Rock and Roll Stories #78 - How hard can it be to write a few songs and play em to a few mates?

Pic courtesy of  plainorpan.com/tag/guitar-chords/

This is where it all started for me. Well that is not entirely true, I never bought this edition, owned a copy or even saw one at the time, but every young punk rocker knew about it. Sniffin' Glue was the primal punk fanzine, edited by the legendary Mark Perry  The ethos of punk was that you didn't need to be Jimi Hendrix to get a band together and make great music. You just needed to know a few chords and off you went. 

When I saw the Ramones in 1977, I knew what I wanted to do with my life. I got into punk and all everyone said was "you just need to learn a few chords on the guitar and you can get a band together. My sister had a Columbus Les Paul copy and my brother had a copy of "Play in a day" by Bert Weedon (in 1977, the only guitar tuition book). I got it and started to try and play the chords. The first song? When the Saints go marching in. The second, the rather racist ditty "The old folks at home". Mark P put easy chords in Sniffin' glue. Bert Weedon put difficult chords (for me) such as F in. As I didn't really want to play "When the Saints go Marching in", I moved straight onto the "Old folks at home".  I didn't really bother to read the lyrics, I just spent hours trying to strum the chords. I'd never heard the song, which didn't help. Now, I never start to learn a song until I've got the melody and structure in my head. It may sound pretty basic, but I had no clue.

My band mate Pete told me that the chords A, E and G were easier to play, and had been on the front of Sniffin' glue. The second song we wrote was called "Political warning". It started with me strumming the intro to "The old folks at home" for a couple of bars. We then stopped and Pete screams "Politics, it's OK for the old folks at home" and we went into and  E A G progression. The lyrics were a diatribe against everytthing the we saw was going on that was wrong in Britain. The Labour government of Jim Callaghan was in its dying days, Thatcher was leader of the opposition, but it seemed unlikely (to me) that she'd win. Pete and I believed that old people had it cushy. We had mass unemployment. the country was going down the pan, the National Front were pushing racism (which we fundamentally opposed), and we felt that as the Pistols had said "There is no future, in Englands dreaming". It is almost funny, if it wasn't tragic, that young people today feel the same. I thought I'd never own a house or have a decent job in 1979 when the band formed. To me, the band was the only way out of the mess I saw myself to be in. 

When we were writing our first songs, in late 1978/early 1979, they were very nihilistic, but accurataty summed up the way we felt. But we passionately believed that we could put a great band together. How hard could it be? Pete bought a bass guitar, I bought an amp and we sat in my bedroom every night practising and writing songs. The first challenge was to get a drummer. We went to see The Fall at the Electric Ballroom and met Dave Edwards and his girlfriend Mandy Spokes. We met a few times and we had our first reheasal on 14th Feb 1979. By then, we had seven or eight songs. We thought that it would be simple to get them into shape to do a gig. We started frantically rehearsing. Dave was older than us and had a job. Although Dave was keen, he was a complete novice. He'd not had lessons. The joke was that he only knew two beats, which we called Dave beat 1 and Dave beat 2. We'd just tell him which of these to play and what tempo to play them at. 

All of the songs were pretty dodgy and we were pretty bad at playing them. We decided that Pete should sing all of the songs. Pete was mates with Charlie Harper of the UK Subs and we blagged a gig supporting them in Derby. We also blagged an interview with a fanzine called Xpert-I. We felt it was happening. Three weeks before the gig, disaster struck. Dave and Mandy were returning from a rehearsal and three idiots ambusged Dave and threw him through the window of WH Smiths, then when he ran away, they threw him through the window of a Jeweller. Dave was seriously injured. The gig was off. We did the interview with Xpert-I. Pete was drunk and obnoxious, and the interview was a hatched job "The only thing more immature than their music is their sense of humour". The band fell apart. 

At the time, I felt that we'd been deluded. We'd all fallen out big time. I desperately wanted to be in a band, so I joined a covers band on bass (Pete had left his bass at my house and as we weren't talking, he hadn't come to get it). The band were playing songs like "Teenage Kicks" by The Undertones and "Help" by The Beatles. It was the last thing I wanted to do, but I was playing with people who could play and it sounded a million times better. At Xmas, I bumped into Pete. We agreed to give it another go, but do it properly. We junked all of the songs and started again, I quit the covers band. It had been a huge learning curve, but I actually had the tools I needed to make The False Dots a proper band. By the end of the year, Pete had gone and we had pretty good line up. 

How hard was it? A million times harder than I dreamed when we started. You have to just keep plugging away. But the band did. And our next gig is on Friday 16th October at Nambucca on the Holloway Road, near Archway. It should be a blast. 

On Monday I was a guest on the Griff Griffiths show on Rock Radio UK. I told a couple of stories about the early days of the False Dots and played a couple of tracks from our new album. Have a listen

www.mixcloud.com/GriffGriffiths/griff-rocks-280926-roger-tichborne-andy-last-jen-brown-o-drag-mp3/

Is Strawberry Fields forever by the Beatles about AI before it was invented?

 I happened to hear Strawberry Fields foreverby The Beatles earlier. I can recall hearing the first time it. It was the first time it was played on UK Radio. It was a double A-Side with Penny Lane. Radio 1 built it up for ages, plugging the new Beatles single, which was a major event. It was a real change of direction for them (Much influenced by LSD). I think it is the only Beatles track I can remember hearing getting such a build up, although I was about 4 at the time, so why would I?

After hearing it, I looked up the lyrics online. Something struck me that I've never thought of before. Here is the first chorus and verse

Let me take you down

'Cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields

Nothing is real

And nothing to get hung about

Strawberry Fields forever

Living is easy with eyes closed

Misunderstanding all you see

It's getting hard to be someone

But it all works out

It doesn't matter much to me

When I first heard the song, I was intrigued by the idea of Strawberry fields. We grew strawberries in the garden and picking them was one of the highlights of the summer. Years later I discovered that the song was about a mental hospital. I realised that the song is perfect summary of social media and the way all and sundry are using AI to generate images to indulge what ever fantasies or delusions they cling to. In a bizarre sort of way, AI bring psychotic delusions to life - NOTHING IS REAL - when I go on Facebook and Twitter, I see all manner of posts, aliens, UFO's, Dinghys full of migrants, politicians in silly outfits - NOTHING IS REAL. Armies of people search out things that confirm their version of the truth "LIVING IS EASY WITH EYES CLOSED, MISUNDERSTANDING ALL YOU SEE - AI is the perfect tool for inventing an alternative reality. 

We are in an age when if Aliens did land on the Whitehouse lawn and invited Donald Trump on board for a cup of tea, no one would believe it.  Billionaire Elon Musk has invented a tool called GROK. On X.COM it has become the arbiter of truth. Someone posts an image and then 20 people ask GROK if it is real or just AI slop. It never really occurs to them that Grok doesn't really know. It can spot the artefacts of bad AI, but that means nothing. 

We are living in a society where you cannot trust anything on line. You can generate any image you like. You can bring dead grandparents to life. But NOTHING IS REAL. The dangerous thing is that we start to convince ourselves that it is. What really disturbed me when I thought about it, was that The Beatles correctly identified that when you can't trust anything and you start to create your own reality, you are probably losing touch with reality. 

My views on AI have been evolving rapidly over the last couple of years. I worked in IT and I worked on what we now call AI systems before the term had been invented. Back then it was called decision support software. We had rather crude tools to automate writing of code. We had automated test tools. I have never really been to concerned about any of it. My view has started to change. Not because I think AI itself is daangerous. AI won't destroy mankind. However I have worried since I was old enough to worry that mankind would destroy itself. AI simply makes this far easier. It also opens up the door for new ways for us to destroy ourselves. 

My one hope is that like many IT fads I've seen over the years, we get bored with it all. Dodgy pictures and bad music (known as AI slop) are already egetting tiresome and boring. The first AI generated track I heard, but together by a mate's son for his birthday was quite good fun. Now there are thousands of the bloody things and they are mostly rubbish. Someone played me two tracks and asked me if I could spot the one that was AI, I guessed correctly, but I explained that as I didn't really think either track was any good, It was a pointless exercise. AI is actually quite good at identifying the lowest common denominator and making something vaguely passable. I am sure it could mimic styles of the most complex avant garde Jazz and fool experts. But would it ever make anthing groundbreaking? I doubt it. 

Which brings me back to that day, the 17th February 1967, when I was four. Strawberry fields forever was a complete change of direction, the lyrics about an asylum were like nothing anyone had ever heard. I guarantee that if you gave AI every track the Beatles had made before that and said "Generate a song that will be their next single" it would never make that. It would probably rehash Please Please me or something. Which for me is rather reassuring.

Anyway, here is a little ditty I wrote. There is NO AI in this! And until humans stop loving a party, there will always be hope! And you can join us for some real music at Nambucca on the Holloway Road for Free on Friday 16th October for some real music and real life fun.

I am not a fan of the Labour Party but Andy Burnham is right on adult social care and he should be supported on this across the board

Yesterday, Andy Burnham laid out his plans for adult social care. His big idea is a system that is similar to the NHS, ie free at the point of access. Whilst no one really knows how this works, how it will be funded or when it will actually come into force, I think he has to be applauded for grasping a nettle that all of our leaders of differents shades have been to scared to address. I doubt anyone was too surprised at the stock response of the Tories etc which, as ever, is "Labour is spending other peoples money". The trouble with this, is that we are a society and we should, if we are to succeed, look after the most vulnerable people in it. I have not been affected by the issue personally. My father died aged 69, whilst still relatively fit and healthy, of an anuerism that was totally unexpected. My Mother died aged 83, although in terrible health, she lived at home and paid her own care costs.. But I know dozens of people who are having a nightmare with adult social care. For me, the concept of seeing a parent degenerate into a state of dementia and total reliance is the worst nightmare imagineable. I have friends who have lost parents to dementia, but the parents live on for years. It shreds the family. Assets are sold to pay for care and there all manner of things I've seen and heard that are totally horrific. One of my best friends has virtually put his life on hold to care for his elderly mum, who still lives in the family house, but is in a world of her own. I've no idea how Andy Burnhams plans would help him, but I am sure that having proper support for people in that position would be a game changer. 

There have been howls that "Labour is ending the triple lock" to pay for it. I am 64, so I guess that if they do, that will affect me. However, if I had the choice between a bit more cash in my pension, or the alleviation of my childrens worries about when I lose my marbles, I know what I'd choose. Of course I may drop dead before then, but hey ho, I believe in society. I believe that we should look after people properly. I did hear one commentator state that all that Burnhams plans would do is line the pockets of private care home operators. I was bemused by this comment. If people need care in private homes, as that is all that is available, the pockets will be lined whoever pays the bill, but a national system, will mean families do not face hardship. 

What should be happening is that the likes of Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage need to address the problem, not just criticise Burnhams proposed solution. I am open to the idea that there may be better ways to do this and fund this, but pretending there is no problem is plain dishonest. If you are a Tory or a Reform voter, you are probably in the demographic that is most likely to need adult social care, so you should be lobbying your own party for answers. If the answer is "We don't care about families thrown into turnoil at the challenges of adult social care" then shame on them all

Labour Nationalises Thameslink and cuts services to Mill Hill Broadway

There are times in my life when I wonder why I bother? Last week, our Labour MP David Pinto-Duschinsky posted this on Facebook "I’ve just met with Govia Thameslink (GTR) at Mill Hill Broadway Station to raise constituents’ concerns about the timetable changes they are bringing in. The new timetable will see the frequency of off peak trains reduced. GTR say it will improve service reliability but I’m not happy with the changes, nor with the fact the residents were not consulted before they were made. I pushed them pretty hard in the meeting. It’s not clear I can get them amended, but I’ll continue to push for residents’ voices to be listened to" 

I have taken a keen interest in the running of Thameslink for most of my adult life. I commuted on the line every day for 37 years. When I started, they were still running a diesel service. That became the BedPan line. Then Thameslink opened up and trains started running south of the river. John Major privatised the railways, which proved to be a disaster. Under British Rail, Mill Hill had eight trains an hour at peak times. A succession of private operators never achieved this. Labour quite rightly pointed to the shambolic way many private operators run the railway, and came up with a cunning scheme to renationalise the network. GTR, the company that ran the service was recently taken back into public ownership. I had assumed that this would see more investment and better services as profits which were going to private shareholders were reinvested back into the network. It seems that I was wrong. The new owners, answerable to the Labour government, have taken no time to start cost cutting, trimming services. 

This is absolutely ridiculous. London needs better, not worse public transport. Thameslink should operate a regular, frequent service that passengers can rely on. The claim that cutting services increases reliability is utter nonsense. You improve reliability by maintaing and investing in the infrastructure, employing enough staff, particularly drivers, to run the service and by having systems that correctly inform passengers when things go wrong. If there are less trains, it just means that you wait even longer for another one, when they cancel one. 

Renationalisation of rail was a key pledge of Sir Keir Starmer's Labour party. They didn't say that this would lead to a worse service. It almost feels like they are deliberately annoying people so that there is no clamour for more widespread nationalisation of other failing industries such as water. I can see no other sensible reason for service cuts. 

Now Mr Pinto-Duschisky has been MP since Labour won in 2024. He has a majority of seven votes, I believe Hendon is the most marginal seat in the country. I have some sage career advice for him. You may know that you have no power and the usefulness to your constituents of a chocolate teapot, but spelling it out on Facebook is not a good move. He should be banging on the door of the transport secretary and standing up for his constituents, not sitting around being fobbed off by a few members of Thameslinks middle management. 

The Premiership, not Manchester City, has ruined football

Being a Manchester City FC fan has been challenging over the last few days. Oddly, it seems to mainly be Arsenal fans having the biggest pop. Given that Arsenal entered the top flight of football amid all manner of accusations of cheating and corruption in 1919, there is a certain irony. What is definitely unquestionable is that the "saviour of Arsenal" Henry Norris, pumped a huge amount of money into the club, moving it from Woolwich to North London, where he could make more cash. I merely mention this, to demostrate that the conept of 'financial doping' is nothing new. 

The accusation is that Manchester City have ruined football by dodgy financial dealings. Last Sunday, I went to the Etihad and saw City beat Sunderland 5-3, in what was one of the best games of football I've ever seen. Afterwards, I chatted to some great lads from Sunderland in the pub, who agreed. They also said they enjoyed the banter they had with Erling Haaland.

Sunderland get huge home crowds. They have a dedicated fan base and have built a good team. However, the chances of them, or anyone else doing a "Leicester" any time soon seem remote.  Have a look at the top three for the ten years before and after the advent of the Premiership

	YEAR	CHAMPIONS	RUNNERS UP	THIRD PLACE
84	1982–83	Liverpool[e] (14)	Watford (1)	Manchester United[b] (3)
85	1983–84	Liverpool[f][e] (15)	Southampton (1)	Nottingham Forest (1)
86	1984–85	Everton[d] (8)	Liverpool (7)	Tottenham Hotspur (7)
87	1985–86	Liverpool[b] (16)	Everton (7)	West Ham United (1)
88	1986–87	Everton (9)	Liverpool (8)	Tottenham Hotspur (8)
89	1987–88	Liverpool (17)	Manchester United (9)	Nottingham Forest (2)
90	1988–89	Arsenal (9)	Liverpool[b] (9)	Nottingham Forest[e] (3)
91	1989–90	Liverpool (18)	Aston Villa (9)	Tottenham Hotspur (9)
92	1990–91	Arsenal (10)	Liverpool (10)	Crystal Palace (1)
93	1991–92	Leeds United (3)	Manchester United[e] (10)	Sheffield Wednesday (7)
Premier League (1992–present)
94	1992–93	Manchester United (8)	Aston Villa (10)	Norwich City (1)
95	1993–94	Manchester United[b] (9)	Blackburn Rovers (1)	Newcastle United (3)
96	1994–95	Blackburn Rovers (3)	Manchester United (11)	Nottingham Forest (4)
97	1995–96	Manchester United[b] (10)	Newcastle United (1)	Liverpool (3)
98	1996–97	Manchester United (11)	Newcastle United (2)	Arsenal (5)
99	1997–98	Arsenal[b] (11)	Manchester United (12)	Liverpool (4)
100	1998–99	Manchester United[i] (12)	Arsenal (4)	Chelsea (4)
101	1999–2000	Manchester United[j] (13)	Arsenal (5)	Leeds United (2)
102	2000–01	Manchester United (14)	Arsenal (6)	Liverpool[b][e][g] (5)
103	2001–02	Arsenal[b] (12)	Liverpool (11)	Manchester United (4)

What do you notice? The second and third places are what interest me most. The mix of teaams before the Premiership gives the game away. Teams like Watford, Southampton, Palace and Sheffield Weds were in with a shout. In the first year of the premiership, Norwich made it. Within five years, the small clubs had all but been squeezed out. 

This is exactly what the Premiership was designed to do. The money is funnelled towards the big clubs. The biggest change was that home clubs keep all of the home gate money. Teams like Watford previously got a third of the gate when they played the likes of Manchester United. This gave them the cash to compete. The prize money for the Premiership is also weighted towards more successful clubs

2025-26 Premier League: Total Prize Money
20.	Wolves	£117.7m
19.	Burnley	£118.1m
18.	West Ham	£128.6m
17.	Tottenham	£135.8m
16.	Nottingham Forest	£137.1m
15.	Crystal Palace	£137.5m
14.	Leeds United	£144.5m
13.	Everton	£147.7m
12.	Newcastle United	£154.5m
11.	Fulham	£155.2m

10.	Brentford	£161.5m
9.	Brighton	£161.6m
8.	Chelsea	£162.6m
7.	Sunderland	£168.2m
6.	Bournemouth	£170.5m
5.	Liverpool	£181.8m
4.	Aston Villa	£182.6m
3.	Manchester United	£191.5m
2.	Manchester City	£192.5m
1.	Arsenal	£198.7m

Again, this favours the big clubs. In short, the Premiership is designed to protect the vested interests of the big clubs and to make sure that it is almost impossible for smaller clubs to make a serious challenge. The only club in recent times to break the monopoly was Leicester. What happened to them? The 'big clubs' asset stripped them and took all of their bestplayers, Ngolo Kante went to Chelsea, Riad Mahrez went to Manchester City.

In American football, it is recognised that it is bad for the sport to have an unfair playing field, and measures are taken to try and ensure every team gets a chance. This means that it is interesting for the fans of all of the clubs and they can dream. The Premiership however was set up to be a monoculture. One of the unexpected side effects of the system that was imposed on football fans by the big four clubs (Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham) was that there was a huge amount of cash sloshing around. This attracted the attention of the likes of The Glazers, who bought Manchester United. It meant they could do leveraged takeovers and siphon off billions, whilst investing nothing. 

It all went wrong for them when Chelsea and then Manchester City were taken over by owners who wanted the club to win things, rather than being a bottomless money pit.  The reason that the owners of Arsenal and Man Utd are so anti City/Chelsea is all about the fact that it has affected their finances. Manchester United have the financial power to easily compete with City, they choose not to because they want to draw huge dividends. Arsenal are a well run club, but they are owned by another American Billionaire as an investment. 

I would be happy for City to never win another title, if we went back to a system where teams like Forest, Aston Villa, Sunderland, etc got a fair share of the cash and you'd start the season not knowing who the top three would most likely. What none of the fans of the "red cartel" admit is that it is their own fault for setting up the Premiership, allowing foreign ownership and not investing in their own clubs. If you look at City ad Chelsea, they have amazing youth academies. City's owners have given the whole of North Eastern Manchester a boost. The Glazers have done the opposite to Salford. 

There is still a lot of road left on the road the City are on with the current dispute. But if the 'red cartel' get there way, all of footballs ills will not go away. The Glazers will still be funnelling money out of the Prem, the likes of Sunderland and Palace will find it no easier to make title challenges. A far as I am concerned, the Premiership has ruined the league. That is one reason I go to Hadley FC. I go to football because I love watching football, I love being in an excited crowd and if we win its a bonus. I am not one of the trainspotter mentality fans, who measure success in titles, usually without going to matches. 

I am not too bothered how many titles City have won. If the league strips them, it doesn't change the buzz of being there, in the moment. If the boot was on the other foot and Livepool or Arsena were to be stripped of historic titles and they'd be awarded to City, it would mean nothing. As far as I am concerned, until the people who run English football start running the game for the fans of all of the clubs, rather than for a few rich owners, I personally view any adjudications they make with complete disdain. This whole thing has nothing to do with what is good for football, because if it was, they'd stop funnelling money into the pockets of a few rich clubs and make the league genuinely competetive.