Oh the summer of 1973! I would be going to university that autumn. I had a summer job - ask your grandfather - and there was a crowd of us, made up mostly of boys from my old school and girls from my sister's school. We passed for legal drinking age, and met in one or other of handful of pubs in Twickenham and Richmond, usually on warm Friday evenings - and all the Friday evenings were warm then. We were all young and pretty and clever and south-west London middle-class, who lived with both parents in houses with gardens.
And we all knew the album and its hit single.
What we didn't know, because we were suburban kids, not real hipsters, was that Muldaur had been part of the early-1960's Manhattan folk scene. She hung out with Bob Dylan and Joan Baez and the rest of them. Whereas most of those guys had albums and reputations by the mid-1960's, it was eleven years after Dylan released his first album that Muldaur released hers in 1973. His sold 5,000 copies in the first year and broke even, hers hit number 3 in the Billboard charts and contained a Magic Single: Midnight at the Oasis.
The solo is by Amos Garett. Steve Lukather gives it props. It has a double-bend - he bends up two notes, then back one, then returns to the straight string. And makes it sound like a throwaway thing, but it isn't.
It reached 21 in the singles chart in the UK, but everyone had heard it and knew it. Everyone had heard the album. We thought it was good, a little sentimentally country, but oddly charming.
Now it is immortal. A legend. Amos Garett gets into guitar heaven because of one solo. Muldaur needs six words to explain who she is to a total stranger: "I sung Midnight at the Oasis". It's the same kind of immortality given to mathematicians who get their name on a theorem. Remembered not for a solid body of work produced over a lifetime, but for one brilliant insight that everyone uses.
Muldaur put the song on the album as an afterthought.
There are as many emotions and memories buried in a song as we have when we first heard it, or were playing it everyday. "Midnight" is too much its own thing, for me the flavour and the emotional memories are in the other songs, especially "Any Old Time", ""Walkin' One and Only", and "Mad Mad Me" - but really there isn't one weak song on the album.
Go stream it. Especially if you are young, it's sunny, and you are about to go to university.
Watch or read anything about guitar amps and pedals, and you will come away with the impression that to get that juicy edge-of-breakup tone, the amp must be TURNED UP WAY TOO LOUD. No volume, no tone, as if it's some obscure kind of virtue.
Heresy incoming.
A valve amp is a very inefficient way of getting breakup tones. An electrical engineering undergraduate, tasked with that for a final-year project, would not design a Marshall Plexi circuit. They would design an effects pedal.
There. Now You Know.
Breakup-crunch-distortion happens because the shape of the waves making up the signal changes. That shape does not change back if the signal is attenuated later. The voltage level changes, but the shape doesn't. In fact, the more attenuation is applied, the more the sound of the signal is dominated by the effects produced by the changed shape. This is why a neat crispy at (say) 25W turns into an ungodly fizz when we turn the power selector to (say) 0.5W, or even when we turn the Effect Level of the pedal / effect block too far down.
Now I assume you have a) an actual pedal board, or b) an effects processor that lets you move effects blocks around in the chain.
B1) Put the drive / distortion pedal in at the start of the chain. Put the pedal controls at noon. Or wherever you like them.
B2) Follow it with a simple EQ pedal. Turn that down (be prepared for -15dB or more) until the volume is within your limits.
B3) Now crank the drive / distortion pedal to taste, leaving the Effect Level around the middle. Tame the volume by adjusting the EQ volume.
B4) On the Helix I can put the EQ and the drive pedal on the same stomp switch. So when I turn it off, I get the base clean sound, and when I turn it on, I get both in at the same time. If you can do the same, it adds a little more flexibility.
However, we're going to do one thing first.
We need to make sure that your amplifier has a clean sound you can live with. Owners of amps that cost less than about £1,000 will appreciate this.
A1) Set the guitar tone pots to 5. Pickup selector in the middle. We're dialling in the tone on the amp, not the guitar.
A2) No pedals. Clean signal path. All tone buttons and switches on the amp to OFF, and EQ's at 12:00. No pre-amp gain.
A3) Sit with your head at the same level as the speaker and directly in front of it, or you will not hear frequencies over about 2kHz. You want to hear about the same thing that a mic in the middle of the speaker would.
A4) Juggle the guitar and amp volumes until the amp sounds open and clean, and the neighbours are not calling the Police. Make sure the volume pots have the same setting. We want any changes to the guitar controls to vary the basic tone, not lose it.
A5) Play a simple phrase through the amp and listen carefully. What don't you like about the sound? For example, the 12" cube lower-power portable amps - Supros, Blues Jnr and the like - often sound boxy. The Katana without its DSP sounds like someone wrapped a wet towel round the speaker, and even with its DSP, with humbuckers, the base sound is darker than the Essex countryside when all the UFOs have switched their lights off.
A6) Put a 10-band (or more, but not less) EQ at the end of the signal chain, right before the amp.
A7) Whatever it is you don't like, it will be caused by a surplus or deficiency of a fairly narrow range of frequencies: experiment with the 10-band EQ or whatever you are using until that quality of sound goes away. Easier said than done. Expect to be using 10dB+ changes in places, we're not talking tweaks.
DO NOT TOUCH THE GUITAR OR AMP CONTROLS during this process.
One test is to play a scale across the fretboard with as even a pick stroke as you can. You should not be aware of a change of volume as you cross from one string to the next, and nor should the texture of the sound change. If the 6th string is crisp, the 1st string should be as well.
If the amp is too dark, increase the gain on the 2kHz and above bands. If the amp is too bright, decrease the gain on the higher frequency bands. Increasing the higher frequencies usually increases the definition of the notes, decreasing it makes the notes sound rounder and less distinct.
Another test is to play along with a backing track from You Tube or a streaming service. What sounds okay on its own may sound too muddy against other instruments - unless you really like treble, when it may sound too bright.
It's a hack. It's going to work better on some amps and worse on others. There are a lot of Katanas in the world, and it works on mine.
I cannot stress the "listen carefully" bit. I wanted something close to a Fender sound. When I listened over headphones to a demo of the Vibro Champ, which was kind of what I was after, I realised that it was not sparkly at the top, as I had thought - that was an artefact of the laptop speakers. Also it had more low-end thump than I thought.
You're welcome.
h/t You Tuber Adjustable Bias. His video is excellent: he explains a lot of things about how amps and pedals work that other people don't. My B-hack is a modified version of his volume control trick.
Should I sign the petition to repeal the Online Safety Act? After all, the thing was more or less written to order for the Carnegie Foundation, who have investments in facial recognition technology.
Everyone in the business knew the date, had their PR and stunts lined up, and let everything fly on Friday 1st August. It has given us the leading candidate for PR Puppet of the Year, Peter Kyle, who has had to utter the line "Register your age now, and protect a child". The man is either shameless, or has been crying in the shower every evening.
But I digress.
Age-related laws are nothing new. There's one that forbids the sale of alcohol to under-18's. It relies on the judgement of shop staff and keeps no records. It works as well as anything will. The shop staff look at me and decide if I'm old enough as much as they look at the kid in front of me and decide he isn't. But the process is friction-free, fast, and leaves no records. Facial age-estimation software is no different from shop staff giving us the once-over. Except the software is slower and keeps records.
I am all for preventing children from seeing pornography, beheading videos, extreme content from the Left, Right, Misandrist, Misogynist, Manosphere, and Womansphere, also jihadi videos, bomb-making instructions, pro-ana, self-harm, pro-bulimea material, and anything else of that ilk. Add in the brain-dead but insidious "trends" on TikTok / Instagram and other social media I haven't heard of. It's too damn easy for kids to find, by intention or accident, this stuff, and they don't have the filters to handle it. (They don't even know that much of what they see on social media sites is made in collaboration with the social media company's marketing people: heck, there are adults who still don't know that. MySpace did it first, and every social media site has done it since.)
The operators of the major hosting sites have proved over the past years that they cannot vet every single upload consistently and in a timely manner. Also that they do not want to be "publishers" responsible for selecting material. And nobody wants to use blacklists or whitelists - for many reasons. So age verification it is.
If the introduction of this Act was supposed to gather public support, it failed. It would have been the worst product launch since New Coke. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/about-us/history/new-coke-the-most-memorable-marketing-blunder-ever
But the purpose of the product launch was not to get support. It was to make it look as if the Government and Ofcom were Doing Something Tough about the disastrous effects of allowing people under 18 to access the cesspits of the Internet. Hence the apparent delusional grandiosity of claiming that its regulations applied to any website in the world - which is nonsense, and Ofsted knows it. UK law applies in the UK and one or two dependent territories. No-one else needs to give a damn, unless they have a treaty of some kind.
The seeming diplomatic faux pas of sending e-mails directly to American site operators threatening penalties, something that should be done through official channels which would return the answer "Nuts", is about educating MPs, activists and "concerned citizens" about the limits of jurisdiction.
The preposterous suggestion of using NI numbers, driving licenses, passports or bank details as age-verification is there to confuse those who don't read the manual. And it's more mis-direction aimed at the activists.
(Solid explanation by US lawyer. Worth listening to.)
All the "the Government is out to restrict free speech / monitor your every breath and click" articles and videos that poured onto You Tube? The commentators may as well have been paid by Ofcom's PR department, since all they did was spread F(ear), U(ncertainty) and D(espair).
Is age verification a mechanism of censorship? No. The OSA requires age-verification for certain content, it does not impose not a restriction on hosting that content. Is age verification intended to reduce casual browsing for pornography? Of course it is. Will it have a chilling effect on what site hosts will accept if they want to avoid age-verification? Of course. Does Mumsnet need age verification? Ofcom would not dare. Will Ofcom pick on harmless sites with twenty-four subscribers and weekly views in the high 90's? Naturally. Is this going to turn into another farce? Of course.
The civic dangers are not in age verification.
One is that Left-wing governments and their apparatchiks take to surveillance, censorship and super-injunctions like ducks take to water, and Comrade Starmer's Supreme Soviet is just one such. Mission creep will afflict the OSA for sure.
Today's Left-Wing / Liberal / Internationalist governments have a habit of criminalising behaviour they find inconvenient. Rather than try to solve the social or economic problem causing that behaviour, they criminalise any criticism of the consequences of their failure to solve it. Anything they do not like, instead of asking why people do it, they criminalise, like a bunch of old codgers muttering "there ought to be a law against it". Except the government are the old codgers, but with less life-experience. This problem can only be solved at the next General Election, and you know what you have to do. So do it.
What does a poor boy do? The OSA lists a number of ways of age-verifying, of which only one is acceptable: facial age estimation. The face estimation service makes a judgement and passes it back to the site that made the request. The site (should) make a record that the person attached to the username / e-mail is over 18. It does not get a copy of your face, and the age-estimator has to delete the image within seven days.
Look carefully and there is nothing to stop you using anonymous user names and e-mail aliases. The phrase "your e-mail address" does not have an official meaning - you may have several e-mail addresses for different purposes. Age verification is another one of those. So if anyone hacks that, they get nothing else, and if they hack your regular gmail (say) they won't see the age verification activity.
Inconvenient but not intrusive.
This is yet another type of data to be hacked, sold, and distributed all over the place. Almost surely it will be. How else do you think the age-verifiers are making money? If you're not the paying customer, you're the product being sold. I get there are people who don't like the idea that other people know anything about them. Many people are private, and many are surrounded by a**holes who don't know when to stay schtum. This can be a deeply-held feeling and I'm not going to Scully anyone who has it.
So I'm not signing. Age verification always was coming. The long game is that Google and Meta take most of it on, streamline the process, and make even more money from it. The current situation is just an interim solution.
(Yep - I back-posted this. It took a while to get my thoughts straight. Edited 19/8/2025.)
I have not read an Elena Ferrante novel, but I have seen S1 of My Brilliant Friend,
and I have read a Natalia Ginzburg novel,
so I'm good with Contemporary Italian Literature in Translation. I baulked at Ferrante when, opening one of her novels at random, I ran across a sentence along the lines of "Mary was upset that Thomas disapproved of the way that Marcel treated Angela after hearing about the way her parents had snubbed Toni and Loius". Too many people in one sentence. I just can't track that many people, I found myself saying, without really knowing what I meant.
It wasn't until I was well underway with George Gissing's novel The Nether World
that I realised what I meant. Gissing wrote Grub Street, which is about writers and journalists, so writers and journalists love it and that's the book "everyone" has read, but he wrote a whole lot more besides, and from an overview, with more interest in describing aspects of the wider society than, say, Henry James. He's not Dickens, but then no-one is, except maybe J B Priestly on a good day.
The Nether World is about the poor in Clerkenwell and the surrounds. Everyone is poorly-dressed, in and out of work, hungry, living with two other families in one flat in a noisome tenement or multi-story house, surrounded by children, dropping in at the pub, speaking in a very similar manner with a limited vocabulary, doing piece-work in the garment trade, paying rents that take up much of their earnings, and there's a nice line to that working women have always looked down on stay-at-home-mums . ... and so on. It's hard to tell them apart, or at least I found it so. Gissing was a capable novelist and a proficient writer by the standards of the time, and maybe it was a deliberate effect to make a point: to the middle-class, the poor look alike. Whichever, I had to keep checking up who was who, and I could not summarise any of them for you now.
Because I couldn't track the characters.
As we read a novel, or watch a film or play, we build up a list of characters and facts about them. Here's the pseudocode:
If Passage.Text.Contains(Name) then
If Not Character(Name).Exists then Character.Create(Name)
Character(Name).AddFact(Passage.Text)
End if
It's no problem for a computer, but if the last time a character appeared was sixty pages ago (say four days ago in your reading schedule), checking through your memory for it may take some time, or fail. Also updating each of the characters' fact-list in one of those many-person sentences may take time or fail.
That's what I mean by "tracking characters".
A number of things make it easier to do this.
First and obviously, give each of your characters a unique name, unless the plot is going to hang on a confusion.
Second, keep a character's name consistent: Detective-Constable Stephen Jones must be DC Jones, DC Stephen Jones, and can only be Stephen if he's off-duty and the context is very clear. Never call him 'Stephen" in one sentence and 'DC Jones' in another - if there is more than one 'Stephen' then the name-tracker will take the first one it finds and add the fact to that character, which might not be the right one. Gissing breaks this rule all the time and sometimes in the same paragraph, and I found it hard to get the characters established in memory.
Third, reduce the use of pronouns - 'he', 'him', 'she', 'her'. Whereas proper names have global scope - refer to the same character throughout the novel / trilogy / series - pronouns have a local scope, somewhere between one sentence and a half-page paragraph. Used over a number of sentences, in which other people's names may occur, the name-tracker may get confused as to whom the pronoun refers. As in "John asked Andrew to help. John and Andrew hefted the gun into the river. He brushed his hands and started walking back up the bank." 'He' most likely refers to John, but it might mean Andrew. If in doubt, use character names rather than pronouns and that will keep the name compiler straight.
Fourth, give each character something we can remember them by, even if it is to remind us that they are un-memorable. It might be the way they speak, or what they talk about, it need not be some physical characteristic, though it might be.
I saw Bert Stern's movie when I was seventeen. It was playing at the Screen on Baker Street. It didn't turn me on to any more jazz that I already knew about, but I made sure to look for a music credit to J S Bach and a cello, and that was how I discovered the Bach Cello Suites. There were no music videos back then, and only a handful of music festival documentaries. What was the name of that movie? Oh. Yes. Woodstock. Stern's movie looked beautiful, even if the clips of Sal Salvador's guitar playing, and quite a few of the audience reactions throughout the film, bore no resemblance to what was on the soundtrack, but hey.
(This says it's the full film. YT doesn't seem to have many shorter clips.)
The film is about the 1958 Newport Jazz Festival, the fifth since its founding in 1954. The first one was a minor success, held in a casino. In 1955, Miles Davis played his famous "comeback set" there, and in 1956 Duke Ellington played his comeback set, during which Paul Gonsalves had them dancing in the aisles with a now legendary 27-chorus sax solo. In a smaller, simpler world, that's what it took to make a legend. Of course a young fashion photographer wanting to make his first movie before he was thirty would think of filming the 1958 Festival, especially since the America's Cup races would be on at the same time. All those beautiful pictures of yachts and sails and sparkling blue water. The film is Kodachrome heaven. It's worth watching just for the pictures.
Two bits of background. First, there was a chunk of the American Upper Class who liked to differentiate themselves from the nouveau-riche by taking up abstract art, Stravinsky, "modern dance" and other such stuff as leaves the majority wondering what's going on. Jazz was one of the things they took up, both the more traditional stuff (cf Bing Crosby et al in High Society) and the post be-bop, cool, Third Wave, hard bop and later developments.
Second, the jazz made between about 1945 and 1965 is a man's music: hard, fast, loud, technical, requiring great skill, knowing when to follow the rules and when to bend them, and at the top level, a nerdy deep understanding of music theory. Nearly all white women, and the majority of white men, don't get it and don't like how it sounds. At the time liking jazz was a way to show that you were out of the mainstream, could dig technically demanding music and (in America) could be easy around black Americans and Jews. It wasn't a virtue signal: it was a hip-signal. You knew, you were cool. Aside from a handful of acts (Ellington, Armstrong, Paul White, Benny Goodman, for example), jazz had a limited audience.
Okay. Enter George Avkian
https://thefilmstage.com/the-history-behind-jazz-on-a-summers-day-a-landmark-concert-film/
, one of the smartest musical entrepreneurs in the business.
The story is that George Avkian "helped" Stern pick the acts for his film - many of whom were on Avakian's labels - and arranged the clearances. His choices were already famous-famous (Louis Armstrong, Mahalia Jackson) to help get the audiences in; jazz-famous (Anita O'Day, Gerry Mulligan, Thelonius Monk); or juke-box hits (believe it or not, but The Train and the River was a juke-box hit). And Chuck Berry. The background soundtrack was mostly ragtime, and, yes, we get "The Saints".
Any work of art can be interpreted in many ways. My take is that Stern wanted to make a movie, had chosen this subject, and Avakian likely recognised that the film could be a PR opportunity, not just for his acts, but for jazz. The film could present a domesticated and even upper-class face: yachts, and sparkling blue water, and kids playing, and peaceful mixed-race audiences, patrician organisers and audience members, and a guy playing Bach. Exactly the film Stern wanted to make. See? Jazz is American Music, good wholesome stuff for good wholesome people, having a fine weekend holiday. Sometimes art and business can work wonders.
The movie is on DVD and TV streaming services, and the soundtrack is on CD and sound streaming services. Well worth it.
Good God, ZE Records! There's a name from the past. Kid Creole and the Coconuts. Was Not Was. Big at the time, known only to ageing aficionados now. The E stood for Michel Estaban, who ran a (or possibly the) punk record store in Paris Les Halles in the mid-1970's. Across the road was this cute 18-year old girl who was living with her uncle and aunt. He tied a message on her bicycle, and she visited him in his shop.
She turned into Lizzy Mercier Descloux.
Probably sometime in the early-1980's, when record stores were a thing, I used to browse in the Virgin Megastore on New Oxford Street some lunchtimes. One day, I saw this album
and my art-work spidey senses twitched. This was going to be interesting, even if it wasn't going to be a Regularly Played. So I bought it, took it back to wherever I was renting at the time, and played it...
Sometimes you see a painting or a movie, or hear a piece of music, and it has almost nothing to do with the mainstream, and nothing to do with the academic avant garde, and you click with it immediately, even if you can't say why. You also know that the squares, the NPCs, the mainstream, and the Good People, are not going to click with it. You know that if you see it in someone else's collection, that they are not quite what they seem, even if they do not turn out to be a fellow conspirator. That is Lizzy's music. It's weird and interesting and even fun in a way that's still fresh - which cannot be said for much music that was "progressive" twenty-five years ago. There's a way in: all of it grooves, and some of it swings. She can take one phrase, and drop it here and there to make an entire song.
Lizzy and Michel moved to New York, where they got into the no wave thing, meeting Patti Smith, having an affair with Richard Hell (Lizzy, not Michel), plus all sorts of other things, and of course setting up ZE records. She bought a Jazzmaster (what else?) and started writing songs for her first album, Press Colour, was on ZE. She didn't sell a lot, except for the big-in-France hit Mais ou sont les gazelles
but enough people who worked at small record companies gave her reasonable budgets to make albums. There's a Pitchfork essay with plenty of details (which I've drawn on), and an artist's bio on ZE records courtesy of the Wayback Machine.
She left the New York scene and spent time in Africa and travelling around the world, making four other equally quirky albums on the way. She died of ovarian cancer in 2004.
Every now and then there's a revival of interest (all right, a couple of articles) in Lizzy, but it never lasts long. Because she never had The Hit. Patti Smith did - though Springsteen wrote it for her - and so did others on ZE records. But, in the words of the Adam Neely piece, have you made anyone any money, have you won anyone any awards? If the answer is NO, then the industry will... let your moment pass. Not that she gave a flying do-do.
James Bond was, in a phrase at the time, the man all men wanted to be and all women wanted to have. I have fond memories of a small book that described how to be Bond, based on what could be gleaned from the novels. It covered everything from weapons and cars to breakfast, and I learned to cook scrambled eggs because of it. James Bond is not a spy. Spies gather information. James Bond blows s**t up. He is a special forces operative, based on idealised versions of some of the men and women in the Special Operations Executive in WW2.
Bond is the forerunner of Jason Bourne and Jack Reacher. Simon Templar, created in the 1930's by Leslie Charteris, may have been a forerunner. Templar was in turn more suave and volatile than that ultimate man's man Richard Hannay from the 1910's. Stella Rimington, who should know something about spies, has a number of novels featuring Liz Carlyle which are really thriller-procedurals, and I was prompted to over-think all this by Adam Brookes' Spy Games and Stella Rimington's At Risk recently.
Both are cracking good reads, but neither is a spy novel. The English-language spy novel came from two seeds: Len Deighton's 1962 The IPCRESS File,
and John Le Carre's 1963 The Spy Who Came In From The Cold.
Neither Harry Palmer (Deighton) nor Alex Leamas (Le Carre) are anything like Bond. Leamas is a washed-up, cynical operator, and Palmer is working off a prison sentence for black marketeering while in the Army. The organisations they work for are not well-equipped military operations, but fumbling bureaucracies run by barely competent ex-public schoolboys playing little one-upmanship games. Their Russian counterparts are, by contrast, ruthless and endlessly efficient and effective, yet still the bumbling Brits win, more by the native wit of the hero than anything else. It's a vision of the UK at the time: a country ruined by war, run by amateurs, and surviving on the maverick talent of a few individuals.
Deighton says he did not intend to create an anti-hero - though casting Michael Caine decided otherwise - and none of his central characters are intended to be role models. George Smiley is a cuckold with a taste for antique books and seemingly no other pleasures, someone to avoid being at all costs.
By the 1990's both Le Carre and Deighton were writing slightly different books: less angst about the ideas of loyalty, patriotism and betrayal, more about business-like deception, double-dealing and plot twists. Who could blame either? Their earlier themes were pretty intense, and also of the time.
In the dim reaches of my memory is a remark by General Norman Schwarzkopf to the effect that the 1960's and 70's saw the US Armed Army at its lowest morale and readiness, full of "embittered drunks", and his story is of how his generation of general officers brought it back to a decent condition. My guess is that much the same could be said of many of the institutions of the West, from the intelligence organisations, through the universities, to many private-sector companies. The socio-economic circumstances that made the disillusioned spies of Deighton and Le Carre passed - the recovery started in the 1980's, as did the polarisation of Western countries into their public (left-wing) and private (non-political) sectors - and the spy novel faded away
Sales figures alone mean we must acknowledge the slapstick comedy of Slow Horses, which is a Le Carre tribute: barely competent people saving the world despite themselves, lead by an irascible outcast. The intelligence organisations - now called Five and Six (which is awful insider slang even if it is real) - are efficient and the technology works - except when the plot requires it to fail. Some of the staff may be pompous, creepy or miss something important, but they are only dodgy if it serves the plot, and then only in the way criminals are: they have broken a law, a technicality, not a fundamental bond of trust in their soul with their society. Le Carre's Bill Hayden was a bisexual philanderer and a traitor - to Le Carre the bixsexuality is a single remark at the end of the story, to a post-80's writer it would be a feature of story. There are women in central roles, with varying degrees of sass and snappy put-downs for any man who isn't their boss who dares patronise or ignore them. Rimington's Liz Carlyle is works too hard, is a terrible housekeeper, but a good bureaucrat, going along to get along. Adam Brookes' lady spies are keenly aware of status and fight for theirs.
There is and has been a continuing campaign of treachery and treason in all Western countries since the 1980's, the trahison des clercs whose values have departed too far from those of the ordinary working man and woman, who regard taxpayers as mere economic fodder for their projects, and voters as sheep to be manipulated as needed. Sadly, Five and Six do not work for the taxpayer and the voter and the NHS patient... they work for the traitors.
I'm too old and too slow to turn that into some kind of spy story. Maybe one of you young whipper-snappers might give it a shot?
