09/11/2012 The Review Show

Time for the review show now on BBC Two, with Jo Whiley.

On the rock and roll ri view show tonight. Pete Townshend's

autobiography. John Lennon's letters, and a biography of Mick

Jagger. Do these books reveal anything new about 60s rock legends,

now in their seventh decade. In an attempt to balance, we give air

time to rock's sworn enemy, disco! Apparently, there is a subversive

subtext beneath the flares, platforms and glitter balls. As the

world's first record company, Columbia, acceptrates its 125th

birth day. Do record labels still have a future in the age of digital.

Finally music from ex-Strange letter, Hugh Cornwell, prepare to

rock! Joining me tonight are the music

critic, Kate Mossman, the writer and former record label boss, Palu

Morley, and lead singer of Deacon Blue, Ricky Ross. When Bob Dylan

released Chronicles, it set a new standard for the rock confessional.

Keith Richards's autobiography, Life was a pretty stuff act to

follow. Nevertheless, this summer has seen a bumper crop from Rod

Stewart, Neil Young, Prince and Leonard Cohen. We have selected

Mick Jagger, Pete Townshend, and first up, John Lennon. John

Lennon's letters have been compiled from numerous private collections

to create a unique insite into the musician's mind. He was a prolific

letter writer, it is chronological, thank you notes to fans in the

early years, and letters declaring his undying love to his first wife,

Cynthia. Other letters reveal his unease about his own fame and how

Equally member memorable are the more acidic missives to Paul

McCartney's wife Linda. I hope you realise what shit you and my other

kind and unselfish friends have laid on me and Yoko have got until

we got tolgt together. It might have been more subtle or middle-

class, we rose above it at certain times, and forgave you. It is the

least you can do for us. Linda if you don't care what I say, shut up,

let Paul write, or whatever. Ricky, let's go to you first of all,

did it reveal to you a side of John that you were previously unaware

of? No, I don't think it went that far. I enjoyed the book, though, I

have to say. I think, I'm of an age where The Beatles has meant

everything. We are still such suckers that we want to know

everything. I think it still charms you. You still open up and think

wow, that is a letter from John. The thing that I found the most

difficult thing about it, and the most frustrating thing about it is

letters from John, but you don't get the letter that he received, or

that he was replying to. So, in a sense, it is like someone on a

train on the phone. You have got that sense of which you think, I

would love to know what the reciprocol letter was like. There

is one, isn't there, when there is a letter responding to lind da --

Linda McCartney? That is the one there, it is a really interesting

period. People will have a million psychological theories about John

Lennon. He's fascinating, here is a man that signs his letters "John"

and when he gets together with Yoko it is always John and Yoko. He goes

crazy if anyone doesn't reply back to John and Yoko. That is one of

the things that comes back to the book, he always seems to have to be

part of a partnership, it is Lennon and McCartney, and then John and

Yoko. Anything stood out for you? He was writing most of his letters

because he was retired in the 70, he was writing letters to McCartney,

the rants about apple, and all that. He was reconnecting with members of

his family that he hadn't seen since a child. The letters to

cousin Lelia there. Because you don't see the letter sent to him,

you really feel for him. He's quite defensive but very patient. He's

going, I really think it's a bit rich of you to criticise my diet,

not taking drugs, and you are talking about a private life, and I

don't have one, basically. But then it is really funny, there is this

patience, and sort of methodical working out, I don't have a weak

character. And then he will make reference reference to he's over

his Primal Scream phase, apparently he had a phase in his therapy that

he actually screamed at his relative, -- relatives, Aunt Me

Before You. There are aspects in -- Aunt Mimi. There are aspects of his

character that are quite bitchy? would love that, it did get a bit

Harry Seecombe, and that, the whole idea of turning it into the gift

book, it goes against what we think John Lennon about it. It is not so

much letters in way, they are fragment, little bits and piece,

issued to the milkman and the staff he had. He had already become he is

Niles, he's asking the staff to fix the hi-fi. This is sanctioned and

official, Lennon comes out weak, there is a softening of Lennon, it

is for Paul McCartney. If I got given this as a gift from an aunt

Mimi. I wouldn't want to open it. Did you learn anything from the

shopping lists, there are a series of post-it notes z they need to be

in there? You got a feeling that this is a man who would have loved

e-mailing. He fifls in the questionaires? -- He fills in the

questionaire. He has 10,000 letters and he plucks one out. He's trying

to build a correspondence with these people, and he plucked them

out of a bag, and he genuinely tries to have a correspondence. You

get a sense of loneliness. Hunter Davies curating, I have read it is

avuncular, but it seems distant. What you want is a more charged

analysis of what was going on. To me it comes across as a series of

foot notes to the ordinary image of John Lennon we already know.

not sure we haven't had all that before. There has been an awful lot

of desection about him. The other great thing about it is he can edit

his past. He can't have any say on this, he's the one person. What is

interesting is what percentage of the letters is it, we have no idea.

About half a per cent. I think that's missing. You are right about

the randomness of it, it could be half a per cent it could be 10%.

is great when it is said he didn't keep any of the 60s letters, we

didn't keep anything then. They are people who have already spent

�10,000 as such on the letters, and then photo copied them. Which has a

degraded quality as well. We have two other books we have to talk

about. Don't unseal it. We go to the biography of Mick Jagger.

At 600 page, Philip Norman's comprehensive biography depicts

Jagger's life in meticulous detail. From his early days as a Kent

schoolboy, through his rise as the rock God lead singer of the Stones,

to his run-ins with the law and media, and succession to the ranks

of establishment. Norman sets ja Jagger in a contemporary context,

citing bands influenced by him, such as Black Eyed Peas, and Maroon

5's Move Like Jagger. However, die hard fan also not be

disappointed. With classic stories, such as the infamous 1969 drugs

bust, alongside Marianne Faithful. "Mick and Marian often found

themselves pariahs, in August they took the only break Mick seemed to

need, flying to Ireland spending four days with the brewing head,

Desmond Guinness. In Heathrow Airport they hadn't been arranging

to meet a limo, so used a black taxi from the rank. The first two

drivers they approached, refused to take them.

". We have had Lennon in his own words, and Pete Townshend in a

minute. What have we learned about the man portrayed by Philip Norman

in this book? It is a funny story Keith Richards tells, in the phone

calls in the laid 80s when they weren't talking very much. Keith,

what were we doing in August 1968. Keith goes, you are writing a book,

he goes, what makes you say that. Apparently he had to give the money

back. This is the next best thing. It is a completely different story.

It is a forensic reaction of Jagger to events in the Stones life, but

no access to his feelings whatsoever. It is very meticulous,

does it have any heart and soul, do you learn anything? It is like an

autopsy, it is like a Mojo article, a very long one, I don't say that

in a good way. It is an interesting period, between lived memory and

recorded memory. These characters we have issued them forwards in a

much more complicated and interesting way. There is something

fascinating about the post-war period that these guys emerged into

the 1960s and 1970s, and the fact we still keep going into the 80s

and 90s and noughties. I wish with Dylan there will be a more

impressionistic and staggering analysis of Jagger's position in

pop culture and the emergance of pop culture, rather than this

rather plodding, everybody's falling apart, there is another

girlfriend. And again, a confirmation, in a way, of the

story as we know. It is another gift book that shouldn't be read.

imagine Jagger is happy because he doesn't want to give too much away.

Keeps his emptiness and coldness, he will be pleased is given away.

We have no idea. Did you have any idea after you interviewed him?

this was in 1980s, the first questioned asked him, it wasn't a

question, it was a statement "you are too old, give up". He He didn't

take your advice. They all have a reverential quality, if if they are

going to be iconic and transmit into the future, you need more

sophisticated analysis, than this awful thing. By the end of the Mick

Jagger book, it is like exerts from OK! Magazine. Dylan is a writer,

Philip normal, it has a journalistic quality, it is

thorough, he is missing out on ant opportunity to place Mick Jagger in

a wider post-war context. Did it take you want to go out and listen

to the Stones? That is a good question, does it do that?, no I

don't think it does at all. I'm reminded of an incident in a

holiday a couple of years ago, we were all with another family

reading the Obama book. My wife lent it to her friend, and the

friend said, don't tell me how it ends. Paul's right, you know

exactly where it is going, it starts at the childhood and ends up

in the last few minutes, whatever. I just think, it has to be better

than that. They deserve better, than that linear plod. It is

interesting how he positioned himself in the counter culture in

the 60s, he was court bid the Harold Wilson Government in the way

that Noel Gallagher was courted by Tony Blair. He's good as explaining

how carefully he sided with Labour, without ever becoming involved in

politics. He's good on the late 60s. Did it make you wish you lived

through the times? No. It made a lot of it, if you get invited to

march next to Vanessa red grave in the square and he said he didn't

feel like it. I did feel real respect for him not getting

involved in it. I like the fact that he kept his aloofness or

didn't want to tell the story. He's saying let the music do its job. I

think full marks to Mick for that. I think there is a sense that other

things combine to make Mick Jagger, including the audience, the culture

at the time, and everything going on. Once you strip all that away,

and by the end you have done, you are left with a fairly ordinary

bloke, if he hasn't anyone pimping up his image he's pretty ordinary.

I don't want to think that. They need to make it more damaging

rather than soothing and consoling. More about Pete Townshend now, in

his own words, this time. It has taken 16 years for Pete

Townshend if inish his autobiography, Who I Am. It covers

his whole life, beginning with the child, his parents farmed him out

to his erratic grandmother, and unsuitable visitors. Then the art

school student who reluctantly joined The Who, the band who became

the defining sound for a generation of Mods. He uses the book to set

the record straight on his 2003 Nadir, when arrested on child

pornography charges. According to the front page of the Daily Mail, a

nameless millionaire rock star by starrists was in the list of names

sent to operation Orr, that will be me then, I said.

Of the three books we are discussing here, it is from the

heart, in his own words. It took him 16 years to write the book, to

the point where he wanted to write the book. Do you have sympathy for

the man. Is it personal? Sympathy for Pete Townshend? I feel the same

way, it has this awful, dreadful, dreary, linear quality to it. You

wish in a way there had been an understanding that what was most

interesting about Pete Townshend in The Who. He hinted early on, it is

the idea that they are artist who happened to use music, that is the

way artists expressed themselves in the 60s. That throws up interesting

possibility lts. You get a sense of the people d possiblities. You get

the sense of the people around him -- the people of possibility. You

get the sense of the people around him, it is the whole superstructure,

including record labels, audiences and managers. Townshend has such an

interesting mind, I wish there was more of that. It settles down that

it has to come up-to-date. I don't know why. Setting the record

straight, as soon as you say that phrase, this is awful. What is that

about, setting the record straight. It becomes, unfortunately, rather

than an interesting piece of writing about an interesting mind.

It becomes yet another gift book, and up-to-date chronology of Pete

Townshend, here is the girlfriend. You are not taking all the books

for the Christmas list, that is not happening? I will be getting them

for Christmas! Did you warm to him some more? Imagine reading this on

Christmas Day, some of the darkest things I have ever read. The thing

that haunted me about it was the information gaps that connect to

the childhood, he believes he was abused. This, I think the

methodical piecing together of his history may be something to do with

him trying to make sense of stuff. So much of the book is given over

to his childhood. There is a chilling book which, he didn't

explain, he still wake up in the mid-of the night in a rage, because

his bedroom door was not locked at night. He doesn't explain what that

means. There is a whole story there. Does it infuriate to you? No, it

just makes me think it is a troubled person who had to become a

rocks star, because he was extreme -- rock star, because he was

extremely lonely and all over the place and it makes so much sense

why he picked up a guitar. What was interesting about all the books is

these people are not just the 60s, these people are war babies. It is

the war, that is the key. It is big bands. It is reacting to the

situation they find themselves in. They are all very lonely and they

need a mate. As soon as they have a mate it cause conflict. They buy

him a dog, and then they destroy it. He says I'm sure they destroyed it.

Did you enjoy the book? No I didn't. For what reason? I certainly didn't

think he came out of it very well. If the idea that you want to go

back, I love The Who, I travelled from my home town to see The Who in

Glasgow, 1976. I tell you, I also think that it is a lot about Pete,

not enough about Roger, it is all about what Pete did. Pete taught

Jimi Hendrix. It is his book. Do you need to know that about Roger?

I told Jimi Hendrix this, it is a lot of that. The central problem in

the book is what you said in the introduction. Bob Dylan has written

the greatest autobiography ever, in terms of rock music. I think if you

are not going to step up to that plate, don't get involved in it.

I'm sorry, that's not good enough. Bob Dylan is a writer. What it does

is indicate there is a market. And so they are really gift book, that

is fine. They are gift book, but the idea, for instance, if somebody

more -- if some of the more interesting bits, talking about I

Can See For Miles, and how some composer gets in touch and

congratulates on the harmony. There is breaking out of the idea of a

rocker, into the great artist and musician and composer. He has to

justify. That he has a whole thing about being editor at Faber and

Faber. There is a lot of bigging himself up. He talks about being

haunted by orchestra music. People expect him to be funny. A true icon

is a withdrawal of some of that reverential approach we have to

these people. Scrub it out and start again and see if they can

survive into the 21st century with those images. All they have is the

photographs. All you need for the Jagger book is look at the

photographs, that is worth the 600 pages.

The fact that we are still reading and talking about musicians who

shot to fame in the early 60s would amaze the younger selves. A number

of ageing rockers have looked at interesting ways to celebrate 50

years in the business. 50 years after the first gig at

London's Marquee Club, the Rolling Stones career was commemorated in

the documentary, Crossfire Hurricane. The group embarks on a

series of concerts later this month. Many fans have balked at the ticket

# Please Love Me Do It is half a century since the

release of Love Me Do. But the remaining The Beatless celebrated

quietly by reissuing their backcatalogue on vinyl.

Since I saw her standing there Stkpwhrk five decades on from his

debut, Bob Dylan proved he's still forever young, with Tempest, which

kept the critics happy. # Listen to the Dunquesne Whistle

blowing The Beach Boys also commemorated

their half century, by urenewting for a new album and tour. Which

earned the group a mere $5 million. While some of rock's biggest names

may be long in the tooth, they are proving they can keep going in this

traditionally youthful business. But in ten years time, will the

Stones be celebrating six decades in rock. And will Dylan still be

gigging into his 80s. And which of today's acts could aspire to enjoy

such a long and successful career in the music industry.

Ricky. You have just recorded a new album, and you have been touring,

you have got tours still going on up until Christmas. Can you imagine

yourself, at the age of 69, 70, still making music, you went away

and come back, and you are enjoying it? Absolutely enjoying it. The

honest answer is, I don't think you start off with that idea. I read,

and I'm going to answer your question, I read an interesting

review of one of the X Factor guise, it might have been Olly Murs, going

a gig, he announced to the audience, I want a 25-year career. I think,

well, you have damned yourself by your own, you don't think that way.

Whoever you are, weather you like my music or anybody else's, all of

us who are song writers and artist, you don't think that way. I

remember being interviewed in the record company, and they were

sitting on the setee, there was a Japanese television thing, I said

we will do three albums and break up. They were nervous. You can't

think beyond that. It is just a statement, it means nothing.

want to do the next thing as well. You just don't think that way.

you think that, bands like the Stones and The Beach Boys, should

they keep going? If they are fit enough to. The other thing that

people find fascinating and odd about Jagger, he's so fit, non-

addictive character, very good shape. He will be going in ten

years time, I'm sure. The other thing is there is always another

generation of rock band to take over. I was at an awards do, we

were amazed to be in the presence of Pulp and Blur, the grey beards

of rock. It is ten years ago you would be thinking those things from

the 1990. It depends ideolgically as well. In the late 1970s there

was a clear attempt to get rid of these people. For a moment we did

get rid of them. It was glorious, you remember Eric Clapton returning

in 1982 and it was depressing. No more The Beatless and no more

Stones, things move very quick low and you move forward. They all

flopped -- Very quickly and you move forward. They all flopped in

the 80s. Everything happens very quickly, the home and the

structures being everything. At the moment we are clinging on to our

home, these kind of things. Nostalgia is playing a big part?

is home and comforting and a panic about what happens when they go

away. In the end, Jagger, and to an extent The Who and McCartney, they

are vaurd villain acts, -- vaudevillian acts, who will stop

them, there was something very thrilling, they are performers, in

the 60s you isn't is remarkable that Keith and Mick meet on stage

like it is a beautiful moment and they haven't metaphor years. It is

Bruce Forsyth rather than rock 'n' roll. Do you want new material?

certainly do. I think one of the nice things about it is

particularly in the Jagger is how much black music they supported.

Paul is right be some of these things, in fairness to Eric Clapton,

a lot of us wouldn't know about these musicians. The interesting

thing about these gold guy, all these guys that used to come over

to Britain, they were in their dotage coming over here. In a sense,

there is that tradition of folk musicians and blues musicians and

root musicians, being older. And I don't see if the music's good, I

don't see any problem with it. There is a freshness within they

did it originally, that is impossible to recreate now it is a

glut, we are surrounded by a glut. Now people want to see them so they

can say they saw them. As with the Stone Roses? It is a landmark, it

is the Statue of Liberty, it is something you tick off. A musical

movement that once seemed the antithesis of everything rock stood

for, The Secret Disco Revolution got its film premier at the London

Film Festival a few week ago. It is a revisionist history of a much

maligned genre. You will recognise the songs but you may be surprised

by the subtext this distoementry reveals. Think about Donna Summer

Love To Love You Baby. It becomes the feminist critque of three-

minute steps. Academic theory is added to the rich documentary. The

Secret Disco Revolution uncovers the genre's hidden history as a

refuge for marginalised communities. Saying disco liberated women and

black and gay people from a world dominated by Whiterock. Studio 54

became the epicentre of the disco beat. I loved in Studio everybody

partied together, nobody judged anybody, everyone was there to have

a good time. The powder room was really the powder room, I thought

it was for the ladies. People doing their thing all over the place,

having a good old time. Disco hit New York in theed middle

of an economic downturn, at the time of a detrialisation and

resurgent feminism. Grungey leather jackets were replaced by high rise

boots and volume luminous flares and disco ball. Gloria Gaynor,

Thelma Houston and The Village People, bring a firsthand

perspective to the narrative. Which doesn't always tally with the

thesis. Was disco really a force for liberation, or simply a

celebration of hedonism. It is important to remember this

was the era of the female orgasam, that is why there was the

outpouring of concern about the big # I love to love you baby

Amazing scenes there, should we just say that, to start off with.

Does the theory to the film hold any water, do you think? It is such

a funny film. It is like he set out to make a revisionist history. He

assembles all the critics and they say very intelligent things. And

then they say disco was all about the high hat. There were obviously,

the weirdist bit of all, you don't want to ruin the plot of the film.

When he interviews The Village People, and the producers who

conceived YMCA, the difference in their opinions about what the song

of. That is The Village People? They are still with the leathers

and doing the whole act. They contradict each other? The producer

is saying we conceived this as a liberation song for gay people. And

interviews The Village People, they go, I don't know what you are

talking about. Half of you are gay, this is very strange. The music,

when you are watching it, does it stand the test of time? I think so,

there is a lot of great music in disco music. Definitely. I'm not a

personal who 0 is dancing, but I bought Donna Summer's greatest hits.

I loved, even Champagne King, who is mentioned at the end. These were

time, I think, Paul was talking earlier on, the post-punk era, you

went to the record store and bought 12 muchs and EPs, I liked a -- 12

inches and EPs. I liked the film. I didn't like the clunky device, I

don't know who thought it up, they had a liberated woman, a gayman and

a -- a gay man and black person. They are like superhero crusaders?

I bought the idea, I liked the idea. The narration is very arch, I'm not

sure that works? What I liked about it t the guy who made the film, at

the end allows himself to be kind of ridiculed a little bit by people

going, yeah, he reads too much big book. Absolutely infuriating film.

The theory theself is not new at all. Because the whole point, if

you go back to Philadelphia Record in the early 670s there was a --

07s, there was a definite political idea about what they were doing

about liberating black music and repairing and confirming all sorts

of relationships across cultural divides, that was the point. It got

whiteened and corporatised by the time of Saturday night fever. And

Ethel Merman doing disco and the Muppets. It can't take itself

serious enough to be serious about the idea. But there was a lot of

innovations in that whole period of what was and ended up being disco

music, and rebranded theself as house, and the whole pop world as

it is now. It pretends it disappears, but it doesn't, it

rebrands itself. The narrative it uses, and setting up the poor

academic to make her claims about the genuinely interesting idea of

the sub-culture and knocking her back interviewing the artist about

it. It is like interviewing the beans inside the tin and asking

them about Heinz. You are not supposed to do that. It was the

contextualising of the music that didn't come from the artists.

seemed heart done by? Because one of the wonderful things is they

have to go around the world for 45 years singing one song. They were

not artist, they were merely the transmitters of some very great

ideas. We see the role of the producer in the film. That was one

thing that was interesting? Molton invented the idea of the 12

inch and creating music, and it gets buried, the whole truth about

exploring this in an exciting imaginative way, gets buried.

Bringing records into the charts from the club, the DJs having to

play them even if they didn't want to. The mass burning of disco

records, was it in San Francisco. What happened after the burning of

the records? In a way it got rebranded, if you think about Blue

Monday and the Pet Shop Boys, you are seeing something not talked

about at all, suddenly rock and dance did actually come together in

a rather wonderful fusion that created some of the most

interesting things in the 80s. He doesn't want to deal with any of

that. Or the way that disco was rebranded instantly as house, and

became some of the most interesting and innovative electronic music of

the 80s. It turned it into a joke. Which is one of the many reasons it

is infuriating. That is the wore, you look infuriated? It is like

amnesia, we go through so many turns, as with Jagger and Lennon,

we have to start again. There has to come a moment when we accept

there are younger people and they might not know the story yet, and

it is up to them to find out and keep moving forward with the way we

tell the story, rather than going backwards and starting again. It is

not good enough. I do agree with you. The establishment of Fabricio

Coloccini dates back to the beginning of recorded sound -- cull

Columbia Records dates back to the beginning of recorded sound. It is

also a pioneer of what was then called "race music".

# I wish to see # The evening sun

# Go down. Columbia championed black artists in the early 20th

century. At a time of racial segregation, it gave performers

like Bessie Smith and others a chance. It went on to showcase many

of the biggest names in jazz, Duke Ellington and Miles Davis, Kindp of

Blue is one of the best-selling jazz albums of all time.

Leonard Bernstein, Barbara Streisand, Bob Dylan and Bruce

Springsteen, have all been Columbia artists. Recently the label has

done very nicely out of Adele's multiplatinum albums, released by

Columbia in the state, through a deal with the singer's UK label

Excel. # Don't forget me

# I being # I remember you --

# I beg. It is one of the small label that

is now give the big ones a run for their money. Last week's Mercury

Prize winners, Alt-J are also on an indie label, Infectious. Now EMI is

part of the international conglomerate, Universal Music, many

prefer a smaller scale. Before Columbia reaches another milestone,

will the Internet have killed off the traditional record company, or

is there still a place for the label, even when there is nothing

to stick it on. The story of Columbia, wonderful

photographs, and documentation of the history of the label and music,

do labels exist now that have the same kudos and credibility that

Columbia did in the past? You have the indie labels doing well, like

Rough Trade. Interesting to see Columbia made grammar phone, and

the records were -- gramophone, and the records were there. If you look

at HMV, they are selling the stuff you listen to music on because they

are not selling records any more. It is a very interesting time. We

don't know how to make money from recorded music. These labels were

pioneer, let's make a waxing and see what we can. Do but the primary

object is the gramophone. It is a fascinating time. We don't know

what is going to happen. You were signed to Columbia, what was the

attraction? It was the label. You grew up with that label, if you had

Bob Dylan records, and you had Simon and gar funkle, and Bruce

Springsteen records, part of the thing is you went from meeting with

a lawyer, who said it is not the best deal, you think I don't care,

I want that label in the middle. Now that label doesn't really exist.

In fairness, one of the things that the Columbia did in the 1990, I

remember meeting Don about bringing the label on toe the CD. I don't

know if it was his big idea, I bought it at the time. It was a

good idea, it got the link to the past. There is a great story there.

From the book, you know from the recent stuff it is pretty skimpy.

All the information. If you go back and read the 30s stories, it will

make you find out more. You seek out the records. What is the

benefit of being on a label, from your point of view, would you

rather be on a major, or a -- doing it the ind dough way? Where you do

you want to start -- Indie way? Where do you want to start. I like

having someone to blame. What you notice from this is there is no

difference between a major and an indie ultimately, they are a bunch

of people that really love their music that want to transmit it. I

think the history of pop music can be told through record labels. The

record labels reached a point we will all reach, which is the

dismantling of structure. They got there first, that is why they will

disintegrate, we will all disintegrate in the same way.

Whatever still exists it will take an extraordinary amount of

imagination to make the label and replace the society we have lost.

It is a metaphor for everything we see. They thought the label was

over with the radio? There was always the solid object. This one

is more disturbing, it is the removal of the things all labels

did so well, which is make the context for the music, the

packaging, the photographs, the meaning of music. That has gone.

there a benefit of major labels? Really we should all get together

as a revolution and audience and demand the return of these

structure, without them things do disappear. As much as we might

become machines, that is a different society all together. The

thing we liked the most was the idea of the structure, they have

been removed, oddly enough, by people replacing them with machines.

We get more excited by buying a machine, we cues today queue for a

new single, now it is the machine. There is more freedom to set up the

label before, it might last a week a you may never make any money from

it. It is a 20th century thing, there is nothing wrong with, that

we are going through a weird period. It is like evolution? In the 19th

century there was no such thing, things change! You were in

agreement with Paul? It feels like 100 had you years. It is about 1903

-- 100 years, it it was about 1903 where they leased their first

gramophone. We are already nostalgic about it, we will always

make music, but not necessarily with the great producers and in

great studios. I think the moment of truth will be Bob Dylan's last

sound. It all comes back to Bob Dylan in end. Thank you very much

indeed. Earlier this year if you were accosted with stranger and

given a free copy of Pride and Prejudice, it wasn't a literary

mugging, it was world book week. Volunteers set to the streets again

to give away free books. Now in its third year, World Book Night is a

celebration of the art of reading, it encourages people to read by

giving books to the harder to reach communities. Co-founder Julia

Kingsford is spearheading this year's project to hand over one

million books.. There are too many people in this country who never

had somebody, a friend, parent or teacher, whoever it was in their

lives, put a book into their hands and say this one is amazing, you

absolutely have to read T we are looking for 20,000 volunteer, the

sign up process has begun. We produce hundreds of thousands of

copies of the specially-select books and distribute them to the

volunteer, and put them out into the communities to people who don't

regularly read to celebrate reading. You have to give personal details

so we can contact you. Most importantly tell us why you want to

give these books away, who you want to give them to, and where you want

to give them. You have to choose one of our 20 books you want to

champion. This year's titles include Ian Fleming's Casino Royal,

singled out for being thrilling, sexy but brutal and Me Before You

poi David Moyes, described as beautiful but truly heart-breaking.

With hundreds of events planned up and down the country, World Book

Night is set to take place on 23 of April, sharing the date with

Shakespeare's birthday. If you want to see the full list of Bocas and

details of how to apply, there is a link on our web page. My thanks

Paul Morley, Ricky Ross and Kate Mossman. The musical theme now

continues on this channel. A little later on Jools Holland will be on

and his guests are Soundgarden and Two Door Cinema Club. Now music of

our own. We leave you with Hugh Cornwell, lead singer of scat the

Strange letters, and he has a new album out. He's going to sing

tonight Totem and Taboo. Hugh Cornwell from the --

Stranglers. # Every day I wake up feeling

better # Than I ever did

# Opened up the mailbox # There is a letter

# When I am it's read # I'm up and out the door

# Walking out the street # I'm a in no hurry

# I see a lot of people on the run # I ain't got a problem

# With your anger # I hope you get around to

# Having fun # What's totem to me

# Is totem for you # Just listen to me

# Am I getting through # Once I was a rebel

# With an answer # I shoved it in your mouth

# Without a spoon # And then I realised that

# Ain't no answer # Juts a lot of problems

# In the room # I took a pill and dropped

# Right off the radar # Thought I could find peace

# And greener grass # I then got woken up

# Two decades later # What's totem to me

# Is taboo for you # Just listen to me

# There is a lot of lonely # Inus

# I would really like to know what makes you tick

# I wish I had the secret to happiness

# I could lead it out # And heal

# Keep on walking # Blaming on God or just pretend

# I guess I'll let your signals do the talk