This overview brings together all the blogs I have written in my Genesis Bootleg History series over the last five years. The series title itself is a bit ambiguous, I realised. For clarity, it is not a history of Genesis bootlegs. Rather, it is a stab at telling the story of Genesis – in the studio as well as onstage – through widely available bootlegs of some of the band’s live performances. Anyway, here’s some background to start us off…
Seconds Out – The Greatest Live Album? What idiot gave such a ridiculous title to a blog about Genesis’s 1977 live double album? Errr…I did.
And why is it ridiculous?
Well, first, there is the adage that the answer to any headline (or in this case, blog) with a question mark in the title is almost always ‘no’.
And second – and far more important – who am I to pontificate about the greatness or otherwise of this or that live album? Who gives a shit what I think?
Yes, I am entitled to my opinion but, like everybody else, all I can possibly do is make judgements based on the live albums that I am familiar with. And to be honest, the list isn’t all that long. And that’s before we even start to unpick the whole knotty problem of what criteria we should use to assess ‘greatness’ when it comes to live albums.
(In my defence, I was overly influenced at the time I wrote that blog by SEO – search engine optimisation – which is basically about ways to get as many people as possible to click on your website. ‘Clickbait’ is another word for it.)
But writing the Seconds Out appreciation did lead directly to this Genesis Bootleg History blog series. I had been building up my bootleg collection over the years and so I was aware that – for all its brilliance – Seconds Out was presenting us with a rather misleading picture of the 1977 Wind and Wuthering tour.
And I am not referring to the tinkering – the fixes and overdubs and such like – that goes on in the studio afterwards. There were two even more basic issues with Seconds Out, I thought (and still do).
First, the music that was left out. Seconds Out omits all except one (Afterglow) of the songs they played from the Wind and Wuthering album. It also includes The Cinema Show, which was played (and recorded) on the A Trick of the Tail tour but then dropped.
Second, the chat that was cut out. It did not include any of the between-song nonsense that was such an integral part of the Genesis live experience. For example, side three of the original vinyl album opens with the words “supper’s ready” to introduce, well, Supper’s Ready. But what we miss out on is the whole story of Romeo and Juliet getting frisky at the drive-in. And if you hadn’t heard some bootlegs from the 1976–77 tours you wouldn’t have a clue who Harry is…
It is worth making the point, by the way, that the Three Sides Live album is arguably even more misleading about the Abacab tour.
So writing the Seconds Out blog – which is partly an appreciation of the album itself and partly an analysis of the album in the context of the Wind and Wuthering tour as a whole – sparked the idea of sketching out the history of Genesis via some of their bootlegs.
Bootlegs. A quick word about them.
They are essential listening for devotees of a band, offering a rawer, less polished and therefore more authentic picture of a live performance. Whether it is an audience recording, a soundboard recording or a live radio broadcast, we get to hear the rough edges, the mistakes, the miscues – in short, the stuff that gets smoothed over in (or chopped out of) any official release.
One moment captures the magic of bootlegs for me. It is from the Dijon 1978 show. Phil’s slightly off-kilter wail near the end of Afterglow, surely never to see the official light of day, is somehow perfect.
Some bootlegs are of course more listenable than others. All bootleg rating systems will have a ‘For collectors only’ category. As it happens, I get the impression that Genesis fans are luckier than most in terms of the number of high-quality bootlegs available.
That said, when I started this series I didn’t have a complete show from the Nursery Cryme era and I had never really bothered with the Foxtrot tour because of the existence of Genesis Live. (NB It is quite easy to find a version of Supper’s Ready from Leicester De Montfort Hall in February 1973 that was apparently included on test pressings of Genesis Live but left off the official release. Needless to say, it is great.)
And so my starting-point was Montreal in 1974 on the Selling England by the Pound tour. This bootleg stands out for two reasons in particular: Peter Gabriel’s French and the inclusion of The Battle of Epping Forest, which wasn’t one of the live tracks from the October 1973 London Rainbow show featured on the Genesis Archive 1967–75 box set (though you can find it easily enough online).
The Montreal 1974 blog established a template that I ended up using for the entire blog series: begin with some musical/band context, move on to discussing the then-current album and finish with an analysis of the live show, as documented by the bootleg.
(I have rewritten the original Seconds Out blog, focusing on the Dallas show of 19 March 1977, to fit this template. Dallas 1977: Genesis Bootlegs appears in the correct place chronologically. See below.)
I neglected the Lamb tour as well, partly because the entire set – with the exception of the encores – was made up of the Lamb album, and partly because the Genesis Archive 1967–75 box set includes a more or less complete show from the Los Angeles Shrine Auditorium in January 1975. I wasn’t aware until later how much polishing had been done in the studio before its release, particularly by Peter and Steve, so it is a tour that I will revisit at some point.
Anyway, I jumped directly from 1974 to the A Trick of the Tail tour in 1976, the first with Phil on lead vocals. It will be obvious if you read the blogs that I am much more a fan of 70s Genesis than anything that comes later, and I think the four tours between 1976 and 1980 are exceptional.
The Duke blog actually opens with the words: “Genesis, 1980 — and this time it’s personal.” Duke was the first album released when I was actually a fan of the band. As I go on to say in the blog, the lead-off single Turn It On Again and indeed the album as a whole felt at the time like a hugely unwelcome change of direction.
It was on the …And Then There Were Three… tour that Phil started to use the ‘new songs, old songs’ line that he continued with – with varying degrees of weariness and resignation – right through to the final tour in 1992. The medley was first introduced, in embryonic form, on the Duke tour. For better or worse, it became their way of acknowledging and accommodating the two very different eras of Genesis.
Something that I scratch my head about in the 1992 blog is whether we actually need bootlegs of the later tours. It is horses for courses, I guess. Bootlegs will always have value for hardcore fans – see my earlier comments about miscues and out-of-tune wails.
But – to repeat another point – if you are drawn to bootlegs mainly to hear what was omitted from official releases, it is at least debatable whether bootlegs are telling us much that we can’t glean from the CDs, DVDs and Blu-rays that followed on from those later-era tours.
Bear in mind that the final track (it.) from the aforementioned Lamb recording from the LA Shrine Auditorium in 1975 was missed, as were the encores, because the tape ran out. That wouldn’t have happened in 1992 or even in 1987. (The Wembley shows were apparently the first concerts ever recorded in HD. The ensuing video release lasts 132 minutes and features the entire concert, with the exception of the main In the Cage medley.)
[The plot thickens! Not more than two hours after I uploaded this blog, I read that a fiftieth anniversary box set of the Lamb album is coming out in 2025. It includes the previously released Los Angeles Shrine Auditorium recording – plus, so the publicity blurb claims, the missing final track and both encores. Well well well! Let’s see what we actually get!]
I ended the series with the We Can’t Dance tour of 1992, after which Phil left the band. After years of all but ignoring the 1997 Calling All Stations album (with Ray Wilson on vocals), I gave it a few plays not too long ago and actually quite liked it. (See my blog Calling All Stations: Not the Worst Genesis Album). But when I watched a video of the 1998 show at Katowice in Poland, it seemed so radically different from a traditional Genesis concert that I decided not to include it in this series.
I also decided against including the two reunion tours. I did think that one or two set list choices for the 2007 Turn It On Again tour were noteworthy, specifically the inclusion of Ripples and the exclusion of Abacab. Both decisions, in my view, to be applauded.
Using Carpet Crawlers as the second and final encore was also unexpected. I would have included it in the main set instead of Hold on My Heart and chosen another bona fide classic to end with. The Knife, maybe! Now that would have been fun!
On the other hand, it was disappointing (if not entirely unexpected) to see them lean so heavily on the Invisible Touch album in the latter part of the set – Throwing It All Away, Domino, Tonight, Tonight, Tonight and Invisible Touch. To be fair, they resurrected Los Endos, but see the blog about the 1992 tour for my thoughts on the song I Can’t Dance, which was the first encore. Here’s a clue: ugh.
And I thought long and hard about whether to get a ticket to see the Last Domino? tour – with Phil in a chair, his son on drums and two other non-Genesis musicians on stage as well as Mike, Tony and Daryl. I decided against.
I should say that (as will also be obvious if you read the blogs) I don’t have a musical background and claim no insider knowledge of the band. Nor have I listened to a particularly large number of Genesis bootlegs. I am just a longtime Genesis fan.
The bits of history I include in the blogs come from the obvious places. Armando Gallo’s book I Know What I Like gave me an excellent grounding in Genesis history when I first started listening to them at the end of the 70s. I have read the autobiographies written by Mike and Phil in the last few years, so some of the later blogs include quotes from those books. I only read Steve’s autobiography after I had written the blogs for the earlier tours. Most of the facts and figures (chart positions, touring revenues etc) come from Wikipedia.
My go-to website for tour dates and general bootleg information has been: https://www.genesis-movement.org
The homepage hasn’t been updated for a long time so I don’t know if it is still an active website, but the live database is excellent.
One last thought. There are several shows where Phil announces that they are recording (Hammersmith Odeon 1976 and Dallas 1977, to name but two). I am baffled why they have not yet put these out officially, or at least released a complete and unexpurgated version of Seconds Out, using the recordings from Paris, like Led Zeppelin did with the Madison Square Garden tapes from 1973 when they re-released The Song Remains the Same.
And finally, it would be impossible to highlight favourite songs or even favourite moments – there are far, far too many – but here are a few highlights (and lowlights)…
Tour:
1977; 1976 a close second
Bootleg:
Hammersmith 1976; Dallas or Zurich 1977; London 1980
Better tour than I expected:
1978 – the first without Steve
Best opening song:
Watcher of the Skies; Deep in the Motherlode; Behind the Lines
Biggest song choice surprise:
White Mountain brought back for the 1976 tour
Fountain of Salmacis brought back for the 1978 tour
Supper’s Ready brought back for the 1982 tour
Unexpected delight:
The Duke suite (particularly Duke’s Travels/Duke’s End) from the Duke tour
Worst moment:
Who Dunnit? from the Abacab and Mama tours
Biggest let-down:
I Can’t Dance closing the main set in 1992
Conversation Between Two Stools
Studio album:
Selling England by the Pound; Wind and Wuthering
Official live album:
Seconds Out; honourable mention for Genesis Live
Worst official live album:
The Way We Walk – The Shorts
The Way We Walk – The Longs
Like the story that we wish was never ending
from the song Fading Lights
We know some time we must reach the final page
Still we carry on just pretending
That there’ll always be one more day to go
The hugely successful Invisible Touch world tour ended in July 1987 with four shows at Wembley – a then stadium record, for a short time at least – but there was a gap of almost four years before Tony Banks, Phil Collins and Mike Rutherford came back together, in their studio in Surrey, to write and record again as Genesis.
In the intervening years there had been no indication that Phil’s solo career was slowing down or that his global popularity was on the wane. His fourth solo album, …But Seriously, and singles such as Groovy Kind of Love and Another Day in Paradise, sold in prodigious quantities. A Seriously, Live! world tour and Serious Hits…Live! album (roughly four million sales in the USA alone) maintained his astonishing run of success. He sums up his ongoing solo success in his autobiography as follows: “…on both sides of the Atlantic, I bestride the changing of the decades like a Versace-clad, five-foot-eight colossus.”
Mike’s side-project, Mike + the Mechanics, was also enjoying mainstream success, most notably with the song The Living Years, which became a massive worldwide hit. (Mike used The Living Years as the title of his 2014 memoir, in which his relationship with his father features prominently.)
Of the three, it was only Tony who continued to find solo success elusive, despite releasing two interesting (and eminently listenable) albums in this period – Bankstatement in 1989 and Still in 1991, the latter featuring contributions from Nik Kershaw and Fish (ex-Marillion) among others.
We Can’t Dance was recorded between March and September 1991. As was now routine, nothing was written in advance; songs emerged spontaneously out of group improvisations. (The sessions were filmed and released as a 46-minute documentary called No Admittance.)
It’s a given – for this fan at least – that every Genesis album from Trespass to Duke is better that any album from Abacab onwards. But, of those later albums, We Can’t Dance is probably, possibly, maybe my favourite of the four. Today, at least.
Although several tracks from the album were released as singles, We Can’t Dance feels – on balance – less commercial than either the eponymous 1983 album or Invisible Touch, less like the band are trying to craft catchy, chart-friendly songs. This may be because lead-off single No Son of Mine – its subject matter domestic abuse and family rejection – is less obvious hit material than Abacab (the song), Mama or Invisible Touch (the song).
We Can’t Dance has a warmer, more natural ambience than its predecessors (particularly Invisible Touch), perhaps linked to a change of producer. Nick Davis, who had worked separately with both Tony and Mike, replaced Hugh Padgham behind the desk, the man probably most responsible for creating the slick Phil (solo) and Genesis sound of the 80s that was so commercially all-conquering.
The album certainly opens strongly with No Son of Mine, followed by Jesus He Knows Me and then Driving the Last Spike, and the ten-minute Fading Lights bring things to a close in fine style. Tony cited the latter song in a recent interview on the Classic Album Review YouTube channel as one of his favourites from the later years.
Dreaming While You Sleep has a powerful chorus and Since I Lost You gains emotional heft when you learn that the lyrics relate to the death of Eric Clapton’s young son. (Clapton was Phil’s neighbour and a close friend.)
That said, the rest of the album – songs such as Never a Time, Tell Me Why and Way of the World – sounds decidedly middle of the road, like the product of a solo Phil/Mike + the Mechanics mash-up. Worst of all is the execrable I Can’t Dance, which deserves to sit alongside Who Dunnit? from the Abacab album at the very bottom of any self-respecting Genesis song ranking. It is an excruciatingly risible attempt to be quirky and tongue-in-cheek (ditto the silly-walk video). Harold the Barrel it most certainly is not.
We Can’t Dance is a long album, the band taking advantage of the possibilities afforded by the (then relatively new) compact-disc format. At roughly 71 minutes, it is only ten minutes shorter than Led Zeppelin’s mighty Physical Graffiti double album. Many highly regarded albums from earlier decades offer less than 40 minutes of music. Rubber Soul and Revolver by the Beatles, for example, are only about 30 minutes long.
Would a slimmed-down We Can’t Dance, with the songs that comprise the mediocre middle third released instead as b-sides and bonus tracks, have been a more satisfying album, perhaps even worthy of comparison with some of the band’s 70s output?
Okay, maybe not. But it’s a thought.
Anyway, We Can’t Dance was released in November 1991 and became another massive worldwide hit, if not quite on a par with the success of Invisible Touch – but who is counting the odd million copies here and there? Tours of North America and Europe followed in 1992, ending with a concert at Knebworth on 2 August. After a seven-week break, there were further British dates in October and November.
And so we come to the choice of gig as the stop-off point for this blog: Earls Court, London – not, strictly speaking, a bootleg.
The starting point for this entire Genesis Bootleg History series was a blog I wrote about Seconds Out. It is a magnificent album, but it is also – and this is the point – seriously misleading as a document of the 1977 live show, omitting as it does all bar one of the songs they played from the Wind and Wuthering album. And not to mention all of the between-song banter, particularly from Phil, which was such an integral part of the Genesis live experience.
By 1992, things were rather different. Advances in digital technology meant that an entire two-hour-plus show could now be recorded and released, with few if any cuts and omissions. Add in a highly polished touring machine, able to traverse continents and deliver huge shows several times a week, and it is debatable whether a bootleg from the 1992 tour will tell us much that we can’t glean from official sources.
True, the two The Way We Walk live CDs – The Shorts and The Longs – are a hideous package (seriously, what were they thinking?), but we also have an accompanying live video (released in 1993 and then reissued with extra features on DVD in 2001) of the entire show. Professionally shot footage of the entire Knebworth concert (it went out on television in Europe) is also easy to find on YouTube.
As a side note, the music on the official CDs is taken from shows in Germany (as well as three songs from the Invisible Touch tour) whereas it is their three shows at London’s Earls Court that were filmed for the video release.
Anyway, the set list from Earls Court on 8 November was as follows:
Land of Confusion / No Son of Mine / Driving the Last Spike / Old Medley / Fading Lights / Jesus He Knows Me / Dreaming While You Sleep / Home by the Sea / Second Home by the Sea / Hold on My Heart / Domino / Drum Duet / I Can’t Dance / Tonight, Tonight, Tonight / Invisible Touch / Turn It On Again
I wrote in a previous blog that the choice of Land of Confusion as the set opener for the 1992 tour is a head-scratcher, but it is obvious from the video footage that the song is going down a storm. It is easy to clap along with and the singalong ‘Whao-oh’ lines in the chorus help establish an immediate rapport between band and audience.
“Make the pain / Make it go away”, Phil belts out in Mama. It is a mammoth Genesis song of the later era, but it survives only a handful of shows before it is dropped from the set, one assumes to protect Phil’s voice. An early show in Tampa, Florida was cancelled after just two songs after Phil developed throat problems. (Side note number two: the Wikipedia entry for the The Way We Walk video indicates that several of the songs on the tour were played in a lower key to adjust to a deepening of Phil’s voice.)
Abacab – another signature 80s song – has also disappeared. Nor will it be played on either of the reunion tours.
What is striking about the set list is the number of long songs: Driving the Last Spike, the Old Medley, Fading Lights, Home by the Sea/Second Home by the Sea and Domino. That is half the set. Factor in the (relatively) stripped-back staging and lighting on this tour and we are left with a sense of a definite gear-change compared to the 1986–87 tour.
Even frontman Phil – in fact, especially frontman Phil – comes across as somewhat restrained, subdued almost. There is less of the showman schtick, less of the clowning around. Gone are the Versace suits; jeans and a plain T-shirt will do just fine for this tour.
They have all now turned forty years of age and are doubtless aware that the last pages are being written of another chapter – perhaps the final chapter – of the Genesis story. Nothing conveys this sense of an ending as strongly as the elegiac Fading Lights, which includes the line “And you know that these are the days of our lives – remember”.
(These Are the Days of Our Lives is, of course, the title of a Queen song from their album Innuendo. It is one of several things the albums We Can’t Dance and Innuendo have in common. Both were released in 1991. They are, arguably, each band’s last ‘proper’ album. And some at least of the two bands’ longstanding fans regard these albums as a return to form after a run of patchy releases in the 80s.)
Jesus He Knows Me ups the tempo after Fading Lights. It is preceded by an extended Phil monologue about televangelists, which (a) presumably went down better in some parts of North America than others, and (b) all sounds rather odd when delivered to a British audience – but he repeats it anyway.
“So we’ve taken a few parts of our past and put them together and we’ve called it Some of Our Past Put Together,” says Phil at the Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles on 18 June. His introduction ahead of the Old Medley reminds me of his “lamb stew” quip on the A Trick of the Tail tour.
The Old Medley itself – now roughly twenty minutes long – consists of Dance on a Volcano, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, The Musical Box, Firth of Fifth and I Know What I Like, plus snippets of a few other songs. It all flows nicely enough, but it remains what it always was – a somewhat unsatisfactory compromise that the band have been falling back on for a decade and more.
It is an attempt to accommodate two very different eras of Genesis, enabling them to play “lots of new songs and, with a slight inevitability … some old songs as well. Some you’ll like; some you won’t. But shit happens, y’know”, as Phil tells the Knebworth crowd.
And for fans of old Genesis, that’s your lot. Afterglow has gone. It now falls to Hold on My Heart from the new album to supply the emotional punch that Afterglow previously landed. It is a bit like asking a scrawny flyweight to go toe to toe with Muhammad Ali. It is not a contest of equals.
Even Los Endos, an exhilarating end-of-show staple since 1976, has gone. The latter part of the set is dominated by newer material, beginning with Domino and then, after the drum duet, I Can’t Dance. Truly, we are ending with a moment of bathos.
Yes, it is a seriously awful song with which to bring the main set to a close. Even worse, if that is imaginable, we are also forced to watch through our fingers as Mike and Daryl march around the stage in single file behind Phil. The riff may not be hard to play, but this is a manoeuvre that requires a considerable amount of dexterity, as they take care to ensure that guitar necks do not insert themselves anywhere anatomically inconvenient.
At last the torture is over and the band exit stage right, returning shortly afterwards for the encores, the first of which features two of the band’s biggest hit singles. Tonight, Tonight, Tonight is another opportunity for the audience to join in – “Oh-oh!” – before a nifty segue to Invisible Touch. The second encore – and the end of proceedings – is Turn It On Again, as it has been since 1983. The medley of pop classics from the last tour has gone; instead, Phil namechecks the band.
The final show of the tour was intended to be at the Royal Albert Hall in London on 16 November but an earlier concert in Wolverhampton was rescheduled to the following night. So it is in the improbable setting of Wolverhampton Civic Hall in the Midlands (capacity, roughly 3,500) that our story effectively ends.
The announcement that Phil had left the band came in 1996, though he says in his autobiography that he had made the decision more than two years earlier, citing the pressures of the We Can’t Dance tour as one of the contributing factors:
As we tick off the world’s enormodomes and super-stadiums, a thought sets in: do I really want this, this pressure, this obligation? Can I keep this up – the singing, the banter, the larger-than-life performances required – right through a gruelling summer schedule, all the way to an eye-wateringly gargantuan, outdoor homecoming show at Knebworth?
from Not Dead Yet by Phil Collins
The books referred to in this blog are:
Mike Rutherford The Living Years (2014)
Phil Collins Not Dead Yet: The Autobiography (2016)
Tony, Mike and Phil, plus Hugh Padgham and that drum sound
We visit Philadelphia to drop in on the Mama tour
You can’t really argue with the statistics, can you?
You can’t really argue with the statistics, can you?
The Invisible Touch album, released in June 1986, sold six million copies in the USA alone and was on the Billboard 200 chart for eighty-five weeks. The eponymous single was a US number one. Both single and album didn’t perform too shabbily around the rest of the world either. Nor did the singles released subsequently – four in the USA, all of which reached the top ten. And, according to Wikipedia, the accompanying ten-month world tour grossed around $60 million – that’s roughly $160 million in today’s money.
No surprise, then, that Mike Rutherford wrote in his autobiography that this was “probably our hottest moment in terms of commercial success”. The only questionable thing about that comment is the inclusion of the word ‘probably’. And yet it is impossible to talk about Genesis in the 80s without also mentioning Phil Collins and his phenomenal popularity as a solo artist at exactly this time.
When the Mama tour ended in late February 1984, Collins’ solo single Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now) had already been released in the USA. It reached number one (one place higher than in the UK) and was the first of seven US chart-topping solo singles (six more than Genesis achieved). His 1982 cover of the Supremes’ You Can’t Hurry Love had been a surprise hit on both sides of the Atlantic, but 1984’s Against All Odds began an extended period of extraordinary mainstream success for Collins that lasted into the following decade.
Easy Lover, a duet with Earth, Wind and Fire vocalist Philip Bailey, was another 1984 smash hit single, and his third solo album, No Jacket Required, went on to sell perhaps as many as twenty-five million copies, making it one of the biggest-selling albums of all time.
It’s no wonder that the chapters of Collins’ autobiography covering this mid-80s period are called Hello I Must be Busy and Hello I Must be Busy II: he was all but impossible to avoid, a workaholic and hit machine incarnate. In addition to producing albums for Bailey and his buddy Eric Clapton, he toured the world to promote the No Jacket Required album (including playing two nights at Madison Square Garden)…
…contributed drums to the Band Aid charity song Do They Know It’s Christmas? at the end of 1984 and then played at both Wembley Stadium (with Sting) and Philadelphia (with Led Zeppelin) at the Live Aid concert in July 1985…
…reached number one in the USA (again) with another duet – this time Separate Lives, with Marilyn Martin – guest-starred in an episode of hit TV show Miami Vice…
…and got married for a second time. (NB He admits in his autobiography that “large chunks” of the lyrics of the 1986 song Invisible Touch were written about his first wife, from whom he separated in 1980.)
Collins wrote in his autobiography that if ever he was going to quit Genesis to focus on his solo career “in theory this would be the time”. He was, in a nutshell, more popular than Genesis, who very obviously had not played at Live Aid, unlike a sizeable proportion of the top-tier acts, old and new, in the rock and pop universe.
Tony Banks, meanwhile, had released his second solo album in 1983 and was also involved in writing film music. Rutherford had formed the band Mike + the Mechanics in 1985, having decided that he no longer wished to release material as a solo artist following the release of his second solo album in 1982.
But Collins didn’t leave in 1985. He had missed the band’s “magical way of working in the studio”, he wrote later. So had the other two. Rutherford described the new album, which was recorded between October 1985 and February 1986 in the band’s home studio in Surrey, as “effortless to make”:
Phil had a little drum machine … and we’d start with a nothing-very-much loop and jam over it. Phil would sing whatever came into his head, and Tony and I would pile in fearlessly with any old chords and noise and racket. And out the songs came.
So, how does Invisible Touch measure up as a Genesis album? Okay, you can’t argue with the stats, but is it actually any good?
It isn’t rubbish, obviously – this is Genesis we are talking about, after all – but regular readers of this Genesis Bootlegs blog series will know that I am not a huge fan of the band’s 80s output: Abacab, Genesis (the 1983 album) and Invisible Touch sit comfortably at the bottom of my Genesis album ranking list. Indeed, I am not a fan of 80s music more generally, at least the mediocre fare served up by the rock titans of the 70s who continued on into the following decade.
And with its catchy chorus-driven arrangements, vacuous lyrics (“There’s too many men, too many people / Making too many problems / And not much love to go round”) and heavily processed sound – what the presenter of YouTube’s Classic Album Review show regularly refers to as “those 80s affectations” – Invisible Touch is very much an 80s album.
Perhaps even more to the point, at least three songs on the album – In Too Deep, Anything She Does and Throwing It All Away – would not sound particularly out of place on No Jacket Required.
On the other hand, plenty of Genesis fans disagree, citing in particular the album’s two longer songs – Tonight, Tonight, Tonight (8 minutes 53 seconds) and Domino (10 minutes 44 seconds) – as evidence of a residual prog-esque complexity in at least some of their music.
Well, possibly.
The – frankly gigantic – Invisible Touch tour began on 18 September 1986 in Detroit and ended on 4 July 1987 in London. It included no fewer than three North American legs (the first of which was made up of multiple nights at just seven venues) as well as shows in New Zealand, Australia, Japan and Europe – all in front of enormous audiences.
The opening North American leg included five nights at the legendary/iconic (choose your cliché) Los Angeles Forum, 13–17 October. For the purposes of this blog I used a bootleg I found on YouTube that is stated as coming from 14 October, the second night in LA. It is possibly a King Biscuit Flower Hour show, though this recording has none of the usual King Biscuit add-ons. (The excellent Genesis Movement website suggests that Collins’ dialogue from the King Biscuit performance comes from 14 October and 15 October.)
The setlist for this initial leg of the tour leaves us in no doubt that this is a show put together with the band’s massive new mainstream audience in mind. It has undergone an unprecedented – for Genesis – overhaul. The band play the entire Invisible Touch album, with the exception of just one song (Anything She Does).
This LA Forum setlist is typical:
Mama / Abacab / Land of Confusion / That’s All / Domino / In Too Deep / The Brazilian / Follow You Follow Me / Tonight, Tonight, Tonight / Home by the Sea / Second Home by the Sea / Throwing It All Away / Old Medley / Invisible Touch / Drum Duet / Los Endos / Turn It On Again Medley
Many of the songs from the previous two albums – Dodo/Lurker, Illegal Alien, Man on the Corner, Who Dunnit?, Keep It Dark, Misunderstanding and It’s Gonna Get Better – have been ditched to make way for the new stuff. What I labelled in the Philadelphia 1983 blog as Old Medley 1, which chopped and changed during the Mama tour but included early- and mid-period classics such as Eleventh Earl of Mar, Firth of Fifth and The Musical Box, has also vanished.
Nowadays we regularly see ‘legacy bands’ promoting a tour by organising the setlist around a classic album and playing it from start to finish, but playing an album in its entirety was far more unusual back in the 70s and 80s (Pink Floyd were an exception). True, the 1980 Duke tour featured roughly thirty or so minutes of back-to-back new music, but the collection of songs they played was originally conceived as a single self-contained piece of music, a Duke ‘suite’.
The decision to play almost everything on Invisible Touch means that the new setlist has a serious lack of balance to it, particularly the first hour or so. The track Domino begins a roughly forty-minute run of new music broken only by the inclusion of (the rather slight) Follow You Follow Me.
This particular recording sounds great, and the performances are as polished and professional as you would expect. Apparently, the band were being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for some of these shows – and they don’t disappoint.
Then again, as the Britpop band Oasis (who are in the news at the time of writing this blog) proved more than once in their career (and indeed as Led Zeppelin – with somebody called Phil Collins on drums – proved at Live Aid), it really doesn’t look and sound great performing in a stadium when the band is below par for whatever reason.
And not to mention the immense logistical challenges associated with tours on this scale. The Pink Floyd guitarist Dave Gilmour and Floyd’s manager tagged along for several weeks to help them prepare for an upcoming and similarly ambitious Floyd tour. (The A Momentary Lapse of Reason tour ended up making even more money than the Invisible Touch tour.)
In fact, the performances are perhaps even more polished and professional than you would expect. Rutherford tells us in his autobiography that it was during this tour that he heard the news that his father had died. It was arranged that he would fly back to England for the funeral on 13 October and then fly back the same day to play in Los Angeles. At least some of the recording discussed here, then, is from the following night.
(Actually, the timeline he outlines in his book doesn’t seem to fit the facts. He writes that he received the news in a hotel in Chicago in the middle of a six-show run and that the funeral took place two weeks later. But their six-night residency at the Rosemont Horizon – just outside Chicago and presumably what he is referring to – was from 5 October to 10 October. LA was the very next stop on the tour, just a few days later.)
Anyway, back to the show. The newer material offers plenty of opportunities for the audience to join in, and frontman Phil is of course a dab hand at keeping them all entertained. One wonders what the LA crowd made of Collins’ reference – in his introduction to In Too Deep – to people “having it off”.
In truth, much of the between-song banter feels somewhat predictable by now: they are still, for example, riffing on the “Other World” theme before Home by the Sea, though this time asking the crowd’s assistance to levitate the venue rather than merely contacting the spirits as they did on the previous tour. And a comparison with the Wembley shows at the opposite end of the world tour suggests that there isn’t a great deal of variation from one show to another. Spontaneity is perhaps the first casualty of the stadium experience (with intimacy the second). Not that Genesis first-timers in 1986–87 would have been thinking any of this, I guess.
The primary nod to the old days – “Right, now for some of that really really really old stuff” – is a medley that begins, as Genesis medleys have done since their introduction on the Duke tour, with In the Cage, which segues into In That Quiet Earth from Wind and Wuthering and then the closing two sections of Supper’s Ready (from Apocalypse 9/8 onwards). In That Quiet Earth, in particular, sounds fresh, with an earthy (no pun intended) guitar sound and some outstanding interplay on the drums between Collins and Chester Thompson.
And then we immediately switch from the (very) old to the (very) new: Invisible Touch – the song that had got them to number one in the USA and catapulted them into the pop stratosphere. The show proper ends in familiar fashion with a drum duet that leads into Los Endos, the latter as thrilling as ever despite now being the end-of-show staple for a full decade.
The encore again finds the band opting for mass appeal. Turn It On Again, as on the Mama tour, incorporates a medley of its own, but this time one that is made up of snippets of pop and soul ‘classics’:
Everybody Needs Somebody to Love / (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction / Twist and Shout / All Day and All of the Night / You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feelin’ / Pinball Wizard / In the Midnight Hour
It’s light, it’s stadium-friendly and it dials up the feelgood factor to eleven – but is it Genesis? Well, yes, of course it is – but anyone crossing their fingers for a blast of Watcher of the Skies or The Knife presumably left a tad deflated.
The Wembley shows were filmed and released on video, later rereleased as a DVD. It is well worth a watch, as long as those hideous 80s outfits they are wearing don’t scare you off. I am ambivalent about stadium shows for several reasons, but the Invisible Touch tour was undoubtedly a great spectacle, particularly once the daylight faded. And what a relief it is to see Tony Banks and his keyboards back in their proper place stage left after they were inexplicably moved to no-man’s land (ie between the two drum kits) on the Mama tour.
There were changes to the setlist for later parts of the world tour (from January 1987 onwards). In Too Deep and Follow You Follow Me were dropped completely and so the show itself became shorter. Afterglow also replaced Supper’s Ready in the main medley and Reach Out (I’ll Be There) by the Four Tops replaced All Day and All of the Night in the encore medley.
The changes were presumably to protect Collins’ voice. He wrote in his autobiography that he was having regular steroid injections as a short-term fix to get him through shows. (He also says that the injections led to health problems in later life, including brittle bones.) In addition, an adjustment to the order of songs gave the show a better balance between older and newer material.
Collins later described the Wembley shows as “tremendously atmospheric … easily the triumph of the tour”. The run of four shows (1–4 July 1987) was at the time a record, presumably just one of many that the band had set over the previous ten months and 112 shows. Rutherford put it like this: “Certain bands have certain years and 1986 must have been our year.”
And then… nothing, at least not in Genesis Land. Collins took a year off from writing and recording, instead starring opposite Julie Walters in a film about the Great Train Robber ‘Buster’ Edwards; Rutherford had further success with Mike + the Mechanics, notably the single The Living Years, which became a worldwide hit and a US number one early in 1989; Banks released an interesting but commercially unsuccessful album called Bankstatement in 1989.
Genesis did not come back together to record again until March 1991, nearly four years after the end of the Invisible Touch tour.
There is no official live album from the Invisible Touch tour, though recordings of Mama and That’s All (from Wembley) and In Too Deep (from the LA Forum) appeared on the 1992 live album, The Way We Walk Volume One: The Shorts.
As mentioned earlier, the final shows at Wembley were filmed and released on video (with, it seems, most or all of the footage coming from the middle two shows. The Old Medley was omitted). It was rereleased as a DVD in 2003 as Genesis Live at Wembley Stadium.
The final Wembley show and indeed the final show of the world tour – 4 July – was broadcast on the radio by the BBC and has long been widely available as a high-quality bootleg. Ten of the songs are now available on the BBC Broadcasts box set that was released in 2023.
In addition, The Brazilian – from 3 July – appeared as a b-side and is on Genesis Archives 2: 1976–1992, as is a version of Your Own Special Way from Sydney in December 1986 that was played with a live string section (local Musicians’ Union rules, it seems).
The books referred to in this blog are:
Mike Rutherford The Living Years (2014)
Phil Collins Not Dead Yet: The Autobiography (2016)
Genesis, 1980 — and this time it’s personal. Reflections on the Duke era
Tony, Mike and Phil, plus Hugh Padgham and that drum sound
We visit Philadelphia to drop in on the Mama tour
In Through the Out Door is Led Zeppelin’s eighth and final studio album, assuming we are not counting Coda, the compilation of previously unreleased tracks that was issued two years after the band had officially disbanded following drummer John Bonham’s death. It came out on 22 August 1979, three or so weeks after the first of their two Knebworth concerts and a whopping three-and-a-half years after their previous studio album, Presence.
Two initial points about In Through the Out Door: it is the first Zeppelin album that I bought at time of release and – unrelated to that, I think – I like it more than most Zep fans seem to. Check out any Zeppelin album-ranking video on YouTube and you will very likely find Coda propping up the list – that’s fair enough though, as I say, I personally don’t think of Coda as a genuine studio album (but it is an inspired title!) – with In Through the Out Door perched just above it.
(Next on the list – going in ascending order – will probably be Presence followed by Houses of the Holy, and then the first four albums, and finally Physical Graffiti in the top spot. For what it’s worth, I have done my own Zeppelin album ranking at the end of this blog.)
I can recall In Through the Out Door getting a scathing two-stars-out-of-five review in Sounds magazine. The reviewer was Geoff Barton, the standard bearer for heavy rock in a music paper whose journalists much preferred punk. (Incidentally, a young Sounds writer at the time who championed a hardcore subgenre of punk labelled Oi! was Garry Bushell, who later became the TV reviewer in tabloids like the Sun. Barton himself went on to edit the first issue of Kerrang!, itself an offshoot of Sounds.)
The paper had already panned two gigs that the band played in Copenhagen as warmups for Knebworth, and Barton’s album review dripped with schadenfreude. In the Evening was classic Zeppelin, he opined, but everything else (All My Love partly excepted) was an embarrassment. Barton, a huge Kiss fan, was taking a hefty amount of flak in the letters pages for the disco-influenced sound of the recently released Dynasty album, so he took particular delight in mocking the synth-heavy Carouselambra (winner of the oddest Zeppelin song title award), particularly the up-tempo synth solo that starts at roughly seven minutes in.
In Through the Out Door was, we read, a difficult album to record, with Jimmy Page at a low ebb physically and creatively (Chris Salewicz writes: “Frozen in his heroin addiction, Page had minimal input” – page 396) and Bonham, well, an alcoholic. But I like its bright, clean sound (with the exception of the vocals on Carouselambra which are so buried in the mix that the lyrics are all but indecipherable), and the extensive use of keyboards makes In Through the Out Door a much more varied and interesting listen than Presence (of which, more below). It is John Paul Jones’ most distinctive and impactful contribution to Zeppelin’s body of work since No Quarter six years earlier.
The opening In the Evening and side two’s All My Love are indeed excellent. I have never been an enthusiast for bluesy dirges (the dictionary definition of a dirge is ‘a mournful song’) and so I would probably have wrapped things up with the raucous Wearing and Tearing, which made a belated appearance on Coda, rather than I’m Gonna Crawl. But songs like Southbound Suarez and Hot Dog hold up against, say, Dancing Days and D’yer Mak’er (which gets the worst Zeppelin song title prize) on the much more highly regarded Houses of the Holy album.
That said, 1973’s Houses of the Holy, the band’s fifth album, is fated to sit forever in the shadow of the untitled fourth album. Over the Hills and Far Away and The Ocean are both great tracks, but The Grunge is nothing more than a filler – and not a particularly good one at that.
I find Thin Lizzy’s classic early studio albums – Nightlife (1974) to Bad Reputation (1977) – hard to listen to because my introduction to Lizzy’s music was their exceptional 1978 live album, Live and Dangerous. Ditto Zeppelin’s Houses of the Holy: three of its standout tracks – The Song Remains the Same, The Rain Song and No Quarter – are outshone by the versions that appear on the 1976 live soundtrack album, The Song Remains the Same, which was my introduction to Zeppelin. [Click to read Part 1 for more about this.] The moral of the story: don’t introduce yourself to a band’s music via a live album.
An album that I don’t appear to rate as highly as most Zep fans is their third one. Led Zeppelin III has its epic moments, of course: Immigrant Song and Since I’ve Been Loving You are majestic, and the gentler Tangerine and That’s the Way explore a folksy side to Zeppelin only hinted at on the first two albums. But other tracks – Friends, Out on the Tiles and Bron-Yr-Aur Stomp – are mediocre by Zep standards and the closing Hats Off to (Roy) Harper (no surprises that it is based on an old blues number) probably ranks as my least favourite song of theirs. Hey, Hey, What Can I Do, which was released as the b-side of Immigrant Song in the USA, would have been a much better pick.
Their first album, Led Zeppelin, also has its peaks and troughs. Good Times Bad Times, Dazed and Confused, Communication Breakdown and How Many More Times are excellent, but overall – and in spite of its hard-rock edge – the album draws too heavily on the band’s blues influences for my taste.
Led Zeppelin II draws liberally from the same well but nevertheless seems to offer something genuinely groundbreaking – a musical manifesto for a new decade (it was released in late October 1969). Eclectic and experimental, Led Zeppelin II sounds like a band still taking inspiration from but no longer constrained by their heritage. Or maybe the songs are just better.
Robert Plant once described himself to the journalist Cameron Crowe as “a golden god”. It is a rather tired cliché but the phrase ‘rock gods’ certainly captures some of the aura that surrounded Led Zeppelin – or, perhaps more accurately, that the band projected – in their heyday: irresistible, all-conquering, indestructible, and also distant and aloof, much like the ancient Greek gods that were once believed to reside on Mount Olympus, in fact.
A trope of ancient Greek tragedy was the concept of hubris – defined as excessive pride and dangerous overconfidence – followed by nemesis: punishment (by the gods), prolonged bad luck and ultimately downfall. It is a rich seam that has been continually mined during the last two millennia of storytelling. (At its simplest, think of any bighead-gets-his-comeuppance story.) And it is an interesting lens through which to observe Zeppelin’s unravelling in the second half of the decade.
The year 1975 appeared to start so well for them. Physical Graffiti – not just an ambitious, sprawling double album but also the band’s first release on their own Swan Song label – came out in February and was an instant critical and commercial triumph. Another high-grossing, hellraising tour of North America, with the band criss-crossing the continent aboard the aptly named Starship, was followed by a series of eagerly anticipated shows at Earls Court in London, originally three but extended to five by popular demand.
It is worth pausing briefly at Earls Court in May 1975 – Saturday 24 May 1975, to be precise – to listen in on some of Plant’s between-song chats with the crowd. (The concert is available as audio and video more or less in its entirety on YouTube and elsewhere.)
Introducing a show that will last well over three hours, Plant informs the audience that the band intends to take them “on a little journey of the experiences that we’ve had – the more pleasurable ones and some of the dark ones that have led to the music that has been so different in six-and-a-half years”. They may be rock gods, in other words, but it isn’t all paradise in paradise.
It is well known that Plant has long been reluctant to perform Stairway to Heaven, Zeppelin’s magnum opus in the eyes of many rock music fans. If at first he was fed up with the song’s ubiquity (he once donated $10,000 to a community radio station in Oregon in return for their pledge never to play the song again), the issue in more recent times seems to be Plant’s wish to distance himself from the song’s sentiments – “coming from the mind of a twenty-three-year-old”, he told one interviewer. (He was actually twenty-two when he wrote the lyrics).
According to Mick Wall, Plant only agreed to the song’s inclusion in the set list for the 02 Arena show in 2007 on condition that it was played midway during the set and without any fanfare. He also says that Plant had to be persuaded to leave in the “Does anyone remember laughter?” ad lib for the DVD release of The Song Remains the Same.
Plant was four years older by the time of the Earls Court shows, but he was still – or at least affected to be – the carefree hippie who sang of girls with love in their eyes and flowers in their hair. He says this as they settle on their stools at the front of the stage before playing Going to California: “This is a song about the would-be hope for the ultimate… erm… for the ultimate.” Whatever that means.
But for all this counterculture idealism, mammon was as important to Led Zeppelin as music:
It really is a treat to be playing in England again – or playing in Britain again. It makes us sound like foreigners, but somebody voted for somebody and everybody’s on the run. There’s very little people [sic] left in the business that we know to talk to anymore. We have to talk to passers-by on the street and cyclists and members of the public. This is for anybody who’s got any hope that everything can be okay in our wonderful country again. Everything can be grown from the seeds of goodness, right, and without becoming a prophet we ain’t doing too good at the moment.
Later, introducing Dazed and Confused, Plant adds:
So we’re really having a good time back in good old England. We gotta fly soon. You know how it is with Denis, dear Denis. Private enterprise. No artists in the country any more. He must be Dazed and Confused…
‘Denis’ refers to Denis Healey, the UK’s chancellor of the exchequer between 1974 and 1979. Income tax rates were much higher in Britain and across much of the developed world in the 60s and 70s than they are now. The incoming Labour government had increased the top rate of income tax from 75% to 83%, and the overall rate on investment income was as high as 98%.
Some wealthy celebrities became tax exiles, moving abroad temporarily or permanently to avoid paying tax in the UK, as did the members of Led Zeppelin (and Peter Grant). They were permitted to be in Britain for no more than thirty days during the 1975–76 tax year. Plant’s comment to the crowd at the end of the final Earls Court show was: “If you see Denis Healey, tell him we’ve gone.”
But tax headaches were far from the only problem by 1975. The rock-god lifestyle – sex, drugs, rock ‘n’ roll, more sex, more drugs, even more sex, even more drugs – was taking its toll. Cocaine and other illegal substances had always been freely available but now heroin, a much more destructive drug, was the narcotic of choice. Bonham (referred to by members of the Zeppelin entourage as ‘the Beast’, which was not meant as a compliment) was increasingly prone to bouts of alcohol-fuelled violence: Mick Wall describes him as a ‘droog’ on and off the stage. (Droogs were a gang of vicious thugs in the book and film A Clockwork Orange; Bonham had adopted their look on stage.) Stephen Davis, in his book Hammer of the Gods, writes of “a loose cannon, fully loaded and banging around the deck, destroying anything in his way” (page 258).
Worse was to follow. Plant and his family were involved in a serious car accident on the Greek island of Rhodes, and plans for yet another North American tour in August–September were abruptly cancelled.
Presence, released in March 1976, was the album that eventually emerged from the literal and metaphorical wreckage. Written in the autumn of 1975, it was actually recorded in less than three weeks, with minimal creative input from anyone except Page who, says Mick Wall, rushed to complete the album in marathon eighteen-hour-plus sessions fuelled by heroin (page 370).
True, Achilles Last Stand – the title an ironic nod, presumably, to Plant’s extended confinement to a wheelchair after the accident – is a frenetic ten-minute epic built around layered guitars and powerhouse drumming. But the album as a whole, featuring no keyboards and virtually no acoustic guitar, lacks the variety, ambition and moments of inspiration that make Physical Graffiti such a masterpiece.
Above all, the optimism that helped songs like Stairway to Heaven and Kashmir to soar – “Oh, father of the four winds fill my sails / Cross the sea of years” – has all but evaporated, to be replaced by a sense of isolation and despair. Los Angeles, for years the band’s playground, is now “the city of the damned”, and the frequent allusions to narcotics – “Paying through the nose”, “Got a monkey on my back” – are impossible to miss.
Tea for One ends the album on a suitably downbeat note, both musically and lyrically:
There was a time that I stood tall
In the eyes of other men
But by my own choice I left you woman
And now I can’t get back again
Led Zeppelin did not play live again until April 1977, the start of a shambolic North American tour that was cut short following the death of Plant’s five-year-old son, Karac, from a viral infection unrelated to the 1975 car crash. Their next – final – concerts in the UK were not until Knebworth in 1979, more than four years after their Earls Court triumph. Bonham died of alcohol poisoning the following year.
To conclude, here is my ranking of Led Zeppelin’s albums (worst to best):
8. Presence (1976)
7. Led Zeppelin (1969)
6. Led Zeppelin III (1970)
5. Houses of the Holy (1973)
4. In Through the Out Door (1979)
3. Led Zeppelin IV (1971)
2. Led Zeppelin II (1969)
1. Physical Graffiti (1975)
The books referred to in this blog are:
Stephen Davis, Hammer of the Gods, 1995 edition
Mick Wall, When Giants Walked the Earth, 2009 edition
Chris Salewicz, Jimmy Page: The Definitive Biography, 2018 hardback edition
Growing up as a Queen fan: teenage tales told through ten Queen-related objects
“Suddenly you were gone” – my appreciation of Canada’s finest. RIP Neil Peart
The mighty Led Zeppelin and their music, including the film The Song Remains the Same
I uploaded this blog on the day of the 2024 general election, before the results of the exit poll were announced at 10pm.
If he were alive today, Benjamin Franklin would surely have said that nothing is certain in life except death, taxes and political parties refusing to be honest about taxes during an election campaign.
I wrote the bulk of this blog during the days leading up to the 2024 UK general election. Other than the staggering incompetence of the Conservatives’ election campaign, the main talking-point of the last few weeks has probably been the promise made by the two main political parties (joined by the Liberal Democrats) that, if elected, they will not put up any of the three main revenue-raising taxes: income tax, national insurance and VAT.
They have, in other words, embraced each other in a Faustian dance, making ludicrous assertions about the huge sums to be raised from cutting ‘red tape’ (see below for more about scare quotes!) and clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion to justify claims about fully funded plans that require no additional tax rises.
Unsurprisingly, the main manifesto launch week echoed with accusations of a lack of candour and of a failure to be honest with voters about the prospects for the economy, the state of our public services and the scale of the challenges the country faces. Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies – a respected independent voice – has talked of “a conspiracy of silence”.
And no shock, either, that – according to a British Attitudes Survey published last month – trust and confidence in government and politicians is at an all-time low.
Let’s briefly rewind thirty years or so, to the beginning of 1992. The economy had been in recession for more than a year, the Conservatives were haemorrhaging goodwill after introducing the poll tax, and the party had ditched Margaret Thatcher, replacing her with the grey, technocratic John Major. Labour was narrowly ahead in the opinion polls and in with a chance of forming the next government.
In January the Conservatives unveiled their ‘Labour’s Tax Bombshell’ poster campaign, followed soon after by ‘Labour’s Double Whammy’ (a reference to more taxes and higher prices). The Conservatives went on to win a fourth term in the April general election.
A followed by B does not mean that A caused B, of course, and it would be ridiculous to pin an election outcome on just one factor. What is not in doubt, however, is the deep scars left by the 1992 defeat – and specifically those Tory tax attacks – on Labour’s collective psyche.
Labour as the party of high taxation is the go-to weapon in the Tories’ election arsenal, one wielded with relish by their many media cheerleaders as well. It is why in the 1997 election campaign Tony Blair and Gordon Brown went big on New Labour’s ‘fiscal responsibility’, promising to stick to the government’s existing spending plans for two years and not to put up income tax for the full parliamentary term.
Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have been equally cautious. And yet the day after Labour’s 2024 manifesto launch, the front page of the Daily Express warned us not to “fall for Labour’s hidden £8.5bn ‘tax trap'”. The Times quoted Paul Johnson’s comment about a conspiracy of silence and pointed out that the Labour manifesto offered “no assurances on capital gains tax, fuel duty and tax relief on pensions”.
The Daily Mail’s headline was “What is Labour not telling us about tax hikes?” The Mail’s fondness for question marks in headlines reminds me of the adage associated with the journalist Ian Betteridge (though it predates him) that any headline ending with a question mark can be answered with the word ‘no’ – or, in this case, ‘nothing’ or, more likely, ‘not much’.
More broadly, the shallowness of the day-to-day party-political knockabout is why I would not describe myself as a political junkie. Why bother with Prime Minister’s Questions when you can be sure that the prime minister will not even attempt to address the questions put to him or her? (As a side-point, I have been surprised that, given his lawyer background, Keir Starmer has not been more agile on his feet during PMQs in exploiting Rishi Sunak’s evasiveness, almost always sticking to pre-prepared lines.) Why watch the BBC’s Question Time when you already know the script?
Short-termism is democracy’s Achilles heel, an inherent weakness most brutally exposed during election campaigns. Politicians either promise unachievable change in a ridiculously short timeframe (Sunak’s ‘Stop the boats’ pledge a good example, delivered very obviously with the polls in mind) or – the opposite problem – shy away from being frank with the electorate about the sort of remedies required to properly get to grips with the country’s problems (hence the current omertà on tax).
Take the book All In: How to Build a Country That Works by the Labour frontbench politician Lisa Nandy. I am a Nandy fan. Apart from being the MP for the town near where I live, she is smart, an assured media performer and someone with the ability to – cliché klaxon – talk human. It puzzles me why the Labour leadership have all but benched her.
(Nandy was briefly shadow foreign secretary, having come a creditable third in the 2020 Labour leadership election that Starmer won. She was later moved to levelling-up – actually a shrewd appointment, I thought, because her new role was shadowing Michael Gove, the Tories’ most effective minister – and then very obviously demoted to international development, though still in the Shadow Cabinet.)
Nandy’s book is an interesting enough read and – to steal the puff quote from fellow MP Jon Cruddas – she sets out a “positive agenda for change and renewal”. But, as a loyal frontbencher, she cannot and does not stray too far off script, if at all. For all her talk of starting afresh (page 3), Nandy’s thinking remains within the existing (Labour) paradigm.
It was not Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher but Bill Clinton – champion, along with Tony Blair in the UK, of what came to be called ‘the third way’ – who proclaimed, in his State of the Union address in 1996, that the era of Big Government was over.
What we might think of as the Thatcherite–Reaganite worldview has set the terms of debate about public policy since the mid-1970s. It is the paradigm within which mainstream politics operates. Fear of the perception of governmental overreach – of so-called ‘nanny statism’ – limits what administrations of all hues are willing to contemplate.
The Overton window is a concept used in political science and denotes the range of policies voters will supposedly find acceptable. A policy that is outside the Overton window will not be accepted by the mainstream voting public. Any such policy may be widely seen as extreme or simply as impossible to achieve – and therefore any fundamental rethink of a policy or a set of policies (ie an approach or a strategy) will almost certainly require shifting the Overton window so that what was previously deemed extreme, impossible or unthinkable becomes acceptable, doable and achievable.
The concept is closely linked with the idea of common sense – ie with what instinctively seems right. The reason why Thatcher’s ghost still walks today is because her worldview became the dominant paradigm from the 80s onwards, setting the terms of debate and defining what was seen as common sense in politics and economics.
The political commentator Sonia Sodha has argued persuasively that, in economic policy, “the narratives of the political right are more compelling because they are more intuitive”. Thatcher’s claim that running one of the largest economies in the world was no different from running a household budget, though ridiculously simplistic (and, according to many economists, fundamentally wrong), was easy for voters to understand and seemed to make sense because it aligned with how they lived their lives.
Shifting the Overton window – changing the popular mindset – involves altering the terms of debate. But individuals do not form their worldview in a vacuum. Our thinking – about what is or is not right, acceptable, achievable – is heavily influenced by the media and other opinion shapers. For good or ill, much of the battle to reset the terms of debate needs to take place on this terrain. And it will take time.
Sodha has discussed the notion of the maxed-out credit card. It is a commonly used metaphor in the media and on the political right in arguments about government spending. It seems to make sense. It fits with our everyday experience of having to limit what we spend because we only have a certain amount of money and at some point it will run out.
It would be great if the government could do more to help the poorest, to support families, to improve our public services – but where is the money coming from? Or so the argument goes. There is (to quote another well-worn phrase) no magic money-tree.
But look what happens, says Sodha, when we switch the metaphor. Think of government spending not as ‘partying on the credit card’ but as ‘taking out a mortgage’, something that is equally part of the everyday experience of many people, a commitment that millions of us take on as a sensible long-term investment for the future.
It is time to switch the metaphor. Time to shift the paradigm.
And it is the paradigm shifters who really intrigue me, the thinkers prepared to radically reimagine how we might do things. Which brings us to This Time No Mistakes: How to Remake Britain, written by the author, journalist and political economist Will Hutton, published in April 2024 and then rush-released (presumably) in paperback in the middle of the summer general election campaign.
Hutton has been an influential voice on the centre-left for decades (including as editor of the Observer for four years). He made arguably his biggest splash with his book The State We’re In, published in 1995. Tony Blair – then the leader of the Opposition and on course to be the next prime minister – was apparently impressed by Hutton’s thinking around ‘communitarianism’, which was briefly floated by Labour strategists and policy wonks as the next Big Idea.
Hutton describes This Time No Mistakes as “a life’s work”, an analysis of where it has all gone wrong and a prescription for how to put it right. It is not simply a list of policy ideas for the next government, though the book contains plenty of those. Rather, he sees it as a blueprint to secure the coming decades for social democracy.
A blistering opening salvo on page IX – “the most incompetent, negligent government in modern times” – is followed by a first chapter – On the Edge (the title echoing Rory Stewart’s recent brilliant account of his time as a Conservative MP) – that maps out the enormity of the crisis currently facing Britain.
The next few chapters take us on a whistlestop tour of British and US political and economic history, beginning with the fallout from the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s.
The phrase ‘New Deal liberalism’ is one to which Hutton repeatedly returns, whether in the context of the consensus that prevailed in the West in the decades following the end of the Second World War or its collapse and replacement by a neoliberal paradigm during the era of Reagan and Thatcher.
To recall President Clinton’s words, the era of Big Government was over.
Let’s define neoliberalism as (1) hostility to an active, interventionist state that ‘interferes’ in our lives and limits our ability to act as free individuals in a free market, combined with (2) a belief in the economics of low taxation. Note the popularity in right-wing discourse of phrases like the already mentioned ‘nanny state’ and ‘red tape’, used tendentiously to make political-ideological points (hence my use of scare quotes!).
Hutton, in contrast, is a champion of interventionist government and FDR’s New Deal is his inspiration: “The ambition, energy and experimentation of these reforms is impressive even after nearly a century.” Government, he believes, has an essential role to play in establishing “guiderails” for capitalism, acting as a catalyst for growth, renewing our democracy and protecting social cohesion.
Hutton is not a socialist. His goal is to radically rethink British capitalism to exploit its dynamism and ensure that it works more effectively. He quotes Evan Durbin, a largely forgotten academic and Labour politician of the 30s and 40s who once referred to himself as a “militant Moderate”, approvingly: “Expansion is the great virtue of capitalism; inequality and insecurity are its great vices.”
We need, says Hutton, to fuse Britain’s two progressive traditions (most closely associated with the Liberal Party and the Labour Party), and he refers repeatedly to the ‘I’ and the ‘We’, representing individual agency and fellowship respectively. Dynamic capitalism, he argues, needs to be “married to a belief in social cohesion, a sense of fairness and personal freedom, and structures that compensate for the sheer bad luck of life’s vicissitudes”.
It is the sheer scale of Hutton’s ambition, together with his conviction that it is achievable, that makes This Time No Mistakes such an exhilarating and compelling read. Take, for example, chapter nine – Changing Gear – which makes the case for a massive public investment programme (which, the theory goes, will then ‘crowd in’ private investment) to drive productivity and therefore growth. Or his twelve-point programme – set out in chapter thirteen – to repair our democracy and systems of governance.
I could go on. The second half of This Time No Mistakes fizzes with imaginative and often radical ideas, all geared towards achieving one goal:
There is a brighter future ahead. But to reach it, we cannot live with yet more years of disastrous or even timidly reformist policies … We can pioneer a twenty-first century civilisation in which everyone flourishes. It is more than possible, as this book will show. We just have to want it enough.
The final paragraph of the first chapter of This Time No Mistakes
Alas, Hutton’s vision – outlined with such brio – comes with a gargantuan slice of wishful thinking, predicated as it is on the willingness of Britain’s progressive parties to work together. The sad reality is that the very thing he abhors – a fragmented centre and centre-left – is the default setting for British politics, as the current election campaign has once again demonstrated. It is unlikely to change any time soon.
Hutton points out that the first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system discourages compromise and collaboration and encourages division and polarisation, and he rightly calls for the replacement of FPTP with a more proportional system.
The Conservatives, he reminds us, have been in government for most of the last hundred years in large part because the progressive vote has been split between Labour and the Liberals. Hutton labels the failure to introduce a fairer voting system in 1918, when the Representation of the People Act massively increased the electorate (including extending the vote to many women for the first time), “the miscalculation of the century”.
More fundamentally, I would add, FPTP deepens Britain’s disastrous democratic deficit by effectively disenfranchising millions of voters who live in so-called ‘safe seats’ that rarely, if ever, change hands. It also results in a House of Commons the political complexion of which is often wildly at odds with what the electorate voted for. In both 1951 and (February) 1974, for example, the party that won the popular vote did not even end up with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons.
(The electoral-college system for electing a president in the USA is even worse. An election with more than 150 million eligible voters is nowadays decided by a few thousand votes either way in just a handful of the fifty states.)
But just as Tony Blair ended his flirtation with electoral reform as soon as he won a landslide in 1997, so the incoming Labour government will surely give it a wide berth now. With the current splintering of the right-wing vote, it will be fascinating to see whether the Conservative Party begins to show any interest. The (right-wing) Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley has already toyed with the case for change. Unsurprisingly, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, like all the smaller parties, already supports electoral reform.
So what chance is there of the new government achieving the transformation of Britain that Hutton – and many of us – so desperately yearns for?
The odds are stacked heavily against it. Nevertheless, I will end on a hopeful note by quoting Hutton’s post on X (formerly Twitter) on Thursday 13 June, the day of the launch of the Labour manifesto:
The Labour manifesto in its unassuming, unsung but purposeful way is as radical and potentially more enduringly transformative than Labour’s in 1945. Everyone under-rated Attlee, his ambition and capacity to bring it off. They are doing the same with Starmer.
Posted by Will Hutton on X (formerly Twitter) on 13 June 2024
Fingers crossed.
Friday Morning at the Funhouse with Pete Pardo and Martin Popoff on the Sea of Tranquility [sic] YouTube channel is a great watch/listen for any rock music enthusiast. Pete is the channel’s main man, and Martin is a prolific writer, critic and podcaster in his own right as well as being a frequent face on the channel. Their musical tastes are way too eclectic for me, but when I do drop by I am always struck by the astonishing breadth and depth of their musical knowledge. Whether the focus is death metal, doom metal (I can but imagine what those two subgenres sound like), hair metal, the new wave of British heavy metal, old-school heavy rock, yacht rock, pop-rock, the classic prog rock bands of the 70s, jazz fusion – I could easily keep the list going – nothing much seems to fall outside their comfort zone. It is a pleasure just to listen in, even if only for a few minutes.
I do, however, tend to stick around if the discussion relates to a genre, band or theme that interests me, and I seldom click away feeling underwhelmed by what I have heard. One episode from about six months ago, however, didn’t really cohere for me. Its title was This band’s [insert the name of a Led Zeppelin album] – in other words, they were choosing albums by bands that reminded them in some way of a Led Zeppelin album. An intriguing idea: which Iron Maiden album, for example, is their equivalent of (say) Led Zeppelin III?
But here’s the problem – equivalent in what sense? What criterion or criteria are we using? Are we talking about the overall package of songs – it’s their magnum opus, perhaps, or a significant change of direction, or the one where they over-reach? Is it to do with the production or the dominance of a particular band member? Is it the cover art? For once it was all just a bit too vague.
So Pete felt that this was what was significant about Led Zeppelin II whereas Martin focused on that; Pete thought this about Physical Graffiti, Martin that. It wasn’t too long before I was half-expecting one of them to argue that such-and-such was this band’s Houses of the Holy purely on the grounds that it was their fifth album. (Pete and Martin presumably felt the episode worked better than I did; they repeated the formula about a month later, this time with Rainbow as the non-variable.)
All of which is a meandering way of getting to my opening point – that I have been reading about and listening to a lot of Led Zeppelin recently. They were one of the very first rock bands I picked up on as a youngster, and they remain right up there in or around my top five to this day.
I wrote a blog in 2022 about some of my earliest music-related memories and album buys – we are talking the later 70s and groups like Genesis and Deep Purple as well as Led Zeppelin and, above all, Queen. (It was the companion piece to a blog about the first singles I ever bought, which I wrote a couple of years earlier.) This series of blogs is very much in the same spirit – recollections of my own Led Zeppelin journey, with some random thoughts about the band and their music thrown in.
Led Zeppelin released eight studio albums between 1969 and 1979 and were the quintessential 70s rock supergroup. This is not the story of Led Zeppelin – it isn’t chronological, for starters – but context matters so there is some band history here, based on what I have read in various books about them over the years (which I will discuss more in Part 3).
That said, if you have got this far and are still ploughing on it is fairly safe to assume that you are familiar with at least some of their music. Still, as their names will crop up a lot, I will just mention that the four band members were Jimmy Page (guitars), Robert Plant (vocals), John Paul Jones (bass and keyboards) and John Bonham (drums and percussion). Their manager, Peter Grant, also looms large – literally and figuratively – in some of what follows.
Anyway, as John Bonham might say – okay, let’s go.
A local record shop called Javelin had a phase of stocking imports of albums on the Atlantic label at a reduced price, the covers clipped along the bottom edge to identify them. It’s how I came to pick up my first Led Zeppelin records – the untitled fourth album, Houses of the Holy and Physical Graffiti. I distinctly remember the latter – which was on the band’s own Swan Song label, though distributed by Atlantic – because the centre labels were in French.
Before all that, and based on not much more than an awareness of Black Dog, Stairway to Heaven – which everyone seemed to know and admire, or at least pretended to – and the Whole Lotta Love riff that was the theme tune for Top of the Pops for a while, I recorded a Led Zeppelin live show off the radio. It was broadcast in mono on Radio 1 but also simultaneously in stereo on Radio 2, probably on the Friday Rock Show, so it was good quality. Hearing about it from a friend at school, I wrote the details on the back of my hand. A young student teacher noticed it and suggested that I was a bit young to appreciate Led Zeppelin.
He was right, of course, though as an opinionated pre-teen I certainly didn’t welcome the comment at the time. The live version of Dazed and Confused, in particular, flew way over my head, but the opening Immigrant Song followed by tracks like Heartbreaker and Black Dog packed a powerful punch, even for – especially for – a twelve-year-old. The broadcast itself was (and is) an old favourite – a BBC In Concert special as opposed to a regular gig – recorded at the Paris Theatre, London in April 1971, a few months before the fourth album was released.
The version I heard and taped was about an hour long. The cassette itself has long ago fallen to pieces but in my head I can still hear Plant saying to the audience – at the start of the acoustic set and, as I remember it, before the song Tangerine – something along the lines of ‘This is normally where we have a cup of tea, but we are going to sit down instead’.
A 70-minute version of the concert came out on the BBC Sessions CD in 1997 and then additional tracks appeared on the 2016 rerelease (called The Complete BBC Sessions). Plant’s comment doesn’t appear on either version and Tangerine isn’t even listed on set lists of the gig, so without doing any further digging I can only assume that some or all of that is a false memory.
Actually, the very first Led Zeppelin album I owned was the live soundtrack album The Song Remains the Same, bought for me by my parents when we were on holiday, probably in 1978. Not the fluffiest of introductions to the world of heavy rock, it is safe to say: a double album containing just nine tracks, four of them on side one. One song sprawls itself across the whole of side two and there is a ten-minute drum solo thrown in for good measure on side four.
The album has attracted much criticism over the years, including from the band members themselves. The original two-disc vinyl release came out in October 1976 to accompany a film of the same name. The album was heavily edited, the choice of songs for inclusion reflecting the fact that the film was meant to be at least as much “a rare series of glimpses into the visions and symbolism of the men who make the music” (to quote from the journalist Cameron Crowe’s original liner notes) as a standard concert film.
The 2007 The Song Remains the Same CD rerelease – now a complete show, though not all songs are from the same night – is a much more faithful representation of the live concert experience in that respect. Here’s the set list from the three Madison Square Garden shows that were filmed (the songs in bold appeared on the original 1976 album):
Rock and Roll / Celebration Day / Black Dog /Over the Hills and Far Away / Misty Mountain Hop / Since I’ve Been Loving You / No Quarter / The Song Remains the Same / The Rain Song / Dazed and Confused / Stairway to Heaven / Moby Dick / Heartbreaker / Whole Lotta Love / The Ocean
Crowe errs when he refers to it as Zeppelin’s most recent tour of America. Though the film and soundtrack album came out in 1976, the concerts themselves had been filmed at the end of July 1973, more than three years and two studio albums earlier. Moreover, some close-ups were actually filmed much later, at Shepperton Studios in England on a mock-up of the Madison Square Garden stage, with the band in effect miming and John Paul Jones wearing a wig.
Above all, there is also the issue of producer Jimmy Page’s apparent obsession with tinkering with the sound – cuts, edits, overdubs, cross-dubs. The incomparable Garden Tapes website – take a bow, Eddie Edwards – does an unbelievable job of showing what and where. Originally conceived as a study of the film and soundtrack album, the website was later expanded to cover the 2007 CD/DVD releases and now incorporates other official live releases too.
As a non-musician who doesn’t know his reverb from his sustain or his natural A from his B flat, I bow down to Edwards’s expertise and extraordinary attention to detail, though even this novice was able to spot the jarring cut to Whole Lotta Love just under two minutes in (where one minute and fourteen seconds of music has been removed, the Garden Tapes website informs us).
Edwards is no fan of the 2007 reissue – he writes of his hopes that a later (2018) remaster would “consign the horrors of 2007 to the dustbin of history” – but I am just glad to hear a professionally recorded and more or less unabridged Led Zeppelin concert from 1973, when some would say they were at the peak of their powers, even if The Ocean (the encore) is placed out of sequence at the end of disc one.
Back to the original 1976 soundtrack album, I was twelve or maybe thirteen when I first heard it and was immediately hooked. This brand of rock music was an antidote not just to the lightweight drivel that dominated the singles chart but also to what I saw as the amateurishness of punk music, which some of my friends gravitated towards. The Song Remains the Same defined for me what I imagined Led Zeppelin to be: serious musicians who played serious music for serious people (ie grown-ups).
This music could be as heavy and hard-rocking as the likes of Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and AC/DC but also softer, more nuanced and considerably more eclectic in its influences too. And it was more than just the music – even the album’s packaging (the original vinyl release came with a booklet of stills from the film) impressed my young mind with its apparent sophistication.
Granted, some of the songs go on a bit – I always take a breath whenever I hear those opening bass notes from Dazed and Confused – but the versions of The Rain Song, No Quarter and Stairway to Heaven on The Song Remains the Same are magnificent, definitive perhaps in the case of the first two. Dazed and Confused excepted, these iterations are expansive without being unduly rambling. Compare them with anything from the band’s ill-fated 1977 North American tour, which reeked of excess and an utter lack of restraint.
I first saw the film at a one-off late-night screening at a small cinema called – for those who know the Wigan area – Unit Four. It was a Friday or Saturday evening, probably in 1982 or 1983. When it first came out The Song Remains the Same was classified by the then British Board of Film Censors as a AA film – only for those aged fourteen and over (the 15 rating replaced the AA classification in 1982). I turned fifteen in the summer of 1981; I definitely would not have looked old enough to get in to any film underage.
Brian May’s plea to Queen fans in 1980 to watch the film Flash Gordon (music by Queen, of course) only in a cinema equipped with stereo sound still reverberated at this point, so it was a huge letdown to walk in to the cinema room and see just a single speaker set up directly underneath the screen. Whenever I hear or read the word ‘fleapit’ nowadays it is this very image that still pops into my head. That said, it was great to ‘see’ Led Zeppelin performing live for the first time, and with the inclusion of Since I’ve Been Loving You, which wasn’t on the soundtrack album, a huge bonus.
Watching it now, the five ‘fantasy’ sequences and the backstage footage are hard to sit through, though I can’t remember what I thought at the time. The special effects are on a par with a mid-70s edition of Top of the Pops, and a lengthy introductory sequence reminds us of a painful lesson we were to learn again and again during the pop-video craze of the early 80s – popstars should avoid trying to act.
The band members are plucked by Grant from the tranquil surroundings of their various – but all very English – country idylls with news of the upcoming tour. Bonham, Page, Plant and Grant at least have the sense to keep quiet for these scenes, but Jones unwisely takes on a speaking role. His wooden delivery of the “Tour dates! This is tomorrow!” line at least has comedy value, but his performance of Fee-fi-fo-fum from the Jack and the Beanstalk fairy tale should have been relegated to the cutting-room floor.
The inclusion of a fantasy sequence for the manager indicates his importance in the Led Zeppelin universe; he is the unofficial fifth member of the band. The premise – a gangster mercilessly rubbing out a rival gang in a St Valentine’s Day Massacre-style execution – reveals something of Grant’s management philosophy. Just as he was in the front line during every negotiation (sometimes almost literally – to take just one example, the writer Mick Wall describes how Grant faced down a venue manager in Memphis who pulled a gun on him, demanding that Zeppelin end their performance early), so here too he is the advance guard, first on the scene before the band makes its appearance.
The fantasy sequences for Jones, Plant, Page and Bonham – embedded within No Quarter, The Rain Song, Dazed and Confused, and Moby Dick respectively – ooze self-indulgence. Page’s scene is the interesting one, obviously inspired by his lifelong interest in the occult.
He clambers up a rocky escarpment, a full moon lighting the way, to be met by the hooded hermit – perhaps a magus (a learned magician, a key figure in occult lore) – from the cover of the fourth album who, to quote Mick Wall, “morphs through time”, revealing himself to be Page. Above all, it is the location where the sequence was filmed that is significant: Boleskine House on the shores of Loch Ness, once the home of occultist Aleister Crowley and which Page himself owned for more than twenty years.
The film, then, has more than its fair share of flaws. As for the overall concert experience, the stage set-up and lighting appear rather basic – there was a significant upgrade to both by the next tour in 1975, including the use of laser beams – and some commentators say that the performances are a bit flat. These were, after all, the final three shows of yet another drink- and drug-fuelled rollercoaster of a North American tour. Stephen Davis has written that Page hadn’t slept for a fortnight and that when he arrived back in England – “exhausted, malnourished, sleepless, raving” – his family tried to get him into a sanatorium for a rest.
But – from Bonham’s opening “Okay, let’s go!” to Plant’s closing “New York – goodnight!” – there is just no denying the power, intensity and sheer brilliance of the music.
A fan’s appreciation of their music and lyrics
Reflections on Led Zeppelin and their music – Part 2
Teenage memories told through ten Queen-related objects
I suppose that I have always enjoyed reading historical fiction, if by that term we simply mean books set in the past. Let’s face it, we’re talking about a genre that’s all but impossible for any reader of novels to avoid. I grew up on television wartime dramas like Colditz and Secret Army – and films like The Great Escape and The Dam Busters – so it’s no surprise that as a teenager I tended to alternate between, on the one hand, the write ’em quick and sell ’em even quicker novelists like Jack Higgins and Alistair MacLean and, on the other, the horror stuff that Stephen King and James Herbert were putting out.
But at that age it wasn’t the history that was drawing me in. I raced through all nine Sherlock Holmes books by Arthur Conan Doyle on a school holiday to France at the age of 14, but it was primarily the crime puzzles themselves (the dancing men, the Red Headed League etc), the elegance of the deductive reasoning method and of course the singular character of Holmes himself that snared me. If anything, place – principally (but of course not exclusively) the fog-bound streets of London – made more of an impression on my teenage mind than time.
A couple of years later, the attention to detail in Frederick Forsyth’s The Day of the Jackal (set in 1963) grabbed me, but the detail in question was the planning and preparation relating to the assassination attempt on President de Gaulle itself rather than the wider political-historical context (ie France and the Algerian War).
Skip ahead a couple of decades and The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco took me somewhere I never expected to be – a fourteenth-century Italian monastery, to be precise – but, as with Holmes, the detective work and the book’s other intellectual puzzles were its appeal. (In the novel the main protagonist, William of Baskerville, is an obvious nod to Holmes.) The author’s recreation of medieval monastic life rather passed me by, except insofar as it impinged directly on the plot.
It is only in the last few years that I have embraced the idea of fiction as a portal to the past. And that only happened when I opened my mind to the idea that the past – or at least the past as a subject of interest – doesn’t begin in or around 1900. Try my blog about Steven Pinker’s marvellous book Enlightenment Now for more about that ridiculously belated journey of discovery.
Reading Kate Mosse and then Hilary Mantel (I think in that order) was a revelation. I discovered that historical fiction – the well-written variety at least – can be a friend to the uninitiated, an entrée into worlds only dimly understood or appreciated – in this case medieval France and Tudor England respectively. I remember taking a chance on Kate Mosse’s 2005 novel Labyrinth and – perhaps thirty or so pages in – a voice shouting at me from off the page: This is fabulous. Why have you never taken an interest before, you idiot?!
The two disciplines – history writing and historical fiction – are not of course the same and, as I have written before, the distinction between the two should not be blurred. Though still requiring encyclopaedic knowledge and command of the sources, the writer of historical fiction takes a different approach to that of the historian or biographer and requires a different skill set.
There is, for example, no room for ‘possibly’, ‘probably’, ‘maybe’, ‘on balance’. It is, in part at least, history of the imagination, the author using a time and a place, an individual or an event as the starting-point for a story, deploying their knowledge and skills to interweave fact and fiction in order to create something plausible and convincing.
The writer of good historical fiction must also be something of a tightrope-walker, ensuring that the reader is given sufficient contextual detail without either sounding didactic or overloading the text with extraneous detail. I have written here about how Dennis Wheatley – admittedly not the first name that springs to mind when compiling a list of writers of historical fiction – did himself no favours when he filled one of his horror novels with page after page of wooden and unconvincing dialogue about Aleister Crowley.
Compare that with (say) Kate Mosse’s 2020 novel The City of Tears. The city in question is sixteenth-century Amsterdam, home to refugees from far and wide, though much of the story actually hinges on events in Paris in August 1572 – the so-called St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. Arcane religious and political divisions play a central role in proceedings, but the writer guides us expertly through and at no point does the reader feel overwhelmed by complicated or unnecessary detail.
That is why I found the 2020 novel V2 by Robert Harris a little surprising. In many respects it is classic Harris, sculpting a gripping story out of real historical events, in this case the Germans’ Second World War V2 rocket programme and British efforts to foil it. But at several points Harris chooses to take off the mask of the novelist and reveal himself as a historian. Here’s an example, describing a V2 that hit a department store in Deptford, killing 160 people. I have underlined the bits that raised an eyebrow:
One young mother, with a two-month-old baby in her left arm, walking up New Cross Road on her way to the fabled saucepan bonanza, recalled forty years later “a sudden airless quiet, which seemed to stop one’s breath.”
Robert Harris, V2, page 38
Here’s another – the context in this case that several V2s were fired on the same day:
What happened to the third missile remains a mystery. It took off perfectly at 10.26am, but there is no record of its impact anywhere on the British mainland. Presumably it must have exploded in mid-air, perhaps during re-entry.
Robert Harris, V2, page 76
It works the other way too. There is a growing tendency, as far as I can tell from my relatively limited reading, for ‘popular’ history (ie books about history that are written for the intelligent general reader rather than for an academic audience) to stray worryingly close to historical-fiction territory.
This, for example, is the opening sentence of Powers and Thrones by Dan Jones, a book about the Middle Ages: “They left the safety of the road and tramped out into the wilderness, lugging the heavy wooden chest between them.” There is a footnote six lines later, but it merely informs us of how much the chest would have weighed. And then a couple of pages later: “They had walked far enough that the nearest town – Scole – was more than two miles away; satisfied that they had found a good spot, they set the box down.”
The chest that Jones describes contained what is now called the Hoxne Hoard, discovered by metal detectorists in 1992 and displayed in the British Museum. The notes refer to a 2010 book on the Hoxne Hoard by Catherine Johns. But how much of this detail does Jones actually have supporting evidence for – how, for example, does he know that they were satisfied they had found a good spot? – and how much of it is just creative scene-setting, the product of educated guesswork and the writer’s imagination?
As it happens, Dan Jones is one of a number of historians who also write historical fiction. His debut novel Essex Dogs is on my shelf, waiting to be read at some point in the next few weeks. A puff quote tells me to expect “the Hundred Years’ War as directed by Oliver Stone”. That sounds fun. To pick another random example, Simon Sebag Montefiore’s 2013 novel One Night in Winter, set among the Soviet elite during the last years of Stalin’s rule, is terrific. And then there is Ian Mortimer, perhaps best known for the A Time Traveller’s Guide to… books. He writes historical fiction under the pen name James Forrester.
But back to Robert Harris for a moment, I have been a fan ever since I read his debut novel Fatherland. Although all his books are rooted in history and/or politics, he ranges from ‘alternate reality’ settings (Fatherland being a good example: the reader quickly learns that Germany won the Second World War) to novels that stick fairly close to actual events, such as An Officer and a Spy, Munich and Act of Oblivion. When someone on X (formerly Twitter) asked what kind of stuff Harris writes, it took me a while to think of what to reply. I eventually answered: ‘Mainly well-plotted thrillers, often tied in with real historical events. Superbly researched.’
To repeat the point made earlier, thorough research is a sine qua non of good historical fiction. Harris never disappoints. The novel V2 contains all the ingredients I associate with his writing, principally a cleverly structured novel that keeps us turning the page (even though, like An Officer and a Spy and also Munich, we already know the outcome) and helps to contextualise and humanise the cast of believable, three-dimensional characters. Thus, the use of flashbacks to fill out the life story of the German scientist Rudi Graf and his longtime friend Wernher von Braun doubles as a history lesson in the German rocket programme.
I have always been interested in stories that involve time travel – which I guess is a subgenre of historical fiction – or to be more precise, perhaps, playing around with history. I always cite Making History by Stephen Fry as one of my favourite novels: imagine if you had the chance to ensure Hitler was never born. As a child I was mesmerised by the film version of The Time Machine, though I was quickly put off reading the original HG Wells book at that age by the very first sentence: “The Time Traveller (for so it will be convenient to speak of him) was expounding a recondite matter to us.” That was too much for a (probably) just-about-teenager who had the latest Whizzer and Chips as an alternative read. Ben Elton’s Time and Time Again is another novel that – as the title suggests – mucks about with history.
I think I have read everything by Ben Elton, ever since his first novel Stark had me laughing out loud thirty or so years ago. For a long time he specialised in satirising whatever was the latest pop-culture obsession – drugs, talent shows, Big Brother-style fly-on-the-wall TV. I enjoyed some of his books more than others. Blast from the Past was great (page one – “…when the phone rings at 2.15 in the morning it’s unlikely to be heralding something pleasant”), Inconceivable less so. Some of his later efforts have been more serious stabs at historical fiction – The First Casualty (the First World War) and Two Brothers (Nazi Germany).
The predictability of the characters in Time and Time Again grate a little, I must admit. They are all larger-than-life versions of Elton himself in a way. Hugh ‘Guts’ Stanton is the biggest, baddest ‘survivalist’ soldier around. Bernadette Burdette is the beautiful, loquacious free spirit he meets on a central European train, her every thought and utterance typical of the 2010s rather than the 1910s.
Least believable of all is the foul-mouthed distinguished professor of history at Cambridge University who seems to think like a Sun editorial. Okay as a one-off maybe, but then we meet the Lucian Professor of Mathematics, an “appalling media tart” who wears a ‘Science Rocks’ badge and says things like “Why in the blinking blazes was old Isaac getting his knickers in a twist?” Old Isaac being Sir Isaac Newton.
Nevertheless, one thing that Elton does brilliantly is plot. He is astonishingly imaginative, and although the basic set-up here is familiar – travelling back in time to change the past and therefore the future – Elton packs it with plenty of twists and turns. One, in particular, had me gasping (on page 441 of the paperback). Nicely done, sir. I also liked the fact that the infamous assassination in Sarajevo happens (or rather, doesn’t happen) halfway through the book, allowing Elton to have plenty of fun with counterfactual histories.
I have already said that Fatherland was Robert Harris’s first go at ‘alternate reality’ writing. The Second Sleep is also an intriguing stab at what-iffery. It ranges across several of my favourite fictional genres – it’s a mystery and a thriller as well as a history-twister (is that a genre name?). It is brilliantly structured and genuinely gripping; we’re talking Robert Harris, after all. Nothing is quite as it seems. I also found it to be refreshingly thought-provoking. Without wanting to give the plot away, others have commented that it is an urgently needed ‘wake-up call’. It is certainly hard to miss the many references to plastic.
I have written here about my fondness for the novels of Sebastian Faulks, most of which are set in the past, and It would be remiss of me to finish without mentioning two writers – neither of whom is named Hilary Mantel – who have been exceptionally helpful as I desperately try to learn more about Britain at the time of the Tudors and Stuarts.
The first is SJ Parris. Sacrilege, set in England in the time of Elizabeth I, was the first novel of hers I read, and I quickly realised that I had landed in the middle of a series about a free-thinking and adventurous Italian philosopher called Giordano Bruno. (By the way, I keep mixing up SJ Parris and CJ Sansom: similar names, similar covers, similar titles.) As usual, I wanted to start at the beginning of the series and not in the middle, which took me to Heresy, first published in 2010.
The prologue (the origin story of sorts) is actually set not in England but in Naples at the Monastery of San Domenico Maggiore. We meet Bruno in the privy, caught not quite with his pants down reading a copy of Erasmus’s Commentaries, which was on the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books. He escapes just ahead of the arrival of the Father Inquisitor, whose verdict would not have been in any doubt. Seven years later, and now in England, Bruno is taken on by Sir Francis Walsingham as one of his vast network of spies working on behalf of the Elizabethan state.
Heresy has everything you would want and expect from great thriller writing: mystery, deceit, treachery. In short, the twists and turns are suitably tortuous, the pace utterly relentless and the thrills page-turningly thrilling. I read the second half of the book in a single day.
The backdrop is, as the title suggests, the internecine religious struggles of the time, when arguments about faith, sometimes over what to the modern mind might seem minor doctrinal differences, could result in appalling bloodshed (bringing us neatly back to events in Paris in late August 1572 – the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre – which I mentioned earlier). As an aside, I was struck by the thought that SJ Parris’s description of a secret Catholic mass at the dead of night could just as easily have come from the pages of a Dennis Wheatley black magic novel:
I found myself in a small room crowded with hooded figures who stood expectantly, heads bowed, all facing towards a makeshift altar at one end, where three wax candles burned cleanly in tall wrought silver holders before a dark wooden crucifix bearing a silver figure of Christ crucified.
from Heresy by SJ Parris
The second is Andrew Taylor. The Last Protector is perfectly readable as a standalone novel but is also apparently the fourth in the Marwood and Lovett series set in the London of the mid-1660s, a time of plague, the Great Fire and (in this novel set in 1668) plots against the Crown.
Taylor is an excellent guide to the England of Charles II, with impressive knowledge of Restoration London. He brings out superbly the etiquette, codes and manners, the rigid social hierarchies and the contradictions of the age – particularly the fabulous wealth juxtaposed with gut-wrenching poverty, and the public displays of morality, decency and civility so often masking disreputable and hypocritical private behaviour.
All in all, thoroughly enjoyable. There is plenty more SJ Parris and Andrew Taylor for me to work through (not to mention the weighty CJ Sansom books). There is also The Ghost Ship, the new novel by Kate Mosse. And don’t even think to mention Ken Follett…
And then there are all those ‘cosy crime’ novels I enjoy…
No wonder one of the first blogs I wrote was called The bibliophile’s curse.
Some of this content first appeared in a books, TV and films blog I wrote between 2020 and 2022.
The Times once referred to Gyles Brandreth as “the Marmite of light entertainment”. Let’s explore that via a word game (Gyles loves word games). Here we go: How many words can you think of in ten seconds that describe Gyles Brandreth and that begin with the letter ‘s’?
Well done if your list didn’t include at least one of these adjectives: silly, smug, smarmy.
My guess is that most people will ‘know’ Gyles from daytime and/or early-evening television. He is currently a regular contributor to ITV’s This Morning, fitting snugly into that tabloid-esque environment, with its bright colours and celebrity sparkle, its bite-sized segments and its cast of bubbly characters.
Whatever the particular role he chooses to play – the clownish entertainer, the nerdy-but-nice know-it-all – Gyles comes across as the epitome of safe, wholesome, middle-of-the-road appeal. He is light-hearted, quick-witted and gossipy, and with a child’s sense of fun.
Not to mention shamelessly, drippingly oleaginous when it comes to the rich and famous – the royals above all.
The iron law of good taste dictates that as I loathe Marmite so should I loathe Gyles. And yet I don’t. In fact, I like him…a lot.
Actually, I admire him. Gyles is a nice guy, a fundamentally decent human being who has led an incredibly busy and purposeful life. He reminds me, in that sense, of Brian May, whose own expertise and activism ranges from astrophysics and animal welfare to stereoscopy and, of course, music.
But there is also another reason why I like and admire Gyles, one bathed in the warm glow of nostalgia. He is there in some of the mental snapshots that I treasure from my younger days and that are lovingly preserved in an imaginary box labelled Fond Memories. Again, there is a Brian May parallel, though Gyles’s impact on my teenage years is several orders of magnitude less than that of Queen, which I have written about here. But he is an undeniable presence, however fleeting.
I particularly associate Gyles with some of my favourite memories of my mum. And he is a reminder, too, of (generally) happy and (mostly) carefree schooldays – and of one inspirational teacher in particular.
And what connects the three of them – my mum, the teacher and Gyles – is the TV quiz show Countdown.
I inherited my mum’s love of puzzles and quizzes. She was very good at both, though I suspect her general knowledge would have been better if she had been more adventurous in her reading choices. What she didn’t pass on was her ability to decipher cryptic crossword clues. I am much more like my dad in that regard, content to lock horns with the much less intimidating quick crossword. But we were all fans of game-show staples of the 70s like Ask the Family, Call My Bluff and A Question of Sport.
Which explains why my mum and I were sat in front of the TV at 4.45pm on Tuesday 2 November 1982 as Richard Whiteley said the words “As the countdown to a brand-new channel ends, a brand-new Countdown begins”. It was the launch of Channel 4 – the first new television channel in my lifetime – and, what really mattered for us, of a new game show, one based on letters and numbers.
We were instantly hooked, and it became our regular go-to programme at teatime (‘tea’ in this case meaning the main meal of the day. What we called ‘dinner’ – ie a midday meal – most people now refer to as ‘lunch’). And this is where Gyles Brandreth comes in: he was a regular in Dictionary Corner.
In its earliest days Countdown featured a ‘hostess’ who displayed the numbers and letters, and there was a revolving cast of numbers experts (usually Carol Vorderman but at least one other – Whiteley called them ‘vital statisticians’) and lexicographers. Each lexicographer seemed to be around for a week of episodes (presumably one day of filming), but my recollection is of the celebrity guest alongside them in Dictionary Corner sticking around for a lengthier residency (an entire week of filming, perhaps?).
Muddled memory time: I always thought of Gyles as the second occupant of Dictionary Corner after Kenneth Williams, until I was reminded – I think after reading Richard Whiteley’s autobiography, Himoff! – of Ted Moult, who apparently did a week or so at the very beginning.
I was in lower sixth doing A levels at the time, just starting to figure out what my academic interests were and what I was actually good at. Two teachers, in particular, made a lasting impression: Mr Taylor, who taught me history (which I went on to study at university), and Mr Scholes, who taught Latin.
Mr Scholes combined the charismatic appeal of Sidney Poitier’s Mr Thackeray (To Sir, with Love), the eccentricity – though certainly not the ineptitude – of Will Hay’s schoolmaster character, and the love of language of Robin Williams’s Mr Keating (Dead Poets Society). His lessons may have been sketchily planned and lacking in formal structure, but they were stimulating, academically rigorous and – more often than not – great fun.
As he led us through poetry and prose by the likes of Virgil, Ovid and Tacitus, Mr Scholes taught us to love learning. One of my favourite tales was of how as a student he preferred working in a cold room (I pictured an austere garret with a tiny electric heater in the depths of winter) and sitting on a hard chair to keep him mentally alert as he studied late into the night. (The strategic placement of a drawing pin on the chair to prevent him slouching was perhaps one tall story too far.)
Above all, he taught us to love words. His weighty, dog-eared Latin–English dictionary was his bible. He told us of long hours spent poring over entries, paying particular attention to the etymological information and studying the accompanying illustrative quotations to discover new words and alternative usages in both Greek and Latin.
I went home and watched Gyles exhibiting exactly the same passion for words and language in Dictionary Corner, with the Concise Oxford as the Countdown bible – the same dictionary, coincidentally, that we had at home.
Words. If there is one word that comes anywhere close to encapsulating or at least connecting the vast range of Gyles’s passions and pursuits, that is perhaps the one. Words on the page. Words spoken. Wordplay. The after-dinner circuit. The Oxford Union. Awards ceremonies. Dictionaries. Novels. Diaries. Plays. Poetry. The theatre. Radio. Shakespeare. Oscar Wilde. Jane Austen. Winnie the Pooh…
Take a breath…
…Quotations. Anecdotes. Grammar and the use of English. Writing a musical. Setting up the National Scrabble Championships. Writing a biography of Frank Richards (Billy Bunter’s creator). Pitching to revive Billy Bunter on TV. A one-man show at the Edinburgh Fringe.
It is as if the only word Gyles doesn’t know is ‘stop’.
The man has a gargantuan appetite for work. When writing a book, he aims (he tells us) for one thousand words a day, something I find both inspiring (how hard can it be, I kid myself, with a bit of application and self-discipline?) and intimidating, especially when staring (as I do most days) at a blank Word document, a hideously trite phrase or a bland collection of sentences on the screen in front of me. I will gladly settle for one hundred words that I am pleased with. Gyles also once said, I think, that he set aside six weeks to write a novel (Venice Midnight). Great idea for my novel, I thought, before giving up on day three.
(I was unable to track down the specific reference for this titbit but Gyles’s diaries show that he started writing the novel in the middle of June 1997 and attended a lunch to mark its publication in early September. A quote from 19 June 1997: “This week I am writing a children’s book: The Adventures of Mouse Village. Next week I start my novel: Venice Midnight.”)
Yes, Gyles has written a detailed diary for much of his life. (Seriously, where does he get the time?) I thoroughly enjoyed both sets of diaries that he has published. Something Sensational to Read in the Train runs from 1959, when he was at prep school, to the turn of the millennium. Breaking the Code, meanwhile, covers his years as an MP, including a period in the whips’ office, and is an excellent insider’s perspective on the 1992–97 Major government.
I couldn’t resist Have You Eaten Grandma (2018), if only because of the editing work I do. There are lots of ‘rules’ governing the use of English that are more or less universally accepted, of course. But there is also an ever-expanding grey area about which there is much less agreement, hence the large number of style guides and books – and websites these days – addressing such rarefied matters. The ones I am aware of are as dry as you would expect (except for The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker). Not so Have You Eaten Grandma, which is excellent for anyone who wants a funny and accessible introduction to writing well, or at least accurately.
In 2019 Gyles published an anthology of memorable poems called Dancing by the Light of the Moon, the title a line from his favourite poem, The Owl and the Pussycat, which he learned by heart as a child. I have a blind spot when it comes to poetry. During the 2020 lockdown Gyles tweeted himself reading a poem every morning, most from memory. I didn’t hear them all, but each one I caught was a delight. The book’s subtitle is ‘How poetry can transform your memory and change your life’. That’s quite the claim and one I really ought to get round to investigating.
“Do forgive the occasional aside. I’ll try not to overdo it…” Yeah, right. Gyles is a wonderful raconteur and storyteller. He both speaks and writes beautifully – and makes it all seem so effortless. And what’s more, none of it feels contrived. You can hear his voice on every page and believe that all these things really did happen to him, more or less as described. Odd Boy Out (published in 2021) is often laugh-out-loud funny and wonderfully – shockingly – indiscreet.
In the prologue he unleashes a first-rate anecdote about the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and male strippers from the time he sat with them (TRHs – not the strippers) in the Royal Box at the Royal Variety Performance. Yes, really. On to some family history in chapter two (never my favourite bits of biographies and memoirs; I am hopeless with family trees) and suddenly the reader is knee-deep in a tale about Donald Sinden. And it doesn’t let up.
We are, he says, moulded by our parents. Are we surprised that Gyles loves anecdotes when his father “measured out his life” in them? Is it any wonder that he knew large chunks of Milton at the age of six when his father performed dramatic dialogues at his bedside while his mother read him nursery rhymes? Unlike some who rebel against or recoil from the circumstances of their upbringing, Gyles embraced it all.
I always used to think of Gyles as quintessentially, comfortably, smugly middle class. It’s how he himself, in Odd Boy Out, characterises his childhood. But it came at a cost – literally. There was never enough money. To quote Gyles, money worries wore his father down and then wore him away. Perhaps if the children hadn’t all gone off to boarding school (three to Cheltenham Ladies College and one to Bedales) or if the family hadn’t spent so much time in Harrods, things might have been different.
Gyles is a show-off, a showman and a shameless namedropper – the latter a reminder that he really has met just about everybody (there’s a nice recurring ‘I shook the hand that shook the hand…’ line in Odd Boy Out). And he can certainly do silly – he is something of an expert at standing on his head, a skill which he has demonstrated in some rather unlikely places. He’s a bit too full-on at times. And then there are the jumpers and the teddy-bear museum. As I suggested above, it’s a fairly safe bet that adjectives like smarmy, superior and too-clever-by-half have attached themselves to his name on a not infrequent basis over the years.
In Gyles’ defence it is something that he readily acknowledges. This is how part two of Odd Boy Out begins:
I realise now that I must have been a ghastly child. I was insufferable: precocious, pretentious, conceited, egotistical.
But one of the many joys of Odd Boy Out is that, as we turn the pages, we get to know the other Gyles, the one that doesn’t make an idiot of himself by wearing a silly jumper and standing on his head. So there is plenty of sadness, regret, guilt and self-criticism in these pages alongside the laughs, jokes and tall tales. And he’s the one tapping the keys to write the final chapter, which takes the form of a letter to his late father and which movingly brings together the different strands of the story he has delighted us with over the preceding 400 pages.
Except…that’s not quite the end. There’s a short epilogue, which begins with his wife Michèle knocking on the study door. How odd, because the prologue begins with his wife popping her head around the study door: “She never knocks. She likes to keep me on my toes.”
Perhaps we can’t quite believe it all.
Anyway, a happy belated (very – 8 March) seventy-fifth birthday to Gyles Brandreth.
Some of this content first appeared in a books, TV and films blog I wrote between 2020 and 2022.
I don’t normally bother with books like Johnson at 10. It’s not that I don’t like politics. Far from it. I have followed politics and read political history all my adult life. Political philosophy, political ideologies/theories (liberalism, conservatism, socialism etc) and books about future policy direction interest me more and more. But I have no time these days for the day-to-day knockabout stuff (particularly PMQs and the BBC’s Question Time programme). I also tend to steer clear of books about what we might term ‘contemporary history’ – that swampy middle ground between modern history and current affairs.
Much journalistic commentary – however insightful the writer – is inevitably contingent and quotidian, quickly superseded by events. Tomorrow’s chip paper. That’s why, though sorely tempted, I resisted buying anything published about the Trump presidency during his time in office (I am thinking particularly of the Michael Wolff books, each of which caused a huge stir at the time).
Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell try hard to give Johnson at 10 the feel of a work of history. The book opens with a three-page comparison of Johnson and David Lloyd George, there are several references to Seldon’s 2021 co-authored The Impossible Office: The History of the British Prime Minister, and the book closes with an assessment of Johnson’s premiership against – in the authors’ judgement – the nine ‘great’ prime ministers. (The nine are Walpole, Pitt the Younger, Peel, Palmerston, Gladstone, Lloyd George, Churchill, Attlee and Thatcher.)
But it is hard to escape the sense that it’s all a bit rushed and too close to the events themselves. Johnson at 10 was published on 4 May 2023, less than a year after Johnson announced his resignation. Shoddy proofing and other errors don’t help matters.
Here’s an example: “Having inherited a fragile minority government with a majority of 317, Johnson was now attempting to rule with fewer than 300 MPs.”
Here’s another: “Less surprisingly, given his experience as foreign secretary, he had little idea in his first year about Britain’s place in the world.” Surely that should be ‘more surprisingly’?
I also dislike the practice of using asterisks instead of expletives.
The authors argue in their introduction that contemporary history is important because “we can learn from the recent past while memories are fresh, recapture the truth of events and hold governments to account”. Well, yes, but I question the value of on-the-record quotes from, for example, Michael Gove. He was Johnson’s longtime colleague and rival, a key member of Johnson’s Cabinet, an important player in Johnson’s eventual resignation and – possibly at the very time he was interviewed for the book – a member of a successor administration. It’s fair to say that Gove will have weighed his words with particular care.
There is also liberal use of direct speech throughout the book. Chapter four, for example, opens with a ‘conversation’ between “[t]wo weary figures, prematurely aged, sit[ting] opposite each other in the prime minister’s study” in November 2020. The authors tackle the inclusion of direct speech in their introduction: “The quotations, which were always related to us by interviewees, aim … to capture the spirit of the conversations.”
To be honest, I don’t expect to encounter direct speech in a book purporting to be a work of history unless it is from a recorded conversation. Good historical fiction complements history writing, but it is a separate craft and the distinction between the two should not be blurred. I have written elsewhere about a tendency for ‘popular’ history (ie books written for the intelligent general reader) to stray worryingly close to historical-fiction territory.
Anyway, notwithstanding all of the above, I found Johnson at 10 an enthralling read. It’s not, after all, as if we need a few decades to elapse before we can get a proper sense of perspective on the Johnson administration. Seldon and Newell are not rushing to judgement about the big picture. The jury isn’t out. Would anyone of genuinely disinterested mind argue against the point that the 2019–22 Conservative government of Boris Johnson was utterly chaotic and shambolic?
Which is why – cards on the table – I bought the book: I wanted to lap up all the grisly details about Johnson’s downfall and disgrace.
And yes, it is either ‘Johnson’ or ‘Boris Johnson’. It is not ‘Boris’.
His resignation statement of 9 June 2023 (ie when he resigned as a member of parliament before the publication of the Privileges Committee’s report on him but after he had been given an advance copy of it) reminds us that there are at least two Johnsons.
The first is the Johnson who likes to be known as ‘Boris’. This Johnson is whimsical and irreverent, exploiting his felicity with language to beguile us with imaginative and often amusing metaphors (my favourite is probably his various riffs on ‘cakeism’). It is the Johnson who deliberately ruffles his hair before going in front of the camera, the Johnson who casually tells Northern Irish businesspeople to throw customs-related paperwork into the bin. Booster Boris, Boris the buffoon, desperate like a clown to make people smile.
The other is the Johnson who wrote the resignation statement, which is bitter, splenetic and bearing only a tangential relationship with the truth. This Johnson is ruthless, spiteful and utterly self-centred.
In fact, as the book shows, there are at least two more Johnsons as well. The first, as demonstrated over Ukraine, can be fully engaged, up to speed (more or less) with the detail and capable of genuine leadership. The second is a man hopelessly lost in the detail, semi-removed and fatally lacking in leadership qualities.
So sit back and enjoy page after page of the authors’ damning verdict on Johnson’s unfitness for office. Here are a few random examples from one day’s reading:
He swayed like a willow in the wind, bending to the preferences of all he wished to please then meekly backing down when confronted on the feasibility, detail and trade-offs. Often unserious, unable to focus for long and lacking any kind of grip on the machine, his mentality was ill-equipped for the task of governing for an extended period. (page 373)
…he was hopeless at understanding how to convert his woolly dreams into substance. (page 384)
But Johnson didn’t ask [about how to create a better impression with the Americans], it was not his way to enquire, and carried on making the same mistakes. (page 385)
“…we had to keep the PM out of the negotiations as much as possible. He didn’t understand them. He wouldn’t read the papers. He was constantly shifting positions…” (page 400 – a quote from Dominic Cummings)
The fault was not the deed itself [Brexit], but the implementation by Johnson, his lack of drive and sense of purpose. (page 411)
It is a salutary reminder that, as a parliamentary democracy, the way we choose our prime minister – the nation’s leader, the head of the government and probably the most powerful person in the country – is deeply flawed. The general public have no say, unless the leadership contest coincides with a general election (and even then, strictly speaking, we vote to choose our constituency MP). Our prime minister is almost always whoever happens to be the leader of the largest political party in the House of Commons. This person is chosen by (at most) the party’s membership and perhaps only – as was the case with Rishi Sunak in October 2022 – by the party’s MPs.
Indeed, in the case of Sunak, there wasn’t even a vote by Conservative MPs. Boris Johnson chose not to enter the race and the only other candidate, Penny Mordaunt, withdrew just minutes before the deadline for nominations. Sunak became PM because nobody stood against him.
This flawed process is why we ended up with the disastrous Liz Truss in 2022. It is why we very nearly ended up with Andrea Leadsom – who? – in 2016, getting Theresa May instead. And it is why the likes of Priti Patel, Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman have been talked about as potential prime ministers. All three are popular with the right-wing of the Conservative Party, which makes up the majority of the membership. I glance across to The Lost Leaders: The Best Prime Ministers We Never Had by Edward Pearce – a book about Rab Butler, Dennis Healey and Ian Macleod – and wince.
A sign that contemporary history is a dangerous beast is that I loathe Boris Johnson in a way that I don’t loathe the Genghis Khans, the Stalins and the Pol Pots – to take three random examples of not entirely likeable people – of the past.
It is not the fact that Johnson is a Conservative. I actually used to quite like him. As with many people probably, I first became aware of him from his appearances on Have I Got News for You and warmed to the buffoonish persona. I bought Friends, Voters, Countrymen, a collection of his journalism. Seldon and Newell tell us that if there is such a thing as ‘Johnsonism’ it can be summed up as: grand projects, levelling up and patriotism. Well, I rather buy in to at least two of those three.
Nor is it that he is a mass of contradictions. The old Etonian and Bullingdon Club member who claims to stand for ordinary folk against the privileged elites; the gifted orator who can light up a room with his words and yet fails to construct a compelling argument; the sharp intellect who gets hopelessly lost in the detail.
It is not even the fact that his administration was so hopelessly inept. I wrote in my 2020 blog British politics and failures of leadership that Theresa May “played a fiendishly tricky hand badly, like a poor poker player on a run of rotten luck” when she was prime minister, and the less said about Liz Truss’s forty-nine days in office the better. But is there any doubt that Johnson will go down as one of Britain’s worst prime ministers in the history of the office?
No.
But the reason why I loathe Johnson is because of the damage that – through his repeated lying and his cavalier disregard for our democratic institutions and processes – he has done to the political fabric of the country. And I have little time for the many members of the Conservative Party who, knowing full well what Johnson was like, chose him as their leader anyway because they assumed he was a winner.
Here’s an extract about Johnson from the diary of Sir Alan Duncan. When Duncan was appointed to the Foreign Office by Theresa May in July 2016, Johnson was the foreign secretary, and therefore Duncan’s boss, until he (Johnson) resigned almost exactly two years later. Although the two men got on reasonably well during their time together, Duncan had little regard for Johnson’s abilities as a serious politician. He says this of Johnson – and plenty more besides – in his entry of 24 September 2017:
I have lost any respect for him. He is a clown, a self-centred ego, an embarrassing buffoon, with an untidy mind and sub-zero diplomatic judgement. He is an international stain on our reputation. He is a lonely, selfish, ill-disciplined, shambolic, shameless clot.
from In the Thick of It by Sir Alan Duncan
And that is why, back in June 2021 (I think), I bought The Assault on Truth by Peter Oborne, despite its being another of those books destined to quickly date. Oborne does a fine job of systematically setting out the evidence of lying by Boris Johnson and his ministers and political cronies (and to a lesser extent Donald Trump in the USA).
The most important parts of the book are where Oborne explains the damage that political lying — the catch-all term he uses to cover deceit and message-manipulation as well as the telling of out-and-out porkies — does to the public realm, to public trust in our political process, and to the norms, conventions and institutions that constitute the bedrock of our system of liberal democracy (I am thinking here of parliament, the separation of powers, the impartiality of the civil service, freedom of speech and the rule of law).
Johnson wants to be a latter-day Winston Churchill and has written a biography of him. (I highly recommend the review written by the historian Richard J Evans in the New Statesman). This paragraph appears in Innovation, the final volume of Peter Ackroyd’s history of England, published in 2021 when Johnson was prime minister. It is a delicious slice of Ackroydian mischief:
According to the National Review, Churchill’s act of treachery [crossing the floor of the House to join the Liberal Party] was typical of “a soldier of fortune who has never pretended to be animated by any motive beyond a desire for his own advancement”. The accusation of egotism would be repeated throughout Churchill’s career, along with the related charges of political grandstanding and of an addiction to power. Civil servants complained that Churchill was unpunctual, prey to sudden enthusiasms, and enthralled by extravagant ideas and fine phrases. He was a free and fiery spirit who inspired admiration and mistrust in equal measure. Allies hailed him as a genius, while his enemies regarded him as unbalanced and unscrupulous.
from Peter Ackroyd, The History of England Volume VI: Innovation
And, as with Ackroyd’s description of Churchill, it is impossible to read Simon Heffer’s description of Benjamin Disraeli in his book High Minds: The Victorians and the Birth of Modern Britain and not imagine that he had Johnson in mind when he wrote it. It is telling that, in his evaluations of the two titans Gladstone and Disraeli, the arch Conservative Heffer is so full of admiration for the former (a Liberal) and so scathing about the latter.
Here’s a flavour from page 269:
The two men exemplify the Victorian political mind at its best and worst: Gladstone the man of principle, even if he had to engage in occasional contortions to try to remain principled; and Disraeli the opportunist, craving power for its own sake and not because of any great strategy to transform Britain and … willing to throw away any principle in order to stay in office.
quoted from High Minds: The Victorians and the Birth of Modern Britain by Simon Heffer
Some of the above first appeared in a books, TV and films blog I wrote between 2020 and 2022.
Another bank holiday, another ‘best Queen song’ poll – well, best Queen song since the last poll of best Queen songs. I am exaggerating, but not gratuitously so. This time it’s BBC Radio 2’s Your Ultimate Queen Song, part of Easter Monday’s Radio 2 Celebrates Queen day. Meanwhile, my Twitter feed just featured a retweet of a member of the public belting out We Are the Champions from ITV’s Starstruck (with, note, Adam Lambert as one of the judges). ITV had its own The Nation’s Favourite Queen Song programme in 2014. And hardly a month goes by, it seems, without a Queen day on Sky Arts or BBC Four.
Do people – in the UK at least – now think of Queen in the same way as they do the Beatles? It is certainly easy to be mesmerised by the headlines and hyperbole: biggest-selling UK album ever; long-running West End musical (back on in 2023); mega-grossing film; gazillions of YouTube watches and Spotify streams. The list goes on. Even tired phrases like ‘iconic’ and ‘national treasure’ might not be wholly inappropriate in Queen’s case, though I hate hearing the term ‘legendary’ used about celebrities, regardless of who they are.
Queen’s winning formula is a combination of well-recorded, accessible and timeless songs, genuine musical talent, a superstar singer who died in the prime of life, theatricality and showmanship, professionalism, nostalgia tinged with sadness and heartache, extraordinary intergenerational appeal, dependability, ruthless business sense and – in Brian May – a genuinely nice guy. It wasn’t just the band’s name that secured them the opening slot at the platinum jubilee celebrations last summer.
Will the public eventually get sick of Queen? It is, after all, hard to nip to the supermarket or sit through TV adverts without bumping into some Queen song or other. And always, always the same ones.
My favourite music channel on YouTube is Sea of Tranquility. Pete Pardo and his guests are serious (and seriously knowledgeable) music fans. A favourite catchphrase of Pete’s is I never need to hear that song again. He said those very words again in a programme I watched just yesterday – the song, Babe by Styx. There may even be a whole show devoted to played-to-death songs. (A huge shoutout to Pete, by the way, for drawing my attention to early Styx albums like The Grand Illusion and Pieces of Eight, essential listening for fans of 70s Queen.)
I don’t think I am quite at that stage yet with any Queen songs, but I may be close with one or two. The tracks released as singles are usually the ones I least concentrate on whenever I play a Queen album. I hardly ever play Greatest Hits. I can name all the tracks on Greatest Hits II but have no idea what order they come in. And, well, the less said about Greatest Hits III the better.
But how good are the singles, especially compared with the album-only tracks or even the stuff only released as B-sides and twelve-inch fillers? How good are the classics? How classic are the classics? And another question that kept on nagging away at me when I did my Queen Songs Ranked blogs back in 2018 was: what are the difficulties in coming to a judgement about how good they are?
There’s also a more basic question – what makes a good song? – but my argument here is that popular, successful, often-played singles are a particular headache when trying to compile any sort of ranking of favourite songs.
There’s Pete’s I never need to hear that song again problem of overfamiliarity, obviously. But, for me anyway, there is also the type of song that, for obvious reasons, is often selected for single release by rock bands. In common with those of other groups, Queen singles tended to follow a formula, especially as the band chased global stardom from the later 70s onwards – accessible and listener-friendly, catchy and filled with oft-repeated riffs and hooks, three or four minutes in length, and likely to have a crossover appeal. In a word, ‘commercial’. And I instinctively shy away from commercial pop songs.
I thought it would be interesting to compare my Queen rankings with some of these public polls. I went back to the BBC Radio 2 and ITV polls mentioned above and also a Classic Rock poll of the ’50 best Queen songs of all time’ that was first published in 2018 (their webpage has since been updated).
Note that we are not necessarily comparing like with like. I ranked every Queen song with any Freddie involvement – singles, albums, non-album B-sides and the handful of songs released long after Freddie’s death, such as Feelings, Feelings. The BBC invited listeners to vote for up to three of their favourite songs from Queen’s Top 75 UK chart singles, including collaborations with the band following Freddie’s death (hence the reason why Queen + The Muppets appear in the final chart – yes, really ). ITV’s website simply refers to a “representative panel of viewers”, presumably choosing from a list of singles. Classic Rock’s poll – like my rankings – covered the band’s entire output.
These polls are obviously ‘unscientific’, in the sense that the voting public is self-selecting. Take the Classic Rock poll, for example. Some of the voters will no doubt be big Queen fans. Equally, however, some participants may well be general rock fans who perhaps know little or nothing of Queen other than the singles. We just don’t know what the proportion is between these two groups. The BBC and ITV voters only had the singles to choose from, of course.
Anyway, here is the BBC poll’s top 10:
The results of the other two polls are not too dissimilar. I Want to Break Free is number 4 in the ITV poll (it was the BBC’s number 11), and ITV have Somebody to Love at number 10 and Who Wants to Live Forever one place lower. Classic Rock’s top three were the same as the BBC’s. Classic Rock’s top 12 were all singles (and remember that their voters could choose any Queen song, single or non-single). In total, seventeen songs out of Classic Rock’s top 20 were singles.
At least, that’s if we are counting Love of My Life, which didn’t feature in ITV’s shortlist. The original song was on 1975’s A Night at the Opera, but it was a live acoustic version (from the Live Killers album) that was released as a single, in 1979. Its top-10 placing here indicates that many now see it as a Queen classic, which raises an interesting question about the various and sometimes circuitous routes by which songs acquire ‘classic’ status. After all, though now a nailed-on classic, Don’t Stop Me Now only reached number 9 in the British charts when it was originally released. Who Wants to Live Forever didn’t even get in the UK Top 20.
Love of My Life bombed spectacularly when it came out as a single (it reached number 63) – and yet here it sits in the BBC top 10. It’s cut-through appeal and longevity probably come from the iconic 1986 Wembley show. Aagh, that word ‘iconic’ again – but arguably justified in this case, at least in its sense of a moment or image (or in the case of Wembley a whole series of images) that has seared itself into the public consciousness. Think of the band’s stage outfits, particularly Freddie’s yellow jacket, the poses he struck, the robe-and-crown finale – it’s all there in your head. Love of My Life is also now, of course, a pivotal audience-participation moment in the Queen + Adam Lambert live show with, on recent arena-filling tours, a special ‘appearance’ by Freddie.
We Will Rock You fits into this category too. The BBC paired it with We Are the Champions. ITV and Classic Rock both listed the two songs separately. We Will Rock You was not – as is widely misremembered – a double A-side (except in the USA and a couple of other countries), but is actually an example of a B-side that has become at least as well known as the A-side.
It’s a song I struggled to place in my rankings. It ended up at number 94 – mid-ranking, though I’m not sure I could tell you why. It is instantly recognisable, sung in sporting stadiums the world over to this day, nearly fifty years after its release. On the other hand, it has the simplest of song structures, is ridiculously repetitive and includes very little actual musicianship.
And can Bohemian Rhapsody be anything other than number 1? Well, yes. Freddie himself is on record as saying that Somebody to Love is a better piece of songwriting than Bohemian Rhapsody. When I did my rankings, I listened to every song again at least once, forcing myself to keep an open mind and not to rely either on judgements that I have settled on over the years or on what might be described as ‘received wisdom’ — in other words, what everyone else says.
The trouble is that the real ‘biggies’ are soooo familiar, ubiquitous even — and probably none more so than Bohemian Rhapsody. Add to that the fact that everyone — but everyone — will tell you how incredible it is. It’s hard to be objective. Bohemian Rhapsody is indeed an incredibly inventive, daring and original song, but so are a number of other Queen songs — The Prophet’s Song from the very same album immediately comes to mind, as does The March of the Black Queen from Queen II.
As I said earlier, I tend to steer well clear of mass-appeal ‘pop’ music, and this is reflected in my list of favourite Queen songs. Only three of my top 10 and eight of my top 20 were singles. All my favourite Queen albums are from the 70s. Their music was generally heavier, lighter, more daring, more inventive, more experimental, proggier, more diverse, more bewildering, more surprising and generally less formulaic than anything they released from 1980 onwards (with the exception, I suppose, of some of Hot Space).
Not that all Queen’s singles could be labelled commercial pop. Like Bohemian Rhapsody, Innuendo doesn’t fit the description. Both (unsurprisingly) feature high in my rankings. On the other hand, some Queen singles were extremely commercial and chart-friendly, but still rate highly in my chart because they are just so bloody good – Don’t Stop Me Now and Killer Queen, for example.
So, is it just hard for me to listen to the likes of I Want to Break Free, Another One Bites the Dust and Crazy Little Thing Called Love with fresh ears, or do I actually think that they are actually fairly mediocre (by Queen standards) songs?
I’m not absolutely sure, though I suspect it’s the latter more than the former. (All three of those songs were much better live, particularly Crazy Little Thing with its rocked-up final section, the bit after the “Ready, Freddie” response.) I do, however, know for certain that I am always far more excited whenever I hear tracks like (to take some random examples) My Fairy King, Some Day One Day and Long Away that I almost certainly won’t hear unless I make an effort to play the relevant album, which might not be for weeks at a time.
Is it snobbishness, perhaps – the mentality that you’re not a ‘real’ fan unless you like the deep album cuts? I hope that isn’t the case and that it’s more the fact that I look for a lot more in a song than just ‘catchiness’.
Anyway, here are my top 5 ‘best’ and ‘worst’ singles (up to and including 1991 when Freddie died), shown with their placing in my overall Queen chart, with the BBC placing in brackets.
My favourite Queen singles:
4. Bohemian Rhapsody (BBC number 1)
8. The Show Must Go On (BBC number 12)
9. Somebody to Love (BBC number 3)
11. Don’t Stop Me Now (BBC number 2)
12. Seven Seas of Rhye (BBC number 13)
And my least favourite Queen singles:
175. Body Language
171. Thank God It’s Christmas
159. Friends Will Be Friends (BBC number 37)
150. The Invisible Man
136. Scandal
Queen songs ranked — plus an explanation of the rationale and ground rules I adopted
What’s good and what’s not so good about the 2022 box set of The Miracle
Growing up as a Queen fan: teenage tales told through 10 Queen-related objects