You would have been 71 today. Instead, you're immortal. "In My Head Is My Only House Unless It Rains."

I'm considering changing my ageing (5+ years) Blackberry for an Android phone. The Blackberry battery is tired and it runs slowly even with just email, Twitter and a few bits n' bobs: it looks like time to pension off the old beasty. Despite having an iMac, iPod and iPad I don't really fancy an iPhone as they seem to have pretty limited battery life and I prefer something a bit smaller, e.g. HTC Wildfire S size. I mainly use the phone as a phone, diary and email device.

My Blackberry syncs neatly to my iMac and this is what I worry about if I swap to Android. I don't want to pass all my data to Google, which I gather is one way of syncing, and prefer a good old fashioned cable or wireless sync. How do I keep my diary and contacts up to date? Any hints, tips and pointers?

Wales coach Warren Gatland has admitted considering cheating after Sam Warburton was red-carded. He'd have faked an injury to the replacement prop which would have lead, for safety reasons, to uncontested scrums. (Prop is a highly specialist position and if you can't play with two specialist props on the pitch, it's uncontested scrums.) This would have largely neutralised the 1 man advantage France had at scrum time.

My view is this would have been despicable. Whatever you think of the original red carding, responding by cheating is unacceptable. And before anyone gives the, 'it would be forgotten if they won' argument, in my mind Leicester didn't deserve one of their rugby European Cups because Neil Back acted in a cynical and cheating way to set up the winning score.

That said, I think Gatland is honest in admitting it crossed his mind but unbelievably naive to admit it while the tournament is still on. Would the Massive have cheated and could you live with your conscience if you did?

I've just returned from walking the dog and, as I entered the field this evening, there was a group of youths hanging around by the gate. Not unusual.

Now, of course, I'd concur with those who'd suggest they should be at home, tucked up in the bosom of their intact nuclear family, doing their chemistry homework and later enjoying "War & Peace" while listening to the latest Laura Marling cd.

Instead, these scruffy, uneducated, stop-out, disenfranchised, disinterested, can't sit still, ne'er do wells were congregated around one of those smart telephone things playing loud pop music. In tinny 64 kbps mp3 quality through a midget speaker at that. And what unmusical, modern noise were they grooving to?

"Starman," by David Bowie.

Massive - there is hope yet!

It's officially Friday afternoon, it's POETS day, a long weekend beckons and here's the wonderful Dave Edmunds. Have a great holiday weekend everyone!

A friend of mine has pointed out that someone is currently writing a 9 volume biography of John Lennon. The first 2 volumes have been published and lots of research done, taking so far (wait for it) 26 years. The remaining 7 volumes have been storyboarded and the author estimates it will take a further (you might not want to wait for this) 21 years.

That's 47 years to write a biography of someone who lived for 40 years. The author, Jude Kessler, calls it an "augmented biography." It smells to me more like posthumous stalking! Any views?

And does anyone really want 9 volumes-worth of biography of anyone? It's also interesting that the cover presents it as a novel about JL. Hmmm.

http://www.ontherockbooks.com/Shoulda/OrderShivering.html

Probably the most eloquent lyric on the subject of rock music itself, and a mighty fine song to start the weekend with:

With Amy Whinehouse storming to the top of the charts on the news of her sad and early death, I wondered if the download age has changed the way the industry approaches these things.

Once upon a time there would be a lag between the death and the really big sales. People would still go out and buy stock already in the supply chain but the record companies would be feverishly preparing the posthumous releases: printing up old catalogue, readying the album-in-the-works-at-time-of death, putting together a best-of tribute etc. All of which took some time and planning.

Nowadays, of course, we still have the rush to buy the catalogue but it's already there, digitally, in the ether and in whatever quantity is needed. All the marketing effort (and impact) that would have gone into the posthumous releases now seems to go into the immediate post-death sales.

I've no doubt there will be the usual cashing-in: both albums released as a two-fer, an outtakes CD, a Xmas tribute for lazy shoppers who don't realise that if Uncle Arthur likes Amy he's probably already got the songs anyway etc etc. But I wonder how well it will sell when we've all downloaded so much straight away?

I wonder, too, how much this will accelerate the public grieving? Star dies, downloads go bonkers for a couple of weeks, star fades. And I have to say I still don't understand this: what on earth makes someone think, 'X had died so I've got to buy the latest CD' like it's suddenly become better or more meaningful when the artist is no longer around? It's a weird (but wonderful) world.

Thinking about all the recent scandals got me wondering who on earth would be a politician? From all the (frankly, often rather sanctimonious) talk that's talked about them, it's apparent we expect them to be virginal saints without a hint of the merest impropriety in their lives, as well as blessed with monumental powers of intellect, foresight and organisation. Allied to this, they must be inspirational leaders and motivators, in touch with the zeitgeist and warm, cuddly human beings. Not to mention photogenic, telegenic and always ready with a good quote.

That's the basic brief. Then there are a number of disqualifications to negotiate:

- You got up to any form of fun in your pre-politics today, e.g. fine dining, going on student demo's, working anywhere as an intern etc...

- You've ever had any form of contact with recreational chemicals (even if you didn't inhale).

- You've got any points on your driving licence.

- You've thrown a party and it was attended by someone who is subsequently arrested for something that was nothing to do with you, anyway.

- You express an opinion that's a cigarette paper's width away from the official party line, even if the issue has only just broken so that line hasn't yet been established and your off the cuff comment is 99.9% on the ball anyway.

- Your significant other ever expresses a view that is even slightly different from your own.

- Oh, and also: if you ever say anything that differs by one scintilla from something you were quoted as saying 20 years ago, then you must acknowledge being a flipper and a flapper and totally inconsistent and resign forthwith.

Where are we going to get our politicians from? And whatever happened to the "by the people" bit in the claim of government of the people, by the people, for the people?

I detect a whiff of hypocrisy around the current scandal.

To be absolutely clear, I condemn the illegal and immoral methods NoW used to obtain information and stories. I utterly deplore and am dismayed at the corruption in our police force, members of whom have sold information to NoW. And I'm sorry for the innocent staff at all levels and positions who have been sacrificed to protect others.

But every week, some 2 million people were more than happy to shell out their cash to read sensationalist stories about bonking footballers and ‘heartbroken’ tarts while looking at fuzzy photo’s of celebrity bosoms snapped from a distance while on private holidays. Did anyone care to ask how the people whose lives were tarnished by NoW felt? Or their families? Or (perhaps) to ask how NoW came to get hold of these stories? Nope.

Did they ask if this stuff was really important? More important than a global economic crisis, starvation in Africa, homelessness, an obesity epidemic etc etc. Or even if it really contributed much, if at all, to the general public good?

And what about our politicians? Gordon Brown (who was worried about the possibility of an economic crash, to the point where he did nothing) has now said he was also worried about the behaviour of some of our press, to the point where he did nothing. Aren’t they all wise after the event?

The truth of the matter seems to me that NoW has got away with it by pandering to the public’s lowest common denominator taste, while entering into a Faustian pact with politicians to give them a forum to publish their views if they play ball.

Look, I’ve exaggerated this. I’m sure NoW has done some good work and employed plenty of good people. But I do find it hard to accept the public outcry when the public was perfectly happy (no questions asked, wink wink, "I made my excuses and left") with the salacious and rather unpleasant product in the first place.

We've done the phrases that annoy us. How about the ones that (here's my current favourite) tickle us pink?

As much as we might want our favourite band to go on forever, we probably regret that their output has, let's say, declined somewhat from its peak. And that the albums seem to have a 4 year gap between them. And the tours have become Greatest Hits shows. And there's a tribute band that's got more energy than them, now... So, here's my new rule:

All bands have a 7 year limit. At this point, they must split and the musicians cannot work with each other in any combination for a further 7 years.

I accept that one or two acts don't deserve this fate and that it might rob us a couple of late bloomers. And that if they've got 4 decent albums in them, they'll need to crack on and get them recorded. But that's the limit: 7 years and move on.

Any seconders or objectors?

We've touched on this one in various forms but I've come to the conclusion that I stopped being a music lover quite a while ago and became a collector instead. An avid, insatiable collector. I'd read an interview and if either the subject or writer referred to a record or an act I was unfamiliar with, went off to find something by them. If an act I liked released a new CD, I had to have it. Without hearing. It was getting ridiculous.

A few months back, I started to make a pile of new purchases and realised at Xmas that most of them had been played just the once but a few not at all. At the same time, my digital collection was expanding - supplemented by a few Xmas offers and some voucher presents. The number of songs I have with a play count of 1 is staggering, aside from the 20 or so albums still waiting a play.

I've tried various remedies. There's the "100 CD Rule" (insert your chosen number) that says once your collection gets to a certain point, you have to sell a CD before you can file your recent purchase. I just ended up hiding the old 'uns. Or the "1 purchase per week" rule that never works because you buy 2 or 3 and promise not to buy anything next week, but you do. Or the "I won't buy a new CD until I've played the last one a few times," which also never works.

So, since the start of the year I've purchased just 1 CD (The Decemberists). I'm working my way through the recent pile and thoroughly enjoying giving several plays to a Francoise Hardy collection, the aforementioned Decemberists and one or two others. All getting proper attention. Just like in the old days when I only had 20 LPs and played them start to finish and then again. I've been into HMV and walked out without buying anything, although it's such a crap shop nowadays that's not too difficult. I'll listen to something on Spotify before I buy any more music. But the main point is: I'm trying to make music special again. I've stopped being a collector and I'm going back to being a music lover.

My name is Mark and I'm an addict.

A child is born to a stable couple who will, I suspect, provide it with a loving upbringing. Best wishes and good luck to all concerned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12084650

Ralph Coates died today. Not a household name but an honest-to-goodness, hard working, miles better than average player for Burnley, Spurs and Leyton Orient. Plus England on 4 occasions. He was signed for Spurs by the great Billy Nicholson and "Don't be stupid, no player is worth that" is what Ralph is said to have said when Billy Nick announced he was going to fork out £190k in 1971 money for him. (That's about £1.8m in 2010 cash.) I wonder if there are many Premiership players with that level of modesty / humility / reality left in the game? RIP Ralph.