First, how nice it would be to get so drunk and have Julie London sing to you in her understated style.

Anyway, last year when Michael Buble did his audition for a bond song covering this classic something inside me hated it. Really hated his version. I can understand why though as the tune lends itself to something bombastic (and I swear at certain sections there is a hint of the bond theme!).

It was yesterday though when the pieces fell into place. It's the setting of the song. In other cover versions they relate the tale of the song. Two ex's coming together, the one trying to get back with the wronged partner, but the singer of the song is telling the person where to go, relating how much they hurt them; the lines detailing they remembered exactly how the relationship split up.

The singer is telling their former lover that they are doing have to do something in terms of pain and suffering that the singer went through when they got dumped. What isn't said is even if you did that I'm still not coming back to you in the cold manner you did it to me.

Why hate Mickey Bubbles version though? It's a fake sincerity with the song, you don't really believe he would want that ex to cry him a river. Really if you want to use passion to do it then look as if you've gone through a lot of pain and anguish when singing it as in this gem..

In my Reader inbox, came across this review of Thom Yorke's show in Los Angeles with his backing band including Flea from the Chili Peppers http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/05/thom-yorke-flea.

It was the introduction of what appeared to be an excellent gig: "Most were intrigued, but for those concerned with rock credibility it was like hearing that the chaps from Peep Show were taking a break to write a show with Jim Davidson, or that Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall was collaborating with Bernard Matthews on a turkey burger."

I'm thinking that this hyperbole is a bit too much exaggerated?

So it has been confirmed Faith No More are playing Download which I am really excited about?

Anyone else looking forward to them reuniting or will it be a disappointment?

One of the things about Metallica is their live shows. As well as now being able to download their concerts for their website as mp3's, the one thing that is noticeable is they never play the same set list twice in a row. There are common elements (such as at the moment songs from Death Magnetic or back in 06 playing Master of Puppets in its entirety).

The question is though are there other bands that on a live tour that do this switching of songs between every night?

I'm trying to work out when did music kill the pop group? I know it was dead in the 90's, when the boy bands then dominated the chart. By then I was into alternative music, only watching top of the pops when it was alternative week in the month, such as the episode of TOTP's that I recall had Manic Street Preachers and Terrorvision.

But those bands are not pop music, I'm not talking about indie/punk/rock/dance/sub genre of music you make like which you think is pop, but is so not.

The Bee Gees were a pop group, Jackson five were a pop group, The Osmonds were a pop group, Spandau Ballet were a pop group, Duran Duran were a pop group....(and I could go on). As much as you can argue about the various merits of these bands, the difference was though is they played and wrote their own music.

Something happened though towards the late 80's when someone decided that actually that was a business model they didn't want to continue.

Rather they could get spotty Herberts, subject them to a bit of repointing, flush their throats full of treacle for singing and bang, puppets that can be controlled. Their dancing honed by cattle prods tutors and bromide in the cola so they don't go off after the stage shows. And don't get me started on the production of recent pop music as well!

Was it Stock Aiken and Waterman who decided as producers they didn't need a band, so focusing on solo artists?

Was it Bros, when after listening to them again you have to ask what did the guitarist actually do? (Though combining Karl Marx and dancing would never be done today!).

Did the guitar based bands decide that they wanted to be cool and just go off pop?

By which I mean singers who rather than keeping a single note are more greedy and grab every one in the musical cash register.

It was a thought that struck me in the office while Mariah Carey was destroying Without you on the radio. Okay they have vocal tricks which the masses think is good singing, but that only works on the power ballad.

When it comes down the more delicate songs their sledgehammer approach to singing has the trick of crushing the song to pieces. The masses like it, in a way similar to watching car crashes, it's exciting and memorable but for all the wrong reasons. Take the recent example on X factor, the whole overblown production, the gospel kicking in and reducing the meaning of the song in an instant. It was John Cale that got the true beauty of the song right taking Cohen's original, downsizing it and providing the template for the cover versions to come.

The reason the big overblown singers get it so wrong is the emotion needed for these kinds of songs, normally tales of regret, woe but ultimately self retrospection of things gone wrong. Sadly their vocal talents can't handle the concept of introversion and get it so badly wrong and makes the original fans wince or get really mad and start facebook groups!

See the problem with those covers is you only remember them when you hear on the radio and go really mad for 5 minutes then forget them again. I'm trying to remember others of this ilk. Any suggestions?