5. The city with the longest name is Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Yuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit. But we call it...?
There was also a question about what the following three cities have in common… New York, Mumbai, Istanbul. But I’ll give you the answer to that one… as I might have done to one of the questions above, being unable to resist an obvious tune.
A top notch - and very tricky - edition of Snapshots this weekend. Many thanks to C from Sun Dried Sparrows for her hard work. C, of course, is an artist (as is Ron Wood and today's header image, multi-disciplinary artist Yayoi Kusama). Perhaps that was the best clue to this week's link...
Extra kudos to C for finding a picture of the Ramones where they don't immediately look like the Ramones. From past experience, I know that's a tough one!
12. A rabbit follows an Ant.
Harvey the rabbit (from the film) comes after Ant (McPartlin) who was P J in P J & Duncan / Byker Grove.
Welcome back to the Cancel Culture Club, where a distinguished committee of leading lights from the blogosphere (and me) debate old songs with attitudes that now seem rather suspect to modern ears.
Is this week's offering our most contentious contender yet?
I think I'll let Alyson from the Jukebox Time Machine do the introductions, as she's much better at it than I am. Alyson... What's It All About?
Sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. A phrase we’ve all heard of which could almost have been coined for the Rolling Stones. I’m just about old enough to remember both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones from the mid-1960s, when we saw them on telly in black and white. I think I fell a little in love with baby-faced Paul McCartney, but I was always a bit unsure about the Rolling Stones as they exuded something I couldn’t possibly have understood back then. As I got (a lot) older, I realised most of their lyrics referenced sex, drugs or both which brings us on to their song Brown Sugar from 1971, the song up for debate this time.
It seems Mick Jagger wrote the lyrics to Brown Sugar whilst he was in Australia filming Ned Kelly and then in the Muscle Shoals recording studio in Alabama. Mick himself admits the song was a bit of a mishmash, with everything he was thinking of at the time thrown in. He also said he wouldn’t write those lyrics nowadays and the band no longer play the song in concert. But why?
Well, I for one, believe him when he said he was writing about what he was thinking of at the time. It is no secret that the band were habitual users of heroin back in 1971, the drug also known as Brown Sugar. He probably thought it could be a great title for a rock song whilst at the same time getting it past the censors. At this time in Australia, he was probably also missing his girlfriend of the time, Claudia Linnear, who was a very striking backing singer with Ike and Tina Turner. As a young man on the other side of the world, he was no doubt reminiscing about his sexual exploits with Ms Linnear which coincidentally fitted his Brown Sugar lyric. So far, I have no issue with the idea of the song and unlike our American cousins, I don’t think we in the UK had a particular issue in 1971 with interracial sex. If we cancelled all songs that refer to sex or drugs there would be very little left in the rock pantheon.
Once Mick arrived in Alabama to record the album Sticky Fingers, he had to finish the lyrics to Brown Sugar. Apparently, he sat with a yellow legal pad and soon came up with the song we now know. Based in a Deep South state, there is no doubt his mind would have wandered to the history of the place and what happened in the cotton plantations over a 100 years earlier. Again, there was interracial sex, but this time not of a consensual nature but that between master and slave. To be an attractive young black girl back then was a curse as you would have been repeatedly raped and forced to have sex with the white plantation owners and overseers, whilst their wives turned a blind eye. The verses of the song refer to this abhorrent practice which I really hope Mick included as a bit of a history lesson highlighting the gratification the white men got through using violence (the whip) towards a young girl.
Whatever Mick intended, the song now makes for a troubling mishmash of what happened during slavery, combined with references to the enjoyment to be had from both using heroin and having consensual sex with your black partner. A real juxtaposition. I can see how it wouldn’t go down well nowadays in the Southern States of the US. It was however a big hit in 1971 all over the world, as Keith Richards also came up with an excellent riff and rhythm for it. I’m tempted on this occasion not to cancel it but keep it in the public domain as it is still a great example of what the Rolling Stones did at their height and as a reminder of what happens when humans treat fellow humans as possessions or chattels, a practice that still goes on today.
Hope I’m not too out of kilter with everyone else although I think this one is going to be quite divisive.
Thank you, Alyson - as always, your research skills and historical perspective shine through. And yes, I do think we'll find a diversity of opinion below... yet I don't think we'll have too much disagreement overall.
Let's see what my old pal Martin from New Amusements thinks...
I must admit I hadn't really thought too much about, or listened too closely to, the lyrics of Brown Sugar before. I've been content to chug along with the riff, and just assumed the narrative was the singer's preference for black women, albeit expressed in sassy 70s dialogue. Maybe it was even an example of positive discrimination - after all, they "taste so good", presumably in comparison to plain old white sugar.
I do think that's an easy interpretation if you don't listen deeper - and as Alyson says above, it would be quite a button-pushing one for rock 'n' roll "bad boys" to make back in 1971.
But it's not about that, is it? It's about the slave trade, and more specifically about the rape and sexual assault of slave-traded women and girls.
The first two verses describe the trader and a house boy engaged in this, the last verse describes the narrator at it too. He attempts to explain this away, singing "I'm no school boy, but I know what I like" ... except that's no excuse.
The Rolling Stones have created a number of lyric videos for their biggest hits, and they're all up on their official YouTube channel... but there's no lyric video for this, which perhaps tells its own tale. And although it's their fourth most played song live (if setlist.fm is to be believed) they haven't done so since 2019. Maybe the band are in the process of slowly, gently cancelling it themselves? If so, that's good enough for me.
I think they probably are. Though as the legendary JC, aka The Vinyl Villain, suggests below, there are limits to self-cancellation in the world of rock 'n' roll...
I’ve long been troubled by this one. It is a ridiculously catchy tune, one that is tailor made for radio,and whose upbeat tempo seems to have a celebratory, ‘wave your hands in the air like you just don’t care’ feel about it.
But we really should care.
The lyrics are genuinely horrific as they glorify slavery, extreme violence against women and rape.
What makes it worse is how much Jagger seems to be enjoying singing the lyric...almost as if he is imagining himself as being the person carrying out all these acts of degradation, while the closer of ‘how come you taste so good, just like a black girl should’ interspersed with all sorts of whooping and hollering means racial stereotyping can be added to the charge sheet.
I believe that Jagger and Richards dropped Brown Sugar from the live set lists a few years back, so in that regard they at least have acknowledged it is a problematic song. But they and their management team will still happily collect the royalties that amass from the regular airings the song gets on radio stations...no real surprise given that the music industry is riddled with hypocrites.
It's easy to be a hypocrite when money is involved. Just ask Billy Bragg in his clifftop mansion. Actually, I think he sold that... no doubt to move into something even swishier. Not that I begrudge him a penny of it, because he's a socialist of the heart.
OK, so far we've all been in broad agreement. Though with each new comment, we seem to steer closer and closer to cancellation. Over to Walter from A Few Good Times In My Life. What do you make of Brown Sugar, Walter?
That's a really good example to talk about. I put the album on again and listened to it from start to finish, and I have to say that Brown Sugar is one of the weaker songs on this record. A simple rhythm and blues riff certainly doesn't make it one of their most popular. It's more likely the lyrics, which revolve around non-consensual sex between a guard and a slave girl.
It is well known that this type of lyrics are characteristic of Mick Jagger's attitude at that time, and he ventures into misogynistic territory that was later claimed by gangster rappers from the East Coast.
And no, I can't listen to this macho bullshit anymore. Obviously, the Rolling Stones feel the same way, since they removed the song from their live repertoire a few years ago and are trying to downplay this lyrical faux pas by claiming that the song is explicitly directed against slavery.
Ultimately, this song is one reason why we're talking about cancel culture.
Well, yes. Although Walter raises a good point that we touched on last time - and that's the preponderance of sexist attitudes still to be found in a lot of far more modern tunes from the world of rap and r 'n' b. The world has changed a lot since 1971... but how much has it really changed?
Someone else who, like Martin, hasn't really considered the lyrics of Brown Sugar until now is C from Sun Dried Sparrows...
I have a confession: I've never actually read, or given any thought at all, to the complete lyrics of 'Brown Sugar'... Perhaps it's because the tune and chorus are so familiar and it feels as if they have been for my entire life, that it's become a musical equivalent of "a part of the furniture". It's just there, and always has been, but it's never been that important to me either, so I couldn't actually recite it or sing along with it word for word. And now you've brought it into focus and, rather than just listen to it again, I sat down and read the lyrics in stark isolation. And the truth is, I felt really quite bothered by it.
I understand that it's describing a scenario and, as in murder ballads and songs like Tom Jones's 'Delilah' or Tony Christie's 'I Did What I Did For Maria', we can hopefully credit the songwriters/artists with (presumably!) not actually sharing the sentiments of the characters they inhabit in the song - just as we do with books, films, plays, etc. - we get that it's not autobiographical, nor are we going to think it's ok to murder someone or whatever just because we've heard a song about it. That's usually my reason for not wanting to cancel stuff.
But there's something about 'Brown Sugar' which I'm finding particularly discomforting / distasteful - now that I've finally paid full attention to it, that is! I think it's due to the combination of factors: slavery, racism, violence towards women and sexual objectification of a young black girl, punctuated with a particularly celebratory sounding chorus as our narrator appears to revel in it. I'm trying to analyse my new feelings about it now. Yes, perhaps that's what turns it for me - the inclusion of that chorus against the rest of it. If it had been an obvious 'story' type song all the way through, the verses could have been bracketed as such. But there's something about the way the chorus comes in which brings the story more up-to-date and seems to validate the sentiments, horribly. I don't know if I'm explaining this well...I'm finding it hard to describe and, to be honest, have completely surprised myself with this immediate reaction. All I know is, something about the song feels distinctly off now, for a multitude of reasons, but I had never even given it a second thought until asked to write about it here. So, Rol, this is quite the shock revelation for me. Contrary to my own expectations, I'm now not sure I really want to hear it again and given the huge Stones back catalogue to delve into for more superior songs too, that wouldn't really be a great loss. Wow, I hadn't anticipated this! And I'll be very interested to hear everyone else's views.
It's at times like this that I feel guilty for hosting this feature. Like I've spoiled this song for C now, and wouldn't it have been better to leave her happy with her surface interpretation? Ignorance is bliss. I hate the idea that this feature will spoil a song for anyone.
This seems like a good time to bring in the Dubhed himself, Khayem... because, unlike C, he appears fully aware of what's going on in this tune... and he's ready to put the boot in!
I might as well put my cards on the table and say that, however much is made of the legendary Jagger/Richards songwriting partnership, I find Jagger’s lyrics achingly poor most of the time. When I was in my teens, I saw the Stones as has-beens with nothing to say about my life and nothing to aspire to. My opinion about their music - the first decade and a half at least - has changed considerably over time but it’s fair to say that I still don’t go to The Rolling Stones to remind myself of Jagget’s lyrical prowess.
I never particularly liked Brown Sugar either, and that was before I stopped and listened more carefully to what Mick was singing, not just how he was singing it. The ‘ambiguity' about whether he’s referring to slavery or hard drugs or both is undermined by a heavy handed approach that even a naive would-be poet in Year 9 would think twice about committing to.
However, what defined the song for me was listening to the cassette version of Neil’s Heavy Concept Album inn 1984. Yes, as in Neil the character played by Nigel Planer in The Young Ones. The cassette offered up “extra verbal meanderings, including a 58-second ‘version’ of Brown Sugar.
In brief, Neil comes across a couple of buskers playing an instrumental riff, and he decides to get his guitar out of his bag and join in. Neil clearly has only a vague acquaintance with the song, coming in late when the buskers sing “Brown Sugar! How come you taste so good?”. As he echoes the next line, Neil realises what he’s singing and asks the buskers to stop. “Who wrote this song?” he asks. “I thought it was supposed to be about whole foods, free range eggs…"
And since then that’s what I always think of when I hear Brown Sugar.
Musically speaking, Brown Sugar is a good song. Lyrically, it’s terrible but rather than be cancelled, it should be cited as an example of how not to tell a story!
I've never heard Neil's version before, K... but clearly it's a thing of beauty and brilliance. Thank you.
I will say though that although I don't hold Mick Jagger up as one of rock's great wordsmiths, I do think from time to time he hits gold. Three examples below...
OK, maybe they're not going to steal Mr. Zimmerman's Nobel Prize In Literature, but I do think that all of those could be offered up as defence against any accusations of racism that might be levelled at Mick. He always seemed a pretty socially conscious dude...
That said, he's also written some very ill-advised lyrics... ones that make even Brown Sugar pale in comparison. Here's Our Man In Portugal... George!
The Rolling Stones, well, Jagger and Richard, have written some objectionable and quite nasty songs, such as Under My Thumb and Yesterday’s Papers. These two tracks seem to be deliberately offensive.
Brown Sugar, in comparison, is quite absurd with its language and I wonder if “no offence was meant”. Maybe I’m wrong. It’s yet another song where I dissociate from the lyric (or go to Georgie La-La land as my partner would say). And I say No to cancelling.
I'm surprised George didn't also mention this one, which deserved a mention back in the very first edition of the Cancel Culture Club, when we were debating Young Girl.
Going back to Martin's earlier point though... while we can't find a lyric video for Brown Sugar on the tube of you, we can find one for each of the above. 'Nuff said.
I thought it might be worth getting the opinion of an actual songwriter on this matter. So I consulted our resident troubadour, the wonderful Mr. John Medd...
Jagger’s "meagre" lyric writing? Who says?! Oh to have written *any* Stones song over the last 50 years…
Who am I to argue with an expert? But John, what about today's offering?
Brown Sugar? I love this song with every fibre of my being. Is it about cunningulus? Yep, probably.
Woah, woah - what now?
I just sent you a screen grab.
Okay... well, that certainly opens up a whole new line of enquiry...
Is it about Heroin? Yeah, that too. Does any of this matter? Of course not. It’s the Rolling Stones. In their pomp. In their majesty. Should it be cancelled? No! However, in America, they’ve cancelled it themselves seemingly and agreed not to play it live. Street fighting men? Maybe not so these days.
Of course, being a fan of a particular artist can make us more willing to overlook their tomfoolery. As anybody who still wants to listen to The Smiths will be forced to admit.
Over at No Badger Required, the estimable SWC recently held a vote on the Best Eponymous Albums Of All Time. Despite our host's own reservations (he refuses to even name the band these days, calling them only The Sm***s - I'm thinking of doing similar with Oasis, and referring to them only as *as*s from now on), their debut album came third in the countdown. I mention this to illustrate the complexities we wrestle with every time we fling open the doors of the Cancel Culture Club.
Mick Jagger is on record saying that he probably wouldn't be able to write this song in today's society. Which probably gives us some idea but I suppose back in the 70s Mick didn't remotely care about morals and all that.
Lyrically it is suspect. Musically, the riff at the start is incredible and Charlie Watts' drumming is amongst the best you'll hear and that sax solo about 90 seconds in is incredible.
It's also one of the best opening songs of any album anywhere.
But yeah...suspect...
SWC's comments illustrate the ambivalence we often feel when it comes to songs like this - the clash between head and heart, perhaps? And nobody summed that more perfectly this time than Swiss Adam from Bagging Area. That's why I saved his comments till the end...
The whole concept of cancelling art is problematic isn't it? Who gets to choose what's cancelled and what isn't? We usually deplore censorship. Regimes that ban art/ music/ literature are weak and authoritarian ones that are frightened of people, race, song, culture, sex, otherness. Cancelling anything is a high handed position to take. I suppose there's a difference between organic popular cancellation and government imposed cancellation but even so, the word cancel carries an ultimate weight of no return.
Some people try to separate the artist and the art and this seems an eminently sensible position to take but even here there is a sliding scale. Gary Glitter is done and gone. Michael Jackson's songs are still played on the radio. John Cleese complains long and hard about cancel culture- usually in mass market tabloid newspapers or on the tv and comes across as a mean spirited old duffer totally out of step with the modern world. Fawlty Towers is still (largely) funny.
Morrissey holds political beliefs and has attitudes about race that are impossible to justify but I can still enjoy The Smiths. Ian Brown has uttered some ridiculous shit about Covid and vaccines. I still listen to The Stone Roses. Nick Cave's position on Israel has been problematic for me and I don't agree with his attendance at whatever royal event he attended- the coronation?- but I get a huge amount from his music.
I used to love The Who but Roger Daltrey's knobheadery about Brexit and general small mindedness plus Pete Townsend's 'issues' (ok, arrest for child pornography) have made it difficult for me to listen to The Who. Have I cancelled them? Dunno- but I don't listen to them any more (made easier by the fact that I only really like The Who from 1965- 1969). I'm sure there are other artists whose views have put me off them.
Brown Sugar is a deeply problematic song. Racist? Yes. Sexist? Yes. A glorification of slavery? Yes. All these things and more. Utterly out of date attitudes and impossible to support. Even the Stones themselves have stopped playing it and Jagger has said that he'd check himself if he found himself writing those lyrics now. Keef maintains the song is about the 'horrors of slavery' but the tone, the music and the performance would suggest that everyone's really rather enjoying themselves rather than spotlighting the appalling treatment of female slaves on American plantations. If any song deserves to be cancelled, pulled and removed from playlists, it's probably Brown Sugar.
That guitar riff though...
Thank you, Adam. This is why I organised the Cancel Culture Club. Not to spoil records for C, and certainly not to ban them... but just to sneakily get people who are much smarter than me to explain my own feelings in ways that my own humble skills would be incapable of doing.
It's Prince, of course, because he knew a thing or two about changing his name.
Here then are Ten Songs Featuring Towns Or Cities That Changed Their Names. Yep, another snappily titled Top Ten. Sadly I had to leave out the town of Fugging in Austria, which up until 2021 was known by a slightly different name...
One of the reasons they changed the name was that people kept nicking the sign.
10. Switched off the TV.
He abandoned his Television after only two albums (not counting the 1992 "let's-get-the-band- back-together-for-dollars comeback record").
Louise sent me the above image, which she'd found on the book of faces, in response to the news that David Cameron is rising from the dead, like a Marvel super-villain, ready to resume the reign of terror and destruction that led to his previous downfall. I mean, he's going to have to go some to beat completely destroying the country, but bad guys always like to think big, don't they?
Anyway, I was rather amused by the aged cultural reference, so I shared the image with my work colleagues on our Whatsapp group. Being teachers, they're a bunch of politically-minded so-and-sos who regularly carp on about the malevolent excesses of the Tory regime, so I figured they'd find it funny.
Only one person got the joke though. Everyone else just thought I was sharing a picture of a naked David Cameron. If they didn't think I was weird already...
In despair, I decided to consult another young person about my faux pas. So I messaged Ben.
I should also point out that a few days earlier, I'd sent Ben a disgusted message regarding the Hollywood remake of 80's TV favourite The Fall Guy, starring Ryan 'as much charisma as a plank of 2x4' Gosling in the Lee Majors role and Aaron 'Oh my god, why does this guy keep getting work?' Taylor-Johnson as Howie Munson. To say I was horrified at this desecration of my childhood is a gross understatement.
Ben replied that he'd never heard of The Fall Guy. Worse still, he was less than complimentary when I sent him a video of the opening credits featuring the classic Lee Majors-sung theme tune. Frankly, he's lucky I was still talking to him.
Rol: As a 30-something who's never seen The Fall Guy, do you understand the cultural reference in this?
Ben: David Cameron at uni with his pig-lover in the shower?
So you're not aware of Bobby Ewing in the shower and what that represents?
Dallas or Dynasty? Is that the who shot JR bit?
I'm aware of these things existing in a loose form.
Or is it the this is all a dream bit?
Dallas. They killed Bobby off. He was dead for a whole series. Ratings dived, so they brought him back to life. The explanation was, yes, the previous season had all been a dream. His resurrection happened with his wife waking up and finding him in the shower.
I kinda got there with some help.
Did the ratings return?
For a while, yes. But a lot of people were pissed off that they'd watched a whole season that was just a dream.
I'm sure I had my dinner watching something on TV There's not, I think, a single episode of Dallas that I didn't see
Thanks though. You answered my question about how well this would be understood by a young person.
Hate to break it to you, but as I'm in my mid 30s, I'm not sure I class as a "young person".
You'll always be a young person to me.
Someone asked me, "Why is youth Wasted on the rude and uncouth? Blinded on cheap vermouth A would be poet in Duluth Long on time, short in the tooth Fantasies of John Wilkes Booth Come back when you're younger
See you had that, but I grew up in the early days of the internet where shock tactics were the shared things that are now cultural flagstones. Ask anyone my age what "goatse", "lemon party" or "meat spinner" are and you'll get nostalgia for an internet before it became corporatised. None of those are pleasant things but it represents the wider culture of the internet as a mysterious entity prior to it becoming standardised. The rise of these standardised sites can be attributed to places like blogger, Tumblr and myspace who sought tohomogenise how the internet looked and was consumed before the rise of the true current social media spaces. You just got shit telly.
That last line is a complete reduction, but I felt it hit as a good punchline.
Blow up your TV Throw away your paper Go to the country Build you a home Plant a little garden Eat a lot of peaches Try an' find Jesus on your own
I won't. But I feel like I've just seen a Lynchian glimpse behind a curtain I don't want to look behind.
Was it like the dark web?
I think dark web is exaggerating quite a bit, yet excessive gore, violence and stuff of a sexual nature was pretty much everywhere. But it wasn't for consuming content the way we use the internet now, it was just for shock. If that makes sense?
So people weren't hunting it down for kicks, it was just randomly placed to cause upset?
I spent a lot of time online in the early days of the Web. Why didn't I stumble across this shit?
The websites were passed along like folklore. The internet wasn't monetised at that point so there was no impetus to drive traffic.
Was this widely shared by your whole generation though? I wonder if it's comparable to the collective consciousness from my generation regarding the TV shows of our youth, even the ones we didn't watch.
Because there was far less choice, there was much more shared cultural knowledge back then.
These things were the early version of memes. Links sent to others in msn messenger, written on each other's schoolbooks, typed into a friend's computer in the computer room at school (before siteblocking).
Because you have to remember, my generation is the one that grew up in the world you mentioned whilst also growing up in the early days of widespread internet, meaning the habits from the former informed the way we used the internet.
Sam's generation however will experience a curated internet.
Not quite the same then. I'm consistently surprised by the lack of a shared cultural knowledge by today's teenagers. Like how many of them don't know who Homer Simpson or Indiana Jones or Darth Vader are. I know they're all older generation examples, but I knew about John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart when I was a kid. Everything is fractured now, little pockets of knowledge but very few shared cultural touchstones.
Look, the internet now is curated along two distinct lines...
1) a company wishing to monopolise visits to the internet (i.e the platform).
2) content curated by the ways in which Sam will view the internet ( i.e. logarithms).
I feel like you're just sending me pages from your thesis now.
My last point ties directly into yours though: the internet now is so curated towards likes and viewing habits (down to how long on average we stay on a single image or video, so as to then recommend more of the same to keep us engaged) that a level of shared culture isn't possible anymore.
Is this why nobody reads my blog?
The internet doesn't show you content about what you *think* you want to see anymore. It gives you stuff that you *do* engage with (positively or negatively). It needs you to stay engaged. And the data which it uses to provide you with this is based on hundreds of thousands of hours of billions of people's viewing habits.
So whilst it sounds utopian, it's not driven by enjoying, just engaging. You take a second to read how terrible that Daily Mail headline is on your Google news feed? You engaged with it. It'll show you more. But it needs time to work out why you engaged with it. So it shows you soft politically biased things in that area to see if you engage with those. If you do, you might get some alt-right stuff. It knows you're male based on how you view and men engage with alt right stuff more than women. Not engaging with that stuff enough, it'll move to testing your engagement with things until it finds where you are.
This is how so many young men end up engaged with alt right stuff. Once they begin, it'll start flooding their feeds with it. Cars - sports cars - luxury cars - alpha mindset - Andrew Tate. Comic books - whining about certain aspects - woke comics nowadays - anti woke - Andrew Tate. And it's not set up to force people into certain beliefs, but because of how we engage with the internet and the "need" to monetise it, it's the conclusion.
Populist beliefs have become far stronger across the western world since the late 90s and increase year on year. That means it gets engagement so is viewed more. And on the internet, views = money, so notoriety and fame are the same thing. As a result, people who want to be successful express extreme opinions. Those get views. People want to make money, so they replicate those views.
By no means am I saying Sam is destined to end up with those views. You're too decent a person and I know he'll learn from you. But he will be exposed to it. A lot of it. Without ever searching for it. His friends will. And some will identify with it. And people are trying to blame particular websites or certain heads of the hydra instead of dealing with having to have difficult conversations with their kids.
Is this why nobody reads my blog?
It's more that it's not monetisable, so the people who do read it or come across it will always be a small group, but they will have a level of interest in the subject matter that equals yours.
As soon as I heard today's closing tune on an old car compilation, I knew I had to feature Deputy Dawg. However, the character I pictured in my head was not the one I discovered when I put his name into google. Turns out, I was confusing D-Dawg with Huckleberry Hound... making me wonder if I've ever even seen a Deputy Dawg cartoon. Having watched a couple on the tube of you, I'm not sure I've missed anything. Feel free to tell me otherwise if you've got the DVD box set at home and posters on your bedroom wall.
Still, it's the music that matters, and DD's name crops up in a surprising amount of pop songs, besides the one I knew. Let's kick off with the Woolly Bully people...
When I saw the band name below and the album title "Kill Us All", I imagined a very different sound to the one I actually heard. Give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised...
I'm not sure if anyone will have guessed today's winner, but it was obvious to me. How could I not love a song that goes thus...?
No one in the world ever gets what they want
And that is beautiful
Everybody dies frustrated and sad
And that is beautiful
TMBG songwriter John Linnell insists this isn't a depressing song, saying he made the words up just to fit the tune. Which probably explains this...
When you are alone
You are the cat, you are the phone
You are an animal
The words I'm singing now
Mean nothing more than "meow" to an animal
Wake up and smell the cat food
In your bank account
But don't try to stop the tail
That wags the hound
Meanwhile, the video is anything but depressing, as the band run around with rolls of carpet sticking out the tops of their heads... you won't see Ed Sheeran doing that, will you? Oh, and Deputy Dawg is in there too. Just stick with it...
This is a rather blurry photograph of Shakira. Despite being a multi-million-selling global pop superstar, Shakira was still amazed the first time she saw a phone with a camera in it. We take such things for granted these days, but just over 20 years ago, the very idea was revolutionary.
You may wonder why Shakira is pictured atop a post featuring songs about The Middle East. Well, it turns out that The Queen Of Latin Music is of Middle Eastern descent - her father's family hail from Lebanon. And Rami Malik, pictured yesterday, is American of Egyptian descent. In case you think I just throw these things together.
Here are ten songs about countries and cities in the Middle East...
