotion with Portsmouth? An FA Cup with an expensive Portsmouth team so weighed down with astronomic wages that they are currently suffering their second administration? Leading an excellent Tottenham team (put together by Jol) into the Champions League? Gareth Bale's hat-trick against Milan? Avoiding a conviction for tax-evasion?

      But he's English you cry! Well, so what. The FA has already hired a Swede and an Italian. There is little point in limiting the options now. Because let us not forget, the English options are thin on the ground. Not only are there very few English managers in the PL, but they aren't possessed of many accolades. Harry Redknapp is the only prospect. Why? Because he's English and is the most prominent amongst a handful. He is being touted in many quarters as the man who can do a job for England; the man who will give the boost England need. To do what? Get past a penalty shoot-out? If we could only win a penalty shoot-out we would win a cup. England needs more than quick-impact man management. England needs some kind of football-dictator who can invade the system and rectify the manifold issues in the English game. The top PL teams don't have enough English players, and those that do exist need to be more like Wilshere and less like Henderson. How is England to compete with the big footballing nations, when the top of our game hasn't got any Englishmen?

      There's no point in bringing in Redknapp unless he is the man for the very long-term. Is he the man to revamp the English game from the grassroots up? Has he got an agenda for the lack of English managers at the top level? Will he be brave enough to take the media criticism and make the touch choices? The next incumbent has to be more than just a manager. If Harry is that man, then so be it. But please, let us abandon the 'Englishman' hype and let the FA make a well considered and intelligent choice for the long-term.

Musical Honesty

When I first started engaging in music sometime in the early part of secondary school, I leaned decisively towards what can loosely be called the 'Alternative' part of the then musical spectrum. Bands like Korn, Limp Bizkit, Slipknot, Deftones etc... were foremost in my tastes. Why was this? Part of the reason was my nauseous aversion to 'Pop' music. Very much wearied by prancing boy/girl bands, bored senseless by ballads and inane lyrics about relationship troubles, I would rather give myself a nasty Chinese Burn than listen to Five, or Blue, or Steps, or S Club bloody 7. Keep your dancing troupes and expensive videos and give me a power chord!

     However justified this loathing may have been, it engendered a prejudice towards all musical genres other than my own - which I suppose was 'Metal'. Prejudice is a frankly stupid thing to perpetuate, but it did do one thing for many in my generation - it saved us time. Instead of investigating each band on its merits, most of them could be rejected out of hand because they belonged to a category you had decided to dislike. Being so young we had no time for anything other what we had chosen to adore.

     But time is exactly what we do have. As you get older you start confessing that there are many songs that you like, but which don't fall into your 'usual' category. What you find is that you don't have time to be prejudiced. It's a total waste. If you like something, so be it, and who cares what your youthful arrogance thought? The nirvana you are closing in on is 'Musical Honesty' - a place where it matters not what others think or what you thought. It's a place where you aren't afraid to make a musical u-turn and like something you had previously hated. So go forth, and let the only filter be this: enjoyment, or not.

Is Abramovich Doing More Damage Than Good?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

What is it to be a Football Fan?

There is a double magic to being a Football Fan. Firstly, a fan has a love for the game. How many of you played football during break-time whilst the girls skipped; or played heads and volleys down the park or alley? How many of you would play a game right now if you had the chance and the company to do so? I would.

     This passion is transferred seamlessly into the watching of the game. We who have kicked a ball know how fantastic are the skills and talent of the professionals on display in the upper echelons of Europe's leagues. Good play entertains whilst bad play frustrates. You don't need to be Alex Ferguson to tell the difference between the dire and the divine.

     Yet as satisfying as appreciating the game may be, the real drug of football lies in supporting a team. We do so through thick and thin, until the very end of our lives. Supporting a team represents a massive emotional investment. Every weekend we place our hopes in eleven men over whom we have no influence whatsoever.  If your team wins you are elated, if they lose, then you are miserable. Perhaps you follow a team that tends to win, but when they lose it's all the worse. Or you could support a team that tends to lose, so when they win it's all the more ecstatic. It's a weekly and unconditional gamble. Hardened football veterans take this in their stride, but let me make this point so that it can spread to those who do not follow football: You who do not support a team - you may avoid the catastrophic lows, but you'll never have the chance of the dizzying highs that make the tens of thousands jump to their feet and scream pure joy. 

     When my team wins the Champions League, you'll never get me down.

Writing Music and Lizards

Once upon a time I would pick up my acoustic guitar and jib along, stringing notes and chords together until voila! - I had discovered something to my liking. Then I would install the riff into a music program and go from there, adding drums, bass, piano, trumpet, etc... There was no theory involved whatsoever. The only thing that mattered was this: DOES IT SOUND GOOD? Yet behind this innocent maxim lay a real contempt for musical theory. Is it in C Major? Psssh! Is that a D Minor even? Whatever! As long as it was music to my ears then so be it. Scales were just cages in which a blooming musician might wilt; where creativity might never escape its scaly confines. However, there are two conditions closely related to the supposed freedom offered by scale-disdain:

1. Because you're thrashing around in a limitless musical landscape, I found that each and every song I settled on was different. Maybe this in itself isn't a bad thing, but if you grouped your songs together they would make for an appalingly disjointed album. One track would sound like Deftones, another like Nirvana or even Greenday. This bridges well into my next point...
2. Because you haven't a structure to guide your efforts, you would tend to write things that sounded like music you liked. If you're constantly listening to Megadeth and Metallica (who's better btw?), the odds are you would reproduce a particular phrase of their's. This is really frustrating because you don't want to commit to something that has already been done, so all that creativity which you had quite naturally enjoyed was wasted.

The latter point needs a little qualification because it is also true that by sharing a scale with a favourite band, you might also trap yourself in a never ending circle of unconscious reproduction. Let me assure you, having to continuously disgard riffs because they sound like something else is a demoralising place to be.

      So what are the advantages of using specific scales? Well, alternative to the above, you can employ a scale divergent from your beloved band to create tunes totally different from your regular listening. This is probably a step too far because most people want to be inside the same genre as their adored bands, but not exactly like them. This is where scales come in handy because you can employ the same style as (insert_band), but in a different scale, which can often give a complementary, rather than slavish sound. 

     The next boon offered by scales are there anti-desiccation properties. Unlike amphibians, who have to remain in watery environments, scales offer reptiles protection against dehydration. (HA!) Anyway, the next boon offered by scales is related to the first point up above. If you want to have a thematic continuity in your music, a good way of achieving this is through using the same scale(s) consistently. For a long time I have employed G and sometimes C Major. G Major is definitely my most abused scale and I can jam inside that indefinitely. But using G does chain you to happier sounding music - which was fine for a while. Recently I switched to an E Minor Harmonic. This scale gives you a much darker, more ominous sound. Humourously, I discovered that in reality it differs from G Major in only one note, so perhaps I am not as adaptable as I think I am:) 

     To finish then: once you have stopped hacking at your instrument and have figured out some creations of your own, do not be prejudiced against structure. Do not be prejudiced against the unstructured either, because you will probably find that those freebooting tracks fit inside a scale you were not aware of! And remember - DOES IT SOUND GOOD!