Was Britain on the Wrong Side in the First World War?

There’s no shortage of discussion in counter-factual history circles around whether Britain should have stayed neutral in the First World War, but surprisingly little around a similar question – having got involved, were we on the wrong side? Before I go any further I think I’ll just make it as clear as possible that I am only talking about the First World War here, not the Second – that one seems a bit more cut and dried(!).

So why would I think this? Didn’t we have obligations towards France and Russia? We did, but before we look at the nature of these these we should surely ask how we found ourselves on the side of France, our oldest enemy, and Russia, a Tsarist autocracy, against Germany, a natural ally (we already had a German Royal Family in place) and a fledgling democracy with the early signs of a welfare state and a far superior economy.

We tend to over-estimate the importance of our role in the war, which is entirely understandable. However, once you fully take on board that the real war, just in the case of WW2, was between Germany and Russia, the bigger picture starts to emerge. Germany saw France as an obstacle to quickly overcome, to avoid the obvious risks of a two-front war. German dominance over France may seem unpalatable, but do we feel it was worth close to a million British lives? Events since then, have shown that the French people are not necessarily entirely averse to this idea. If you doubt this, have a think about what the EU is and why it was set up after WW2. In any case, I don’t see a justification for the unimaginable bloodletting of young British lives. Or, for that matter, French. Read about the losses at Verdun (in fact, France lost about twice(!) as many men as we did in total), and tell me France wouldn’t have been better off living with the humiliation of a quick defeat. They lived pretty comfortably with it in 1941, don’t forget, against an incomparably more evil enemy.

Given the knife-edge that the Western front was on in 1914, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that France would have fallen with British involvement on the German side (although of course it’s by no means certain), so we’d have been left with a France allowed a certain pretence of independence, with Germany and Russia slugging it out interminably in the East. I can’t possibly say who would have won that, but either way it really wouldn’t have been our concern. But think about a fairly quick German victory – given that they ended up winning there anyway with drastically reduced troop numbers thanks to the stalemate on the Western front, hardly an unreasonable suggestion. Now this really is a cynical suggestion, but the chances are that even a German victory would have led to years of endless guerilla warfare throughout Eastern Europe (Robert Harris described this in Fatherland, although of course in the aftermath of an alternative WW2). Seeing out major industrial competitor tied down like this would by no means have been a bad thing for Britain. Would this also have meant…no Russian revolution? Almost certainly, at least in the way it really did pan out. Don’t forget that (speaking of outrageous cynicism) Germany gave free passage to Lenin to get to Russia in 1917 because they knew that, in the even of a Bolshevik coup, Russia would almost certainly have surrendered. Remember too, that no German defeat in 1918 means no Nazis, no WW2 and no holocaust.

Now, of course,we have to try to separate out what people knew then with what we know now. What was known, and quite widely so, was that Britain was under no real obligation to go to war with Germany over Belgian independence. You can certainly make the argument that we should have stuck to our agreement no matter what, but you may have a difficult time arguing that this really was worth a million of our men. Belgium is an entirely artificial country anyway, and likely to split into two in the near future. The real reason we fought was to stop German dominance of continental Europe. Again, this may well be a laudable aim (although this is at least debatable), but was it worth the sacrifice? Anyone with half a brain would have been able to see, even at the time, that at the very least this would be a major war, lasting years, and costing millions of lives. People really did see this at the time, and did speak out about it. The American Civil War, on a considerably smaller scale of course, had already shown what can happen when industrial-scale warfare runs headlong into deeply old-fashioned tactics. And again, if German dominance of Europe is intrinsically such a bad thing, why the huge support for the EU? It’s probably not the case that Imperial Germany would have put into place a system entirely like the EU but again, was opposing it worth the sacrifice?

Germany’s ambitions have always been around expansion in the East, whereas Britain’s have traditionally been in the overseas empire. Little did anyone suspect in 1914, however, that within a few short decades we’d have given it all away anyway. But deep down, are we honestly bothered whether Polish and Ukrainian towns have German names or not? The German army was by no means some kind of Peace Corps, but the Russian army (our allies!) were almost certainly worse. It’s no secret that they engaged in any number of murderous pogroms against Jewish communities during the war German ambitions were simply no threat to British interests at this point. They had built up their navy to try to scare us, this is true, but this programme had run out of steam long before WW1.

So I do leave myself open to charges of cynicism and opportunism with this theory, but I have to say, my real motives are the idea of saving so many millions of lives. Not just British ones, of course, but countless others from so many other countries. And let’s not fool ourselves that out involvement was motivated by altruism in the first place. It was no less cynically an attempt to stop Germany from overtaking us industrially, which I suggest was a folly as it was always going to happen. To try to stop this we lost nearly a million men and found ourselves on the side of, in the main, our greatest historical enemy with a moribund economy and flat/declining birthrate on one side, and a backwards autocracy on the other. Why not ally ourselves with a dynamic, growing economy that by nature of its size and place was always going to dominate Europe anyway? I just don’t see how it’s entirely acceptable for us to lose so many men in defence of France, but so utterly unthinkable for us to lose far fewer men by just being on the other side.

So to summarise – if we had been on the German side, there would have been no Somme, no Verdun, no Bolshevik coup, uncountably fewer people dead, no Nazis and no WW2. In return, we’d have defeated out traditional foe and allied ourselves with the inevitable major power in continental Europe. We wouldn’t have ruined our economy to the extent that we’d have to renege on our war debt to America soon afterwards. Speaking of which, we’d also have managed to at least try to counter American dominance of the world economy and political landscape. On the minus side, Belgium’s neutrality would have been violated. It’s easier to make the case that we should have stayed neutral (I’ll admit this is closer to my own opinion), but the case for us being on the German side really does seem to have few downsides.

The Royal Royles – How the Royle Family transformed comedy, and why it doesn’t get the credit it deserves

It’s now over 20 years(!) since the Royle Family started on BBC 2. It’s hard to understand now just how quietly revolutionary it was at the time – for starters, there was no laugh track. And there were very few ‘jokes’, or contrived situations. Most of the characters weren’t funny, yet it was one of the funniest comedies yet shown. We weren’t really invited to laugh ‘at’ any of the characters for being stupid. In other words, in contained nothing of what we’d come to expect from British sitcoms over the years. I was only 15 in 1998, but I could immediately see that we had something radically different on our hands. The dialogue was delivered so naturalistically that you could genuinely believe it was a fly-on-the-wall documentary about a real northern family.

The reason it seems hard to believe how revolutionary all this was is due to the influence of the Royle Family. Almost overnight the use of a laughter track seemed prehistoric, and so did the stagey acting and silly situations of more traditional sitcoms – see My Family or similar nonsense for proof. So why do I say that the Royle Family doesn’t get the credit it deserves? After all, it’s hardly an obscure and forgotten footnote in the annals of comedy. Well, it’s because The Office, for one reason or another, almost always gets the credit for all of the above. Remember that The Office won two Golden Globes, and propelled Ricky Gervais to (bafflingly longlasting) global fame. It’s probably true that The Office was better, and was somehow purer in its approach, but there’s no denying that the Royle Family took more risks, and did it first. Gervais and Stephen Merchant have spoken at length about their American influences, but I never heard either of them mention The Royle Family.

Why do I say The Office was ‘purer’ in its approach? Well, the Royle Family didn’t entirely break away from old-fashioned comedy tropes – the ‘my arse’ catchphrase, and fact that Jim Royle is a genuinely funny person means it would always be easier to get laughs than with The Office, where none of the characters were funny and no one had a catchphrase.

But The Royle Family kicked off a revolution in British comedy that still lasts now – take Derry Girls for example. In many ways it’s a very traditional sitcom, complete with weird over-acting from most of the cast. But imagine how weird it would seem with a laughter track. Go back further to a massive hit, Gavin and Stacey, in 2007. Again, in format this was very traditional, with the character of Nessa always available for an easy laugh. But the lack of laughter track was even by then so ingrained that it would have seemed completely out of place. I’m Alan Partridge almost got there first, in 1997, but they had the laughter track and the catchphrases still in use. Watch it now and you’ll be struck at how old fashioned the whole thing feels (although the writing is still as sharp as ever). It’s interesting to note that their second series, in 2002, came under heavy criticism for, among other things, its use of a laughter track. The Inbetweeners is also traditional in many ways (see the dimness of Neil), but again didn’t have a laughter track. It’s interesting to read interviews with Simon Bird (Will), in which he talks about the influence of guess-which-programme.

Peep Show in interesting here as well. It started in 2003, after both The Office and The Royle Family, obviously, but often seemed like it didn’t quite know what it wanted to be. At its best it was as good as any comedy I’ve seen, but it suffered from an identity crisis. It had no laughter track or catchphrases, of course, and the main characters were played entirely naturalistically, but the writers couldn’t stay away from silly situations and over the top grotesque characters (see Super Hans, admittedly brilliantly played by Matt King).

One comedy that does get forgotten is the excellent Marion and Geoff, which also predated The Office (but needless to say, came after The Royle Family). Roy Brydon, in a role he unfortunately has never bettered, played a taxi driver who gives a series of monologues in which his cheery disposition can’t quite disguise the disasters that have befallen him. There is no laughter track or any catchphrases, and, cliché though it is, you often don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

The League of Gentlemen is another great example here. The nature of it is completely at odds with the new style of comedy I’ve talked about here, so it’s fascinating to see that between its second series (2000) and third series (2002) it got rid of the laughter track and catchphrases, and to some extent dialled down the grotesqueness of its characters. This was signalled by the killing of Edward and Tubbs (possibly the most famous characters) in the first episode. It was a strange move for the programme to make, and had the (presumably) unintended effect of making that one series feel like a different programme altogether. Such are the vagaries of influence, but it shows how strong the change was that it convinced the makers of a very high-profile programme to make such a fundamental alteration.

It’s a shame that The Royle Family ruined its own legacy in a series of awful ‘specials’, which ironically enough was always the mark of traditional sitcoms. The Office had the good sense to end before it had outstayed its welcome, the incomprehensible David Brent film notwithstanding. So why the lack of recognition in cool comedy circles for The Royle Family? It’s not as though it was any less glamorous or fashionable than The Office – in fact, you’d be hard pressed to say which one was less glamorous. Perhaps it’s down to the fact that Caroline Aherne and Craig Cash simply had no interest in fame, whereas Ricky Gervais immediately revealed himself as a fame whore extraordinaire. Can you imagine Caroline Aherne having ever wanted to present the Golden Globes? Well, exactly. It also never takes much to convince me of an anti-Northern bias in culture in general, so I’ll claim that too. But it’s impossible to watch comedy from before and after The Royle Family, and not conclude that its influence is still so prevalent as to have changed the entire genre.

 

Game Over – How Game of Thrones Made a Mess of its Grand Finale

So the dust has settled, and it’s all over. Game of Thrones has finished but the question remains – what on earth happened? Game of Thrones is surely the most spectacular TV programme in history, but the final season, recently shown, left most fans and critics cold. It wasn’t helped by the fact that it had slowly declined in quality and changed in nature since season 4, the high point in my view. If you watched the first season immediately before the last, you could be forgiven for thinking that you were watching another programme entirely. That’s not necessarily a judgement, unfortunately the rest of what I’m about to write most certainly is.

So…what on earth did happen? It’s hard to know where to start, so I’ll jump in at what they did with the end of the Night King, and the battle against the army of the dead. Bear in mind that this story had been building since literally the first scene of the entire show, and that we had been repeatedly told that this was the real war, far more so that the squabbling over the Iron Throne. There was a spectacular battle, however the makers made the peculiar decision to shoot in darkness, so it was impossible to see most of it. Then a young girl stabbed the main baddie, and the whole thing was over. Sometimes I have to remind myself that this really was how they chose to end it. The entire army of the dead immediately disintegrated, and that storyline was done and dusted. Finished. Arya had spent what felt like a long, long time training as a face-shifting assassin, but for the climactic scene she was just herself. So…why?

So next, onto King’s Landing and the fight for the Iron Throne. You may remember that before this, we had the revelation of Jon Snow’s birth, i.e. that he was a Targaryen and so had always been wanted, and never a bastard. More to the point, he also had the strongest claim to be the ‘legitimate’ King. The revelation was actually done in a moving way and seemed to be signposted as a major plot twist affecting the entire series. So what did they do with it? Well, nothing. It served to get Daenerys angry, and really nothing more than that. Jon insisted he didn’t want the Iron Throne, so he didn’t get it. He then went to re-join the Night’s Watch, despite it having no reason to exist anymore.

And as for Daenerys, well. Her storyline ended with her sort of going mad and incinerating endless innocent civilians, with nary a whiff of conscience, in direct contrast to everything we knew about her from 8 seasons of storyline. Then she was killed, and her dragon flew away. It was said in the show that whenever a Targaryen is born, the gods flip a coin. Unfortunately in this case, it feels like that’s what the writers did as well. And speaking of the death of Queens, I would have loved for Cersei to get a better ending. She’d been a central figure since the very beginning, but went out with a whimper here, in a death that wasn’t even confirmed until the next episode.

So inevitably, we have to talk about the finale, in which the barely-human Bran was made King, because Tyrion (a prisoner) said so. Because, what, he had the best story? What?! Bran’s story weighed down the whole programme whenever it was shown. He sat out the battle (literally), when surely his warging abilities could have helped in some way? A person completely unable to relate to other human beings in a normal way is probably not a great choice for a ruler. The North was also able to secede from the Seven Kingdoms, with no objection from anyone, because Sansa said so. The same Sansa who had shown only the dimmest flicker of personality throughout the whole thing? Yes, her.

Remember all the words about ‘Winter is Coming’? Probably, since it was said all the time. I know it was the official motto of House Stark, but it did feel like it really meant something. Winter did in fact come, but that was that and I’m not sure it ever did mean anything.

So did it get anything right? Well, yes. Brienne’s final scenes were extremely moving, and well-earned from a character who often seemed to be the only one who took all the stuff about honour and duty seriously. I was glad to see Theon’s story end with a heroic death. In fact, Theon’s whole storyline is one of the highlights of all eight seasons for me. He probably has the strongest story arc of all the main characters, except perhaps for Jaime Lannister (who also deserved a better ending). The general spectacle of the battles was way ahead of anything I’ve seen on any other programme, and in fact most films.

I’m not sure who to blame for all this. We know that the writers of the programme had been given the main plot points by George R. R. Martin, but we won’t know until he releases the last books, which is by no means certain to happen. Either way, it was undeniably a poor ending for what, at its best, was a true high point of the Golden Age of TV. Game of Thrones had the rare ability to pull off magnificent battle scenes as well as truly moving intimate scenes with equal skill. So I don’t take any pleasure in writing this – I’d much rather be able to write about how they managed a perfect finale fitting for the previous seasons (or certainly the first four, anyway). What is it about the final season of gold-standard TV programmes? I’ve already covered the relatively poor final season of The Wire on this blog, as well as the bizarre ending to Breaking Bad. The Sopranos mainly succeeded, but Mad Men felt like the creators had lost control of it. Perhaps we just expect too much of programmes nowadays?

I suppose it’s testament to the quality of Game of Thrones that so many people cared and were invested enough to get so angry about the finale. And it’s probably true that many people would have been up in arms no matter what they’d done. But I’d be surprised if anyone could watch the full series, from season 1 onwards, and not notice the drastic drop in quality in the last season.

How Breaking Bad Broke Bad

What really happened with the last season of Breaking Bad? Did the show paint itself into a corner with the death of Gus Fring, arguably the show’s most intriguing character after Walter White? There are some parallels between this and the fifth season of The Wire, however it’s important to note that Breaking Bad’s final season was nowhere near the dip in quality shown by The Wire’s limp to a whimper.

So…where did Breaking Bad go wrong? Or, I suppose, more importantly, did it go wrong at all – critically, the last season seems to be one of the best-reviewed shows ever. But I do have an uneasy feeling about large parts of it, which seem to stand out more on repeated viewings. Gus Fring was a fantastic character, brilliantly played by Giancarlo Esposito. His performance was so good that it looks like he can actually change the entire shape of his face and head, when switching from the personable manager of Los Pollos Hermanos to the utterly cold blooded murderer and drug trafficker.

Here’s a point – why do we feel Fring is a ‘baddie’, and do we never root for him in the way we do for Walt? What does Fring do that is so terrible, that WW doesn’t also do – or is it just that Fring is more effective? I was elated when Fring was finally killed but thinking about it, why? We actually got some back story for Fring that shows he was motivated, at least in part, by the murder of his partner many years ago by a drug cartel. I don’t see how this is worse than Walt’s eventual motive of building a drugs empire to get back at his previous business partners from his university days.

I think Breaking Bad’s problem lies in the fact that Fring was never really replaced with a similarly engaging antagonist. This, more than anything, is what parallels The Wire’s disastrous decision to replace Avon Barksdale and the endlessly charismatic Stringer Bell with the blank void that was Marlo Stanfield. There was zero depth to Marlo, just as I’d argue there was zero depth to whoever the gang that kidnapped Jesse were supposed to be. Who were they, and what were their stories? One of them called Todd gets some screen time, but to what end? They look like generic bad guys, maybe a white supremacist prison gang, but they were never built up to anything like the same depth Gus Fring was. They’re just basically ‘baddies’, and this lack of complexity counts massively against the final seasons of Breaking Bad.

Also, I’m going have to bring up the ludicrous finale. This was really brought home when I read the theory doing the rounds online that the whole final episode took place solely in Walter’s head. This is definitively not the case, as creator Vince Gilligan has confirmed, but unfortunately this explanation makes more sense. Part of the appeal of Breaking Bad was how quickly seemingly perfect plans can unravel. But in the last episode we have Walt using some kind of jerry-rigged Heath Robinson device to attach a machine gun to his car to kill the gang, whoever they were. Wasn’t he a chemist, not an engineer? In any case, it feels like the programme lost all sense of reality with that scene. Literally all of Walt’s exceptionally complex and risky plans come off perfectly in these last few scenes – to me that feels like a betrayal and an easy way out. And Jesse’s final scene, the big build up after all these seasons, is just…him driving away happy. Wait, that’s it? Yep, that’s all you get. Come to think of it, I’m in fact less and less convinced of the value Jesse’s character past the first season, when apparently he was originally written to die. He’s sympathetic and well played, but what does he actually bring? Besides constantly getting everything wrong, of course. Breaking Bad can be such a breathless joyride that it’s only afterwards these questions start to occur. Like the feeling that Saul Goodman has been parachuted in from a different programme altogether, but that’s a different argument. And since I’m on a roll now, one last question to myself – shouldn’t Walt have tried to be a bit less conspicuous on his return from his frozen exile? Imagine how famous he would have been, the best-known criminal in America, but he happily chats away to a waitress with no attempt to disguise himself at any point.

It seems to be taken for granted that Breaking Bad is up there with the very best TV programmes ever, but this judgement seems premature to me. The mark of the highest quality programmes is whether they stand up to repeated, very close re-watching. I can’t help but wonder if people will still be talking about Breaking Bad in 20 years’ time, in the way that we still are about The Sopranos. If not, I contend that the silly finale would be a large part of that.

KP Nuts Part 3 – The Leaving for Liverpool

Before leaving Preston, I had asked Paul (the head chef) if he could get in contact with the Liverpool hotel and try and transfer me there, so I could start as soon as I got to university. Being young and naïve, I believed him when he assured me that everything was taken care. Alarm bells should have started ringing at his suspiciously vague promises of ‘Yeah, it’s all sorted mate, no worries’, but unfortunately the bells must have been silenced that day.
I actually didn’t start work straight away – I spent a couple of weeks settling in and getting to know what sort of hours I would actually have to spend in lectures every week (gloriously, this was only six). With my student loan fast running out – yes, even after only two weeks – I decided to take the plunge and go to the Liverpool branch where, of course, they would welcome me with open arms. Well, not quite. Having found the hotel, I arrived at reception and asked for the Head Chef. They sent the Sous Chef, which was nearly as good. He, however, had never heard of me. Apparently he has heard a rumour that a KP from Preston had asked to be transferred to Liverpool, but had thought this so outlandish that he had dismissed it as nothing more than hearsay. After all, why would anyone in such a menial job not only want to carry on doing it in the first place, but also bother to go through the proper channels? I asked him if there was in fact a job for me, but he said he was busy and would send down the ‘Head KP’ to talk to me. It turned out that the Head KP was man called Tom C (he was one of those people who are always called by both their first and last names – it was never just ‘Tom’, for example). Tom said that I could start straight away, after I’d had my ‘induction’ of course. I told him that I’d done the job for a year at Preston, so he said that I could start the next day if I wanted. So really, the only qualification, official or otherwise, that was needed for the job turned out to be previous experience. I also made sure that it would be ok for me to go back to Preston ‘for a couple of weeks’ round about Christmas, as I would have to leave university halls for the Christmas break. At the time I didn’t realise that the break would actually turn out to be closer to five weeks – that might have put a different spin on my ‘interview’ had I mentioned it. Tom seemed fine with my little festive break, which was slightly surprising seeing as Christmas was always by far the busiest time of the year. If I had been hiring part time staff in September, I would have been quite eager to make sure that they would be around for the hectic festive period. Tom, I assumed at the time, was probably expecting me to walk out after a few days like most of the KPs from Preston had. We parted company after ten or so minutes, with the agreement that I would start the next day at six o’clock.
The next day I turned up in good time, only to find that the back entrance to the hotel had been locked. This presented the until then unthinkable idea of going to work through reception! Fine, I admit it, after a year of making my way through the not-very-attractive back entrance at Preston, I found the idea of arriving by reception quite exciting (this job can do funny things to a man). From reception I had to go through one of those ‘staff only’ doors into the guts of the hotel. As the hotel was only about five years old, this area wasn’t as bad as I imagine some of the old-school Victorian hotels, but it was still pretty grim. I found the changing rooms and put on my combat trousers and blue t-shirt. Yes, even though you could get clean, standard-issue KP clothes at the start of every shift, I had been sad enough to not only bring my own stuff to wear, but also to bring items taken from the Preston hotel. The problem was that most of the t-shirts handed out weren’t very nice to wear, so when you got hold of a nice one you kept it. The combats? Well, I just liked those. I also wore big heavy boots, and the bandana. The bandana was ostensibly to keep my hair out my eyes, but really I liked it because everyone always noticed it and made comments about it. Uncomplimentary ones, true, but at least it got me attention. As it turned out, I really needn’t have worried about not getting attention.
Whilst I the changing rooms I met Colin, who as it turned out I was working with that night. Colin was an enormous bloke, towering over me (and I’m about six foot five). He is now the person I automatically think of when I hear the phrase ‘gentle giant’. In fact, Colin was gentle almost to the point of dopiness. He also worked as a waiter on Sunday mornings, something which I found strange at first. I had cultivated a kind of siege mentality (that probably only existed in my head), where the kitchen was isolated from all other departments. That there was someone who worked for the kitchen and the restaurant seemed to me almost treacherous. Destroying my bizarre mindset, unfortunately, was the fact that Colin and I got on well from day one. The only annoying things about him were his inability to up his work-rate during busy periods, and his habit of asking strange and often unanswerable questions.
The best example of these traits was one shift when I was in the pan room getting absolutely hammered. Colin came in – to help me, I assumed. But no, he had decided that his priority on this desperately busy shift was to clean the plastic bucket that we kept bin bags in. Noticing my exasperated expression (truth be told, I was too much of a scaredy-cat to tell anyone to do any work) he proceeded to ask me ‘So Richie, how long’s your hair these days?’ I honestly didn’t know how to answer that question. I angrily replied, holding my hair, ‘Col, it’s this long. I don’t know how long that is exactly, do you want me to fucking measure it for you? I’m sure you can see it better than me!’ Colin looked at me with such a wounded expression that I immediately regretted losing my temper, even if it was only a tiny bit and for a very short space of time. ‘Sorry mate, I was only asking’. I was to hear this response from Col many, many times during my four and a half years at Liverpool.

Anyway, back to my first shift. I was given the usual cursory tour of the kitchen, which was much the same as the one at Preston. I then asked about the dreaded job list, only to be told they didn’t have one! This was the first clue that working at Liverpool was going to involve even less work than at Preston. The hotel really was a lot quieter, which surprised me. The Preston hotel had been a bit out in the country, which made it ideal for weddings but not, you would have thought, receptive to much passing trade. The Liverpool one, however, was right in the city centre and so I expected it to be heaving most of the time. Thankfully, for one reason or another, the hotel was dead most of the time – exactly what I want from a workplace.
Right, yes, I’m supposed to be talking about my first shift. Now, I was used to strange looks and comments from people on the streets, but nothing had prepared me for the reaction of the chefs. True, the chefs at Preston had made the odd comment about my appearance, but it was just part of the general piss-taking that happened to everyone. For one reason or another, the Liverpool chefs reacted as though I was like some kind of bizarre but essentially harmless alien. To be fair to them, I suppose I did look a bit strange. I had very long curly hair by this stage, which I wore with a stars and stripes bandana and I shaved maybe once every couple of months. This, coupled with my size and the fact that I was a student, made me as different from the chefs as, I suppose, an alien. And perhaps even more than all this was the fact that I wasn’t a Scouser. That’s right, the fact that I came from a town about forty miles away was enough to make me seem like a foreigner. Of course, I wasn’t the only non-Scouser in the hotel – most of the waiting-on staff were students from all around the country, and most of the housekeeping staff were from all around the continent, but there seemed to be something about my northern accent that intrigued a lot of people. I wasn’t even the only non-Scouser in the kitchen – the senior sous-chef was from Nottingham (funnily enough, the Head Chef and senior sous chef were never Scousers, the whole three and a half years I was there. Co-incidence?). Seeing as how Nottingham doesn’t have much of an identity that can readily be ridiculed, I was to be the subject of endless references to flat caps, whippets, meat pies, and all the other things you might associate with a stereotypical ‘Lancashire lad’. I really didn’t mind though – it made me feel like one of the team, and most of the jokes were either so ill-thought through as to be ineffective, or actually witty enough to be genuinely funny. Not many fell into the latter category though.
Having said that, most people were friendly towards me. It would be some time before I became a sort of unofficial kitchen ‘mascot’, but I liked to think that the chefs (outsiders from the rest of the hotel) recognised me (a wannabe outsider from society – oh, how I blush now at how rebellious I thought I was) as something of a kindred spirit. In fact, whenever anyone from a different department made fun of me (which happened very frequently), the chefs would jump to my defence, saying thing like
“Don’t take the piss out of Ricardo, that’s for us to do!”
I think the overall effect was to make me seem like some kind of simple mute, incapable of defending himself.
I don’t know why I was always referred to as ‘Ricardo’, but it started very soon after my first shift and stuck right up until I left. The strange thing was that it was always said with a ‘comedy’ northern accent, preferably with some other northern stereotypes. A typical example would be,
“Ay up Ricardo, I said ay up Ricardo! Chuffin’ tatties our kid!”
It was the Fred Elliott-style repetition that did it for me. Even after several years of this utter nonsense, I would still end up helpless with laughter after it had been shouted about half an inch from my face at the start of every shift. And I do mean every shift. I did try to helpfully point out that ‘chuffing’ is more of a Yorkshire word, but, funnily enough, it didn’t do much good.
The ‘comedy’ accent was usually done by Darren. He was from Nottingham, so I delighted in telling him that he was ‘neither fish nor fowl’ – in other words, neither a northerner nor a southerner. I admit this was shamelessly playing up to my given role as token northerner – I wouldn’t exactly use that phrase in day to day life – but I have to admit, I just enjoyed getting a laugh.
The main piss-taker in the kitchen was called Tom R, a middle-ranking chef who was probably the most offensive man I’ve ever met. Meeting Tom also reinforced my theory that most Scouse men are called either Tom or Rob. Out of a kitchen brigade of maybe fifteen or sixteen people, there were three Toms and three Robs. For this reason, it wasn’t only Tom C who was always known by his first and last names. No subject was taboo, no person to helpless to escape from Tom. Despite this, Tom was well liked by almost everyone, even the waitresses for whom he would often save his crudest comments. I remember one day when Tom asked a waitress to get him some clean plates ‘or I’ll bend you over, spread your cheeks and ram it up you!’. Before you think this just sounds unpleasant, in fairness he did say it towards a waitress who gave as good as she got, and certainly didn’t appear offended in any way. You might think that Tom’s continuing popularity could have been down to his good looks or charming manner, but Tom wasn’t exactly a Brad Pitt look-alike and he really was that offensive almost all the time, so I’m not sure why he was so popular. Having said, I always enjoyed working with Tom as he’d always make you laugh sooner or later, if only in despair at his sheer vulgarity.
So who were the other chefs and KPs when I started? Well, I can’t remember many of them. This may not sound too reassuring (these are supposed to be memoirs after all), but there is a good reason for this lapse. Most of them left a couple of weeks after I started (I hope it was nothing personal). The Head Chef had got a job at another hotel and had decided to take the majority of his kitchen staff with him. Really, this was a good thing for me because I wasn’t the ‘new guy’ for very long before they had to bring in almost a whole new brigade.
One of the porters who stayed was Andy, who for some reason was held up as an example of everything a good KP should be. Now Andy undoubtedly worked hard, but he only had to do Monday to Friday, day shifts. No, really. I don’t know how he’d managed to wangle this deal with head chef, but he never ever had to work a busy weekend or evening shift. Does this sound like a rant? Well, sorry, but I suppose it is really. I wouldn’t have minded too much about his cosy deal with powers that be, but to be constantly told how hard Andy worked really stuck in my craw. Of course, I had no real reason to complain, as I only did three shifts a week and they were on Monday to Wednesday when it was rarely busy, but I still managed to convince myself that I was being deeply wronged.
The man himself was what I had come to expect from most KPs – actually a very quiet man who was always on the edge of the joking in the kitchen, never quite confident enough to fully join in. He also had what remains the most impenetrable Scouse accent I have ever heard. Several times working with Andy I just had to laugh along with whatever he said, as it would have too embarrassing to ask him to repeat himself yet again. And he did work hard – he never really stopped from when he arrived to when he left – which was always at least an hour early, another cushy deal he seemed to have worked with the chef. In fact, now I think about it, there was a lot to admire about Andy’s lifestyle. True, he didn’t have the greatest job ever, but he was finished by about half two every day and he was almost unique in the industry in having every weekend off, which as far as I gathered he would spend doing what he loved most – fishing. So although I am, in a way, complaining about the man, that doesn’t mean I didn’t envy him slightly. Andy was the notional ‘second in command’ of the KPs after Tom C; a title was only slightly more meaningless than ‘Head KP’. ‘Second in command’ really just meant that Andy was second-longest serving KP – the chain of command wasn’t exactly fiercely meritocratic.
One of the first things I noticed about the Liverpool hotel was that there was nowhere to hide. The chemical store room was more of a cupboard, and anyway it was far too close to the kitchen for comfort. Luckily the staff room was on the same floor as the kitchen, and only a thirty second walk or so. I spent as long as possible in there every shift, and I liked how it was always the same old faces in there every day. Being thoroughly unsociable, I just read my paper and didn’t talk to anyone. I did the like the idea though, of a sort of lazy bastards’ meeting place, where we were all so lazy as to not even speak to each other – a simple of nod of recognition was plenty. One day, however, I had spent so long I the staff room that even one of my fellow slackers was moved to tell me to get in the kitchen and do some work. I was tempted to reply that I was hung-over, but wisely reconsidered this option. A lot of the men who worked there were obviously hard bastards, not to be messed about with by a skinny (yes, I was still quite skinny in those early days) student only a few weeks out his parents’ house.
Also, the fact that I (ostentatiously) read the Guardian whilst in the staff room was something else that marked me out as something of an oddity. I tried to make it clear that I only read it because at university it was less than half price and I, as a student, was always out for a bargain. This didn’t wash, though, and I was considered a poncey intellectual by most of the kitchen staff. The fact that this clashed somewhat with what they normally ridiculed me for – being a simple northern lad – wasn’t enough to put anyone off.
It only took a few weeks in the job for me to be landed with what was my true reputation and, dare I say it, legacy. I had simply carried on with my habit from Preston of eating/tasting anything I could get my hands on – think of it as an education for my palate. Used pans in the pan room, plated back from the restaurant, food from buffets ready to be thrown out – I simply had no standards. The fact that most of this food was actually really good stuff that would otherwise be thrown out was my fig leaf of an excuse, but it was really just down to my incurable greediness. I had just read Kitchen Confidential and was starting to have a real interest in food that would shortly become a true passion. I honestly believe that for most of the three and a half years I was there I knew the restaurant menu as well as any of the chefs, and was able to judge how good the sauces were from the pans that came back to me. I kept these thoughts to myself in the early days, as I didn’t really want to give everyone another reason to see me as an oddball.

So after the clear-out of the kitchen brigade, I was left looking like something of an old hand. New chefs came and went, but the KP rota never changed very much. Now in the year that I had worked at Preston there had been around seventeen different KP’s who had come through the doors. I was expecting a similarly unimpressive labour turnover at Liverpool, but it turned out that for some reasons KP’s hardly ever left the hotel. I suspect that most of us realised that we had it easy and so had no real reason to want to leave.

The Unlikely Resurrections of Partridge and Brent, and Coogan and Gervais.

When I watched the recent(ish) Ricky Gervais vehicle David Brent: Life on the Road, one of the things that struck me was the resolute lack of ambition around the whole thing. It really was just The Office, but longer (and much, much worse). It reminded me of Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa, the Steve Coogan film from 2013 – again, that really was just a film with Alan Partridge in it, with no real attempt to try anything even a bit different.

It got me thinking about the similarities between Brent and Partridge, then inevitably to the similarities between Coogan and Gervais. Gervais of course made his name with The Office, and its exquisite and consistently perfect use of the comedy of embarrassment and social awkwardness. This actually doesn’t have much pedigree in British comedy, despite our national character revolving around avoiding it, and I contend that the first comedy to use genuine-feeling embarrassment was I’m Alan Partridge, Coogan’s excellent sitcom from 1997. We can just pretend that the awful second series didn’t happen. By the standards of the time this was quite naturalistic, although the laughter track dates it immediately. Although Gervais has always been at pains to point out that he’s far more influenced by American comedy than British, you’d have to be willfully blind to miss the obvious parallels with The Office, first shown only four years later. Partridge and Brent are linked by their own utter inability to see themselves as others see them, and a linked inability to behave normally in any social setting. It’s important to see that neither character is really a bad person or even a buffoon – they’re just completely socially inept and unaware. It’s clear also that Coogan has been influenced by Gervais, especially in the outstanding Mid Morning Matters, probably the most natural home for the Partridge character. It’s a workplace comedy of embarrassment and social faux pas, crucially done without a laughter track. Partridge has been toned down massively (especially from his incarnation in I’m Alan Partridge series 2) and is much less overtly comedic. This fits perfect with the post-The Office and The Royle Family comedy landscape, and it’s still surprising that Coogan missed this with that second series. The resurrection of Partridge is actually a fascinating business – it appeared he was finished after I’m Alan Partridge ended in 2002, but in recent years has appeared more than ever on television and now with two books. I think he’s actually got funnier, and the character feels fresher than ever.

It’s also worth noting how clear it is that both Coogan and Gervais wanted to get away from their most famous characters. They both made a play to strike it big in America, (both appearing in Curb Your Enthusiasm) but have returned to Blighty to accept what it is that they really do best. Is this humiliating? I bet there’s a part of them that thinks so, but I prefer to give them both credit for creating something so perfect in the first place. Brent and Partridge are such perfect characters that you always believe in them, and they’re also perfectly able to reflect whatever their creators want to say about changing times, fads and fashions. Partridge can now perfectly spoof the inanity of local radio, and Brent is able to show the increasing bile and bad-feeling that seemingly haunts social media.

Is there a huge amount of ‘acting’ going on with either character? It might take a bit more for Coogan to play Partridge, but it’s interesting to note that in The Trip he plays an exaggerated version of himself that isn’t a million miles away from his alter-ego. It hardly needs pointing out that Brent is not a stretch for Gervais, and that all his comedy is essentially the same.

It’s also quite interesting that neither Coogan nor Gervais fit into traditional comedy roles. Coogan initially did impressions (which it turns out he still excels at), and has tried his hand at stand up but only really in character, and has also tried just being an actor. Gervais really appeared from nowhere (The 11 o’clock Show notwithstanding), then did some mediocre stand up before and straight-ish acting before going back to Brent and variations thereof. The less said about his nauseating awards shows presentations the better.

So it’s clear that the two have influenced each other, and it’s just as apparent that the humdrum naturalistic comedy they’re best at (whether they like it or not) is more suited to television than to films. I have to say I think there’s something admirable about accepting that what you’re best at isn’t necessarily what you’d *like* to best at. Perhaps it takes a certain lack of ego to be able to step back from your own personal ambitions, and let your work speak for itself. This may not be a trait you’d associate with either man, but they have shown it with their later careers. There’s no reason why the characters couldn’t stay relevant in the coming years and even decades, allowing Coogan and Gervais to comment on society and culture however they see fit, almost like how Sue Townsend kept Adrian Mole going from the Thatcher years onward.

The Bubble’s Burst – The End of Rock Music

Have you ever been struck by how frequently major recording artists released classic albums back in the mid-60s to early 70s? And how that doesn’t happen today? You can look through album releases by year in this period, and see genuine genre-defining albums being released every year, sometimes by the same artists. Artists seemed to be easily able to release albums every year, or frequently more often. I’ve recently become interested in these bursts of creativity, and how sharply they bring into focus the remarkable plunge in the quality and originality of rock music once we get past, say, the mid 70s. Of course you can feel free to argue that this decline never happened (after all, good music still gets made, and this ‘golden era’ contained its fair share of dross, but think about David Hepworth’s recent claim that 1971 was the best year for popular music. Well, we can argue the toss about whether he has the right year (in Revolution in the Head, Ian MacDonald had it as 1966), but what’s the latest year for which anyone could reasonably make this claim? Be honest now. It’s inconceivable that anyone who knows the first thing about rock music could make the claim for any year past the mid 70s – try it if you want. To quote Ian MacDonald again – ‘only the soulless or tone-deaf will refuse to admit any decline at all. Those with ears to hear, let them hear’.

The Beatles provide the ultimate example of a burst of creativity – their whole career can reasonably be considered as such. After all, their entire canon was released in just seven years. But at the same time you had Bob Dylan releasing Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde in about 14 months. 14 months! Led Zeppelin’s first four albums, where almost all of the magic really lies, were all released in less than 3 years. The Rolling Stones released Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street between 1968 and 1972. Rod Stewart, a lesser but still considerable talent, put out four solo albums, four albums with The Faces, and two albums with the Jeff Beck group between ‘68 and ’73. Shall I go on? No, probably best not. Oh, alright, just one more – Bruce Springsteen’s first two albums came out in the same year (1973, if you’re asking). Why doesn’t this happen today? What was it that made all these exceptional talents reach their peaks within such a short space of time?

My contention is that rock music is an inherently limited artistic form, and that it had reached the limits of what it could achieve by the mid-70s – for example, it reached the peak of its complexity in prog rock. This is why the punk revolution of 1976/77 was a ‘back to basics’ one, and not actually anything new creatively. This also explains the thin musical legacy left by punk – as opposed to its far reaching and still relevant philosophy and aesthetic. There really is a limit to the new sounds that a small group of men with drums, guitar and bass can make. Is this the reason why hip hop has taken over from rock as the global musical force? Because with samplers, synthesisers, and no need for an arresting vocal melody or chord progression, there simply aren’t the same constraints on what can be produced.

There’s also the simple brute fact that rock was still very young, so all the above were effectively in uncharted territory. I presume it’s much easier to break new ground when not much ground has been broken before.

But people still form bands make enjoyable music! Yes, I’m sure that’s the case, but once you really build up your knowledge of rock history, you lose patience with derivative ways of giving a (very) slight new twist, and want to go back to the source (whatever that might be to you). If I hear about a great new band who turn out not to be as good as the Beatles or mid 60s Dylan (for me, the two high watermarks of rock music), why would I bother listening to them? I can leave that to the young people, who haven’t yet learned their history.

The literary critic Harold Bloom wrote about ‘The Anxiety of Influence’, which haunts aspiring poets and writers, who feel crushed by the weight of all the classics that have gone before. In the absence of any kind of systematic education in rock music this really doesn’t exist. And why should it? Rock music is really aimed at teenagers, who would presumably rather just get up there and make a racket, without having to wade through their dad’s (Grandad’s?) record collection first. But as they say about philosophy – he who doesn’t study the history of rock music is doomed to repeat it. This explains why unfettered creative freedom within a limited idiom will tend to converge along similar lines to what has come before.

So my grouchy contention that rock’s heyday had passed some years before I was even born may seem pessimistic (and it is, but at least it spares me from charges of nostalgia for the music of my youth), but it still gives the committed listener almost unlimited scope to dive into the treasures of years past, without the constant pressure to keep up to date with whoever the next big thing is this week, and the inevitable disappointment that follows. Unless, of course, we can really believe that a new Beatles is ready to come along…?

Rocky of Ages

I’ve loved the Rocky series ever since I was a kid, but it’s strange to look back and think then, I actually thought the original film was quite dull. I’d seen Rockys (Rockies?) 3 and 4 and loved their cartoonish violence and ridiculous ‘baddies’. By then, the filmmakers had also started to add ludicrous sound effects to each punch, so the fights looked and sounded more like video games than real boxing. Now, obviously you don’t watch Rocky for realistic portrayals of pugilism, but you should be able to convince yourself that this could be a boxing match. The first Rocky doesn’t have those sound effects and, out of a two hour film, the ‘big fight scene’ at the end is only about ten minutes. As I got older, however, I started to realise that Rocky isn’t dull at all, and that in fact it’s a genuinely good film (although probably not a great one, admittedly). What I’ll write about here is why I think that is, and draw inevitable comparisons with the other films in the series, which surely must have come to end by now…mustn’t it?

The first point is Sylvester Stallone’s performance in the lead role. Don’t forget that he wrote it too(!), so it’s clear he knew exactly the kind of performance required. To begin with, it’s an incredibly kinetic performance. He simply doesn’t stop moving throughout the whole thing – even in conversations, he has twitches and tics that feel completely natural. And let’s be honest, Stallone is not a handsome man. He looks exactly right for this role – a street fighter past his prime, who’s taken one too many punches. If it were re-made today (which it probably will be soon) they’d have someone far too pretty take the lead role.

His performance is also very emotionally affecting too. This was back when Stallone still acted, instead of just turning up and reading the script. Rocky doesn’t want to show emotion, so when he does, it can be shattering. When he finally admits that all the ridicule from the press that he puts up with actually does bother him, he admits it with just two syllables. Stallone puts across in those two words an entire lifetime of holding back, of pretending to be happy with what life has given him. There’s a scene near the end when Rocky’s own corner are telling him to ‘stay down’ to avoid further injuries, but he gets back up, dead on his feet. That’s a man who can’t give up, even though he may want to. Stallone’s performance means that Rocky simply isn’t a film about boxing – it’s a character study, and an entirely convincing and affecting one too.

The second point, often overlooked, is that Rocky loses the big fight at the end. As I said earlier, this is hardly a boxing documentary, but having Rocky win would have stretched credulity too far. In fact, even Rocky knew he couldn’t win. In another emotional scene, he admits to Adrian that he just wants to ‘go the distance’ with Apollo Creed, his magnificently-named opponent. If this were any other sports film, Rocky would win with a last moment power punch – see, in fact, Rocky 4, where he doesn’t even start fighting back until about round 6, and makes no attempt to defend himself from punches so hard that they literally killed Apollo Creed in the ring (I know, I know). The fact that Rocky loses, but the film still finishes on a high, back up my previous point that it isn’t really a sports film at all. It’s about Rocky proving to himself that he can push himself harder than he ever thought possible.

The final point is the character of Apollo Creed, perfectly played by Carl Weathers. The crux here is that Apollo is a decent guy. The later ‘baddies’ were ludicrously over the top, especially with Ivan Drago in 4. Here, Apollo is shown encouraging kids to use their brains instead of going into sports – ‘Stay in school and use your brain. Be a doctor, be a lawyer, carry a leather briefcase. Forget about sports as a profession. Sports make ya grunt and smell. See, be a thinker, not a stinker’.

The very idea of Rocky’s later opponents coming out with anything like that proves my point. Apollo is such a good fighter that no one wants to fight him – he becomes complacent and doesn’t take the fight seriously. This adds a slight air of believability to the whole thing – we aren’t being asked to imagine that a heavyweight champion at the top of his game would come undone against a spirited but limited club fighter. Apollo simply doesn’t take the fight seriously, but Rocky does. You can see this dawning on him as the fight goes on, and his own incredulity that Rocky keeps getting up and fighting is wonderfully portrayed.

So, there are my three points about Rocky. It captures the elusive but precious ‘lightning in a bottle’ that the sequels, despite being (generally) good fun, got nowhere near. Stallone’s committed performance, the fact that this isn’t a sports film, and the realistic nature of Apollo Creed ensure that Rocky endures where a million other sports films, or indeed boxing films, are instantly forgotten.

Rum, Sodomy, and…The Clash? The Pogues, Punk and Authenticity.

 
I’ve briefly mentioned The Pogues’ excellent 1985 album Rum, Sodomy and the Lash elsewhere on this blog, but in this piece I’m going to look at it in a bit more context. I’ve always thought of this album as in some some way coming out of the punk movement, although it can be hard to explain why exactly. I’ll look at exactly what I think punk was, how The Pogues may have fitted in with it, and go in turn to the always thorny issue of authenticity – is it important? And for that matter, what is it anyway?

The Allmusic review of RSL states that the album proved that ‘they were a great band, and not just a great idea for a band’. I agree, actually, but it does raise the question – why were they such a great idea for a band? Well, I’m hardly sticking my neck out here, but I’d say that The Pogues took the do-it-yourself directness that is a fundament of punk rock, and married it to music that was unmistakably theirs – traditional(ish) Irish folk music. This is music that may not have particularly needed a shot in the arm – in fact there’s a great quote dating back to the 1850s from the fascinating ‘A Renegade History of the United States’ by Thaddeus Russell that describes the horror felt by the upper classes towards Irish music:

‘The spirit of the dance is fully aroused. On flies the fiddle-bow, faster and faster; on jingles tambourines ‘gainst heads and heels, knees and elbow, and on smash the dancers. The excitement becomes general. Every foot, leg, arm, head, lip, body, all in motion.’’

So this wasn’t a sedate musical tradition. Nevertheless, The Pogues were able to make it theirs, and it’s clear that punk played a role in this.

Shane MacGowan had been known on the London punk scene from the days of the Sex Pistols, and actually there’s a great video clip of him at a Sex Pistols gig, dancing while wearing a Union Flag(!) jacket. So it’s clear that he was part of punk, and that he used it to inform the ethos of The Pogues. But this gets us to the thorny issue of what exactly punk was/is. I generally think of it as a way of reducing the distance between artist and audience, which is why it has its roots in a reaction against the perceived excesses of established 1970s rock stars, rather than necessarily a reaction against the quality of the music itself. ‘Roots’ in an interesting word here, as I’d suggest that, if anything, punk was backwards-looking – it was a movement towards basic, no frills rock n’roll. The word ‘radical’ come from the Latin for ‘root’, so we can see punk as a radical movement, one to reclaim rock music and bring it back to its roots.

So that’s the link with The Pogues – musically, they weren’t especially punk. When listening to, say, A Pair of Brown Eyes, you’re reminded that frequently, they weren’t even especially confrontational or aggressive. Then again, as David Byrne pointed out, ‘Punk was defined by an attitude rather than a musical style’. The Pogues had the sheer quality of MacGowan’s songwriting, and from punk they had the attitude to be as direct and authentic as they could, with a musical form that was deep in their bones.

Well, that’s fine, but what about that word authenticity? It’s a good thing, isn’t it, to be authentic? Punk was about being the real you…or was it? Johnny Rotten wasn’t really called Johnny Rotten, you know. Shane MacGowan isn’t really Irish. Joe Strummer was a diplomat’s son and pretended he wasn’t. But to me, this isn’t a problem, and there’s no reason to think that this sort of thing is necessarily inauthentic. There’s a long tradition in rock music of personal re-invention, and why not see this as tapping into your authentic self? Robert Zimmerman became Bob Dylan because really, that’s who he had to be. In their book Playing for Change, Rob Rosenthal and Richard Flacks speak of authenticity as ‘the real me inside the song, revealing my essence’. In fact, from the same paragraph, they state accurately that ‘Many singing styles are valued precisely because the singer has not stripped away idiosynrasies in search of some “perfect” delivery, but displays them’. This could well describe the ‘idiosyncratic’ singing style of Dylan, MacGowan, Tom Waits…the list could go on.

Dylan is actually a strange figure when it comes to punk. Everything about him, especially in his mid-60s peak, seems in retrospect to be perfectly punk. There are audible mistakes on his recordings, he effectively can’t sing, and there is a directness and immediacy about his songs that is viscerally thrilling. He has clearly invented a persona that he sees as the real him, and which is totally convincing. (Incidentally, Greil Marcus has described a key part of listening to rock music as ‘a willingness to be fooled’. What could this tell us about authenticity?). But Dylan’s persona has always been one of distance from his audience. In the mid-60s he was hardly forthcoming in interviews, and generally seemed to be toying with his audience. He posed a literary figure who the average listener couldn’t relate to, which stands in stark and fascinating contrast to his music at the time and indeed to his soul-baring on later albums such as Blood on the Tracks. It’s my theory that Bruce Springsteen (you don’t need to make up a name when you already have a cool one – see also Elvis Presley) used his man of the people persona as a direct response to this. Have you ever thought you could just have a beer with Bob Dylan? Springsteen’s entire image is built on the fact that maybe you could with him, and it may even be true.

So I‘ve digressed a bit here. I suppose my point is that emotional authenticity is what matters, and that’s true of any kind of art or culture. Punk took rock music back to its roots by emphasising simplicity and directness as key ways to engage with its disaffected audience, and this was picked up and used by The Pogues to make music that was at once traditional and contemporary, and whose emotional authenticity cannot be doubted, especially not when you’re actually listening to it.

Multi-syllable Rhyming in Hip Hop

Multi-syllable rhyming is exactly what it says on the tin – most lyrics or poetry (the kind that rhymes anyway) tend to rhyme just the last syllable of each line, but there’s really no limit to how many syllables can be rhymed. Multies, as I believe they are known, are by no means the sole preserve of hip hop – they pop up quite often in musicals for example. Here’s one from Chicago, and glorious (and gloriously contrived) it is too ‘Back since the days of old Methuselah, everyone loves the big bamboozle-er’. They also crop up in humorous verse – take this fantastic limerick from Dixon Lanier Merritt (me neither) ‘A wonderful bird is the pelican/His bill will hold more than his belly can/He can take in his beak/Enough food for a week/But I’m damned if I see how the hell he can’.

I love multies because they glory in the possibilities of language. You have to work at them, and you’d only do that if you really care – even to the extent of inventing words like ‘bamboozle-er’. But it’s in hip hop lyrics where multi-syllable rhyming finds its most natural home. Since rapping usually involves little to no vocal melody, more attention is paid to lyrical complexity, with an emphasis on complex rhyme schemes. Multies are only a part of this, along with internal rhymes etc, but I personally find them the most satisfying.

I first became aware of the possibilities of multies when listening to Eminem, a true virtuoso. I detailed some of my favourites in an earlier article here https://wilsonpickedit.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/how-eminem-lost-it-and-why-the-marshall-mathers-lp-2-isnt-a-return-to-form/ , but they really just flow out out of him to the extent that I could just quote his best ones for this entire piece. What elevates Eminem above almost all other rappers is that his multies aren’t just empty wordplay – he can tell a story or make a joke using rhymes way beyond the reach of most of his peers. Here’s a nice one from ‘Sing for the Moment’ – ‘how the fuck did this metamorphosis happen/from standing on corners and porches just rappin’.

Another revered multi syllable rhymer is Kool G Rap, widely known as ‘your favourite rapper’s favourite rapper’, and with good reason. His most famous (and best) work was in the late 80s and early 90s, but his Godfathers collaboration with Necro in 2013 showed that he can still cut it. Kool G Rap doesn’t actually use multies as much as he gets credit for – I think he makes more use of what I think of as rhyme density, but he’s indisputable one of the greats. His 1992 album Live and Let Die has the song ‘Letters’, with the excellent ‘I pop bad cops, I got a pig a day habit, Ping ping ping, just like the Ricochet Rabbit’. From the above album Once Upon a Crime is the excellent ‘Crook Catastrophe and the Gunblast Kid’, where it’s actually the less talented Necro who strings together a stunning multi ‘disrespectful goons, down with extortion of your profits/I’ll protect your saloon, for a portion of the profits’. I suppose this goes to show that multies aren’t everything, as Kool G Rap’s verse is still much better – in fact this this song as a whole is a great example of the difference between a good rapper and a great one.

The relatively obscure Philadelphia rapper Vinnie Paz from Jedi Mind Tricks (formerly the much more excitingly-named Ikon the Verbal Hologram) has been using excellent multies for years now – here’s one from ‘Untitled’, on their 2000 masterpiece Violent By Design – ‘That’s the sight of blood that makes a child stop, that’s the rights of thugs to keep it wild hot. Or this tongue twister from ‘Army of the Pharoahs: War Ensemble’ – ‘I exit out of my sarcophagus, fourth horseman of the apocalypse, for my oesophagus breathes evil that just demolishes, abolishes, from the darkness of Mephistopheles’. In fact, that whole album is replete with inventive multies from Paz and his bandmate Jus Allah. I love this one, from ‘Speech Cobras’, ‘The hate burn, scathe the urn of a Buddhist/snake turns and fake yearns, the kiss of Judas’. I’m not at all sure what this actually means, which is what holds it back from full classic status in my eyes.

Esoteric is a rapper from Boston (the American one), usually collaborating with the producer 7L, who has made a career of extreme use of complex multies and rhyme density. My favourite lines of his come from ‘Essays on Esoterrorism’ from their 1999 EP Speaking Real Words, ‘When I’m in Damascus, yo I cause disasters, chokin’ pagans in Copenhagen my vocals plaguin’ ancient masters’. So many rhymes in so few words. Another rapper associated with Jedi Mind Tricks and Esoteric/7L is Louis Logic, a Brooklyn-based rapper who came up with what I regard as possibly the best line I’ve ever heard in hip hop. His 2006 album Misery Loves Comedy is as good as it gets from start to finish, but the frankly filthy ‘Beginner’s Lust’ contains this absolute gem ‘I could have you bent over a nice elegant sofa, while I’m driving dick home like the vice-president’s chauffeur’. Of course, you’ll only fully get this line when you remember that in 2006 Dick Cheney was still vice-president. That’s a seven syllable rhyme (depending on how strict you are), containing a great joke as well. I’m amazed Louis Logic isn’t more highly regarded, as that whole album in particular is a masterpiece of hip hop lyricism.

Gift of Gab is best known as part of Blackalicious, who in turn are probably best known for the astonishing ‘Alphabet Aerobics’ (that’s the one that Daniel Radcliffe did an unfathomably accomplished version of on some American chat show recently). That song shows that Gift of Gab (Mr Gab to you) is one of the best and most original rappers out there. Listen to this from ‘Blazing Arrow’, from the 2006 album of the same name ‘Amazing phase your days your hazy ways my Blazing Arrow/the rays that range from Asia way to Rio De Janeiro’. Essentially the whole of those two lines rhymes, along with some internal rhymes for good measure.

Obviously I can barely scratch the surface of multi-syllable rhyming here, but I hope it’s given you some inspiration to listen to some new stuff. I’m on a permanent quest to find better rhymers, so feel free to recommend any who you think are the equal of any of the above!

PS If you get really obsessive about rhymes, you might be interested in holorimes. Holorimes are two lines that don’t rhyme, so much as sound exactly the same. Unsurprisingly they’re exceptionally rare – in fact, I’ve only ever tracked down two convincing ones. Here they are – I’d credit them if I could:

‘Will Caws, a deacon, jested ‘diarrhoea/will cause a decongested dire rear’

and ‘Poor old Dali loped with an amazin’ raging cyst, as/poor Roald Dahl eloped with Anna-May’s enraging sisters’