Was it me or did anyone else think that the Elvis Costello interview was very unrevealing? Rambling on like a 90 year old. Succinct he is not.(Although I have not read the full version - presumably it is more of the same). Why is he advertising Visa and Lexus? Does he need the money? Didn't he say he wasn't gonna come back to the UK? What are these 60 sides that he has released in the 21st Century? What is it like writing for your wife? Is he playing with the Attractions? or do they all hate each other? Whats it like living in the US currently? All of these questions were not answered. He has had a fascinating journey, but he didn't cast any light on that or his current musical interests. He said a lot and didn't really say anything. Or am I missing something?

A few things about the review section in this months mag which I have just got round to reading.

Andrew Harrisons review of Martin Amis' book about 9/11 and after, seemed to be very woolly minded indeed. Amis's comments, which were made in 2006 and not in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, regarding how the Islamic community should be tougher with its children,
were fairly infammatory given the wider context of the UK and the Iraq War. Trying to defend those comments by saying it was a "thought experiment" was just a lame pseudo-intellectual excuse. Thats not even to begin to discuss the implications of curtailing citizans liberties and rights in the UK, which Amis suggested.

There is a more wideranging debate about all this stuff -but Andrew doesn't seem to want to
go there - instead happier praising the "rock star swagger" of Amis' prose. The one point where Andrew is completely right, is in his analysis of the Blair worship piece - but hold on isn't Blair the man that took us into the quagmire of the Iraqi War? Dear old Martin can't seem to put the picture together.

For such an intelligent writer (Amis) to make such bone-headed and one-dimensional statements is utterly perplexing. And he should be called to task about it - which he was, digging himself an even bigger hole. Although he did get the cushy professor job whereas Terry Eagleton lost his....

But to Andrews mind there are people worse than writers who conduct public experiments on inflammatory subjects - thats the anti-racists who exist in the "mirror world" of racist witchhunting!! Who and what on earth is that? Maybe Andrew should write for Boris Johnsons' mayoral campaign, he doesn't like those pesky do-gooders either and needs some help with his use of language that possibly could be mis-interpreted.

And why oh why was Nick Caves new album only given one paragraph when you gave the man the front cover and long interview?? That's a bizarre editorial decision.

So I was happiliy perusing the new issue of The Word and just on the page after laughing at Alex James (blimey he's everywhere with that stupid floppy haircut and his cheese farm) when I start to read Paul Du Noyer's guest column....

On the surface it seemed like your average common sense type of column. But it kept nagging away at me.....so as an act of exorcism (as it is a religious theme) I decided to put hands on keyboard and type....

The Daily Mail like attitude towards people who want to do something about the enviroment bugged me (sure some of them are like that but isn't it better than doing nothing?). The statement that blues and rock music are only the "foothills" and therefore of lesser import than the "mountain range" of classical music irritated me. The assumption that only a religious belief gives you "soul".

Now I love some religious music (John Coltrane wrote one of the finest ever in A Love Supreme and Paul counts off loads of others) but I hate organised religion. I think that Julian Cope and his pagan Gods are just as valid as Catholicism and the Pope. And while Paul has a point re Johnny Cash and maybe Bruce, what he doesn't say is that hard line fundamentalism has made a frightening return to the mainstream not seen since pre-enlightenment times, which should put this whole discussion in context. Whether its fundamental Islam or fundamental Christianity - all of it is pretty grim and medieval. Anti-women, anti-gay, anti-sex, anti-darwin, and anti pluralist - these people are scarier than the God Bashers Dawkins and Hitchins. Those are the people with truly crazy certainties and yet Paul seems to want to put up straw men of his own to have a go at....

Or maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick, cos Paul sounds so reasonable!

I watched a DVD of 300 recently and I just want to ask, was it me or did the whole film smell like an ode to the master race? It was well shot. It had great bits of action. It was fairly well acted. It was quite tense, despite the fact that you know whats going to happen. And yet the more I think about it the more it seems to be like a Leni Riefenstahl movie for the 21st century.

Look away now if you don't want to know what happens:

The Spartans are the hardest men ever, super fit, pretty cruel, great pecs, with big beards, and amazing fighting abilities. They are a (white) warrior race and are defending Greek "democracy" (although of course the slaves didn't have a vote) and continually rally round the cry of "freedom". A word (mis) used so often in this film that you think you are in some other Orwellian universe, where double speak is the norm.

They are fighting the

Persians. Hordes and hordes of them. All of whom seem to be non-white, sexually deviant, anti-freedom, and with a lot of body piercings....

If that were not enough they are betrayed by a disfigured and disabled Spartan, who wasn't allowed into the Spartan army for those reasons....

Do I need to spell it out?

A bunch has been written about the parallels between the film and the war in Iraq, but actually I think there is a whole lot more to it....or is it just a piece of Hollywood junk and does anybody care?

David Hepworths column in this months (December) issue was not as on the money as it usually is.....

The reason why James Blunt is hated so much is not because he is posh and has been in the army or regarded as a wimp (didn't he actually see active service?) , its because he's rubbish.

There are many posh people in rock who don't face daily ridicule, including Radiohead, Pink Floyd (altho they probably deserve it) and Nick Drake. There are many sensitive souls who make sensitive music who also very talented (Eliot Smith, John Martyn, Marvin Gaye etc etc)....

James Blunt is the Chris de Burgh du jour. And that is not a compliment. So for David Hepworth to dedicate a whole column to poor lickle rich boy Blunty arguing that people hate him for being a wimp and posh is a bit of a wasted oppportunity. I hate him because he is crap and irritating and that song was played to death. The fact that he's posh is merely the cherry on the cake. Its music for people who don't like music and who read Q magazine. They may not be bad people but they just have bad taste in music.

The interesting point about Hepworths column is the sentimental nature of many popular songs, which isn't necessarily a new thing but dates back decades - what about dear old Vera Lynn? That doesn't make them good songs, just popular.