From Annie Anxiety’s October 1981 Barbed Wire Halo record on the Crass label. This track ends on a locked groove so the scream goes on and on and on and on.
From Annie Anxiety’s October 1981 Barbed Wire Halo record on the Crass label. This track ends on a locked groove so the scream goes on and on and on and on.
From NME, 28 August, 1982
By 1982 punk had long been past it’s best. There were a few decent bands but there was some arse kicking music coming over from the USA, the Bad Brains in particular. The Dead Kennedys were popular, and had some interesting things to say, Flipper cut their own swathe. A good one too. I particulary remember going to see ’em on my birthday with the magnificent Miki Berenyi one year. Happy days.
From Tony Wilson’s Granada TV show ‘So It Goes’, broadcast 11th December 1977.
The Freedom poem was written by Charlie Mingus.
John The Postman, The Clash and Steel Pulse were all too.
George Orwell: ‘Poetry and the Microphone’
First published: New Saxon Pamphlet. — GB, London. — March 1945.
About a year ago I and a number of others were engaged in broadcasting literary programmes to India, and among other things we broadcast a good deal of verse by contemporary and near-contemporary English writers — for example, Eliot, Herbert Read, Auden, Spender, Dylan Thomas, Henry Treece, Alex Comfort, Robert Bridges, Edmund Blunden, D. H. Lawrence. Whenever it was possible we had poems broadcast by the people who wrote them. Just why these particular programmes (a small and remote out-flanking movement in the radio war) were instituted there is no need to explain here, but I should add that the fact that we were broadcasting to an Indian audience dictated our technique to some extent. The essential point was that our literary broadcasts were aimed at the Indian university students, a small and hostile audience, unapproachable by anything that could be described as British propaganda. It was known in advance that we could not hope for more than a few thousand listeners at the most, and this gave us an excuse to be more ‘highbrow’ than is generally possible on the air.
If you are broadcasting poetry to people who know your language but don’t share your cultural background, a certain amount of comment and explanation is unavoidable, and the formula we usually followed was to broadcast what purported to be a monthly literary magazine. The editorial staff were supposedly sitting in their office, discussing what to put into the next number. Somebody suggested one poem, someone else suggested another, there was a short discussion and then came the poem itself, read in a different voice, preferably the author’s own. This poem naturally called up another, and so the programme continued, usually with at least half a minute of discussion between any two items. For a half-hour programme, six voices seemed to be the best number. A programme of this sort was necessarily somewhat shapeless, but it could be given a certain appearance of unity by making it revolve round a single central theme. For example, one number of our imaginary magazine was devoted to the subject of war. It included two poems by Edmund Blunden, Auden’s ‘September 1941’, extracts from a long poem by G. S. Fraser (‘A Letter to Anne Ridler’), Byron’s ‘Isles of Greece’ and an extract from T. E. Lawrence’s Revolt in the desert. These half-dozen items, with the arguments that preceded and followed them, covered reasonably well the possible attitudes towards war. The poems and the prose extract took about twenty minutes to broadcast, the arguments about eight minutes.
This formula may seem slightly ridiculous and also rather patronising, but its advantage is that the element of mere instruction, the textbook motif, which is quite unavoidable if one is going to broadcast serious and sometimes ‘difficult’ verse, becomes a lot less forbidding when it appears as an informal discussion. The various speakers can ostensibly say to one another what they are in reality saying to the audience. Also, by such an approach you at least give a poem a context, which is just what poetry lacks from the average man’s point of view. But of course there are other methods. One which we frequently used was to set a poem in music. It is announced that in a few minutes’ time such and such a poem will be broadcast; then the music plays for perhaps a minute, then fades out into the poem, which follows without any title or announcement, then the music is faded again and plays up for another minute or two — the whole thing taking perhaps five minutes. It is necessary to choose appropriate music, but needless to say, the real purpose of the music is to insulate the poem from the rest of the programme. By this method you can have, say, a Shakespeare sonnet within three minutes of a news bulletin without, at any rate to my ear, any gross incongruity.
These programmes that I have been speaking of were of no great value in themselves, but I have mentioned them because of the ideas they aroused in myself and some others about the possibilities of the radio as a means of popularising poetry. I was early struck by the fact that the broadcasting of a poem by the person who wrote it does not merely produce an effect upon the audience, if any, but also on the poet himself. One must remember that extremely little in the way of broadcasting poetry has been done in England, and that many people who write verse have never even considered the idea of reading it aloud. By being set down at a microphone, especially if this happens at all regularly, the poet is brought into a new relationship with his work, not otherwise attainable in our time and country. It is a commonplace that in modern times — the last two hundred years, say — poetry has come to have less and less connection either with music or with the spoken word. It needs print in order to exist at all, and it is no more expected that a poet, as such, will know how to sing or even to declaim than it is expected that an architect will know how to plaster a ceiling. Lyrical and rhetorical poetry have almost ceased to be written, and a hostility towards poetry on the part of the common man has come to be taken for granted in any country where everyone can read. And where such a breach exists it is always inclined to widen, because the concept of poetry as primarily something printed, and something intelligible only to a minority, encourages obscurity and ‘cleverness’. How many people do not feel quasi-instinctively that there must be something wrong with any poem whose meaning can be taken in at a single glance? It seems unlikely that these tendencies will be checked unless it again becomes normal to read verse aloud, and it is difficult to see how this can be brought about except by using the radio as a medium. But the special advantage of the radio, its power to select the right audience, and to do away with stage-fright and embarrassment, ought here to be noticed.
In broadcasting your audience is conjectural, but it is an audience of one. Millions may be listening, but each is listening alone, or as a member of a small group, and each has (or ought to have) the feeling that you are speaking to him individually. More than this, it is reasonable to assume that your audience is sympathetic, or at least interested, for anyone who is bored can promptly switch you off by turning a knob. But though presumably sympathetic, the audience has no power over you. It is just here that a broadcast differs from a speech or a lecture. On the platform, as anyone used to public speaking knows, it is almost impossible not to take your tone from the audience. It is always obvious within a few minutes what they will respond to and what they will not, and in practice you are almost compelled to speak for the benefit of what you estimate as the stupidest person present, and also to ingratiate yourself by means of the ballyhoo known as ‘personality’. If you don’t do so, the result is always an atmosphere of frigid embarrassment. That grisly thing, a ‘poetry reading’, is what it is because there will always be some among the audience who are bored or all but frankly hostile and who can’t remove themselves by the simple act of turning a knob. And it is at bottom the same difficulty — the fact that a theatre audience is not a selected one — that makes it impossible to get a decent performance of Shakespeare in England. On the air these conditions do not exist. The poet feels that he is addressing people to whom poetry means something, and it is a fact that poets who are used to broadcasting can read into the microphone with a virtuosity they would not equal if they had a visible audience in front of them. The element of make-believe that enters here does not greatly matter. The point is that in the only way now possible the poet has been brought into a situation in which reading verse aloud seems a natural unembarrassing thing, a normal exchange between man and man: also he has been led to think of his work as sound rather than as a pattern on paper. By that much the reconciliation between poetry and the common man is nearer. It already exists at the poet’s end of the aether-waves, whatever may be happening at the other end.
However, what is happening at the other end cannot be disregarded. It will be seen that I have been speaking as though the whole subject of poetry were embarrassing, almost indecent, as though popularising poetry were essentially a strategic manoeuvre, like getting a dose of medicine down a child’s throat or establishing tolerance for a persecuted sect. But unfortunately that or something like it is the case. There can be no doubt that in our civilisation poetry is by far the most discredited of the arts, the only art, indeed, in which the average man refuses to discern any value. Arnold Bennett was hardly exaggerating when he said that in the English-speaking countries the word ‘poetry’ would disperse a crowd quicker than a fire-hose. And as I have pointed out, a breach of this kind tends to widen simply because of its existence, the common man becoming more and more anti-poetry, the poet more and more arrogant and unintelligible, until the divorce between poetry and popular culture is accepted as a sort of law of nature, although in fact it belongs only to our own time and to a comparatively small area of the earth. We live in an age in which the average human being in the highly civilised countries is aesthetically inferior to the lowest savage. This state of affairs is generally looked upon as being incurable by any conscious act, and on the other hand is expected to right itself of its own accord as soon as society takes a comelier shape. With slight variations the Marxist, the Anarchist and the religious believer will all tell you this, and in broad terms it is undoubtedly true. The ugliness amid which we live has spiritual and economic causes and is not to be explained by the mere going-astray of tradition at some point or other. But it does not follow that no improvement is possible within our present framework, nor that an aesthetic improvement is not a necessary part of the general redemption of society. It is worth stopping to wonder, therefore, whether it would not be possible even now to rescue poetry from its special position as the most hated of the arts and win for it at least the same degree of toleration as exists for music. But one has to start by asking, in what way and to what extent is poetry unpopular?
On the face of it, the unpopularity of poetry is as complete as it could be. But on second thoughts, this has to be qualified in a rather peculiar way. To begin with, there is still an appreciable amount of folk poetry (nursery rhymes etc) which is universally known and quoted and forms part of the background of everyone’s mind. There is also a handful of ancient songs and ballads which have never gone out of favour. In addition there is the popularity, or at least the toleration, of ‘good bad’ poetry, generally of a patriotic or sentimental kind. This might seem beside the point if it were not that ‘good bad’ poetry has all the characteristics which, ostensibly, make the average man dislike true poetry. It is in verse, it rhymes, it deals in lofty sentiments and unusual language — all this to a very marked degree, for it is almost axiomatic that bad poetry is more ‘poetical’ than good poetry. Yet if not actively liked it is at least tolerated. For example, just before writing this I have been listening to a couple of BBC comedians doing their usual turn before the 9 o’clock news. In the last three minutes one of the two comedians suddenly announces that he ‘wants to be serious for a moment’ and proceeds to recite a piece of patriotic balderdash entitled ‘A Fine Old English Gentleman’, in praise of His Majesty the King. Now, what is the reaction of the audience to this sudden lapse into the worst sort of rhyming heroics? It cannot be very violently negative, or there would be a sufficient volume of indignant letters to stop the BBC doing this kind of thing. One must conclude that though the big public is hostile to poetry, it is not strongly hostile to verse. After all, if rhyme and metre were disliked for their own sakes, neither songs nor dirty limericks could be popular. Poetry is disliked because it is associated with untelligibility, intellectual pretentiousness and a general feeling of Sunday-on-a-weekday. Its name creates in advance the same sort of bad impression as the word ‘God’, or a parson’s dog-collar. To a certain extent, popularising poetry is a question of breaking down an acquired inhibition. It is a question of getting people to listen instead of uttering a mechanical raspberry. If true poetry could be introduced to the big public in such a way as to make it seem normal, as that piece of rubbish I have just listened to presumably seemed normal, then part of the prejudice against it might be overcome.
It is difficult to believe that poetry can ever be popularised again without some deliberate effort at the education of public taste, involving strategy and perhaps even subterfuge. T. S. Eliot once suggested that poetry, particularly dramatic poetry, might be brought back into the consciousness of ordinary people through the medium of the music hall; he might have added the pantomime, whose vast possibilities do not seem ever to have been completely explored. ‘Sweeney Agonistes’ was perhaps written with some such idea in mind, and it would in fact be conceivable as a music-hall turn, or at least as a scene in a revue. I have suggested the radio as a more hopeful medium, and I have pointed out its technical advantages, particularly from the point of view of the poet. The reason why such a suggestion sounds hopeless at first hearing is that few people are able to imagine the radio being used for the dissemination of anything except tripe. People listen to the stuff that does actually dribble from the loud-speakers of the world, and conclude that it is for that and nothing else that the wireless exists. Indeed the very word ‘wireless’ calls up a picture either of roaring dictators or of genteel throaty voices announcing that three of our aircraft have failed to return. Poetry on the air sounds like the Muses in striped trousers. Nevertheless one ought not to confuse the capabilities of an instrument with the use it is actually put to. Broadcasting is what it is, not because there is something inherently vulgar, silly and dishonest about the whole apparatus of microphone and transmitter, but because all the broadcasting that now happens all over the world is under the control of governments or great monopoly companies which are actively interested in maintaining the status quo and therefore in preventing the common man from becoming too intelligent. Something of the same kind has happened to the cinema, which, like the radio, made its appearance during the monopoly stage of capitalism and is fantastically expensive to operate. In all the arts the tendency is similar. More and more the channels of production are under the control of bureaucrats, whose aim is to destroy the artist or at least to castrate him. This would be a bleak outlook if it were not that the totalitarianisation which is now going on, and must undoubtedly continue to go on, in every country of the world, is mitigated by another process which it was not easy to foresee even as short a time as five years ago.
This is, that the huge bureaucratic machines of which we are all part are beginning to work creakily because of their mere size and their constant growth. The tendency of the modern state is to wipe out the freedom of the intellect, and yet at the same time every state, especially under the pressure of war, finds itself more and more in need of an intelligentsia to do its publicity for it. The modern state needs, for example, pamphlet-writers, poster artists, illustrators, broadcasters, lecturers, film producers, actors, song composers, even painters and sculptors, not to mention psychologists, sociologists, bio-chemists, mathematicians and what not. The British Government started the present war with the more or less openly declared intention of keeping the literary intelligentsia out of it; yet after three years of war almost every writer, however undesirable his political history or opinions, has been sucked into the various Ministries or the BBC and even those who enter the armed forces tend to find themselves after a while in Public Relations or some other essentially literary job. The Government has absorbed these people, unwillingly enough, because it found itself unable to get on without them. The ideal, from the official point of view, would have been to put all publicity into the hands of ‘safe’ people like A. P. Herbert or Ian Hay: but since not enough of these were available, the existing intelligentsia had to be utilised, and the tone and even to some extent the content of official propaganda have been modified accordingly. No one acquainted with the Government pamphlets, ABCA (The Army Bureau of Current Affairs.) lectures, documentary films and broadcasts to occupied countries which have been issued during the past two years imagines that our rulers would sponsor this kind of thing if they could help it. Only, the bigger the machine of government becomes, the more loose ends and forgotten corners there are in it. This is perhaps a small consolation, but it is not a despicable one. It means that in countries where there is already a strong liberal tradition, bureaucratic tyranny can perhaps never be complete. The striped-trousered ones will rule, but so long as they are forced to maintain an intelligentsia, the intelligentsia will have a certain amount of autonomy. If the Government needs, for example, documentary films, it must employ people specially interested in the technique of the film, and it must allow them the necessary minimum of freedom; consequently, films that are all wrong from the bureaucratic point of view will always have a tendency to appear. So also with painting, photography, scriptwriting, reportage, lecturing and all the other arts and half-arts of which a complex modern state has need.
The application of this to the radio is obvious. At present the loudspeaker is the enemy of the creative writer, but this may not necessarily remain true when the volume and scope of broadcasting increase. As things are, although the BBC does keep up a feeble show of interest in contemporary literature, it is harder to capture five minutes on the air in which to broadcast a poem than twelve hours in which to disseminate lying propaganda, tinned music, stale jokes, faked ‘discussions’ or what-have-you. But that state of affairs may alter in the way I have indicated, and when that time comes serious experiment in the broadcasting of verse, with complete disregard for the various hostile influences which prevent any such thing at present, would become possible. I don’t claim it as certain that such an experiment would have very great results. The radio was bureaucratised so early in its career that the relationship between broadcasting and literature has never been thought out. It is not certain that the microphone is the instrument by which poetry could be brought back to the common people and it is not even certain that poetry would gain by being more of a spoken and less of a written thing. But I do urge that these possibilities exist, and that those who care for literature might turn their minds more often to this much-despised medium, whose powers for good have perhaps been obscured by the voices of Professor Joad and Doctor Goebbels.
Weird comedy act, from 1982 Wavis was a regular on Channel 4’s The Tube as The Hard, an oaf obsessed with being tough who’s catchphrase was ‘I felt nowt’.
The Tube initially had some interesting comedy as well as poetry from Mark Miwurdz.
Track 1-5 were recorded in a studio, tracks 7-9 in Fatty Round’s kitchen on cassette recorder.
Track 2 clearly shows that Wavis invented Rap Music back in ’79!
Track 3 is about the demise of British comedian Sid James.
Track 6 is a genuine phone call ingeniously set up and recorded from Newcastle’s ‘Metro Radio’ late night James Whale Show.
Track 8 is about disgraced British Liberal politician Jeremy Thorpe.
Some clips of The hard from The Tube, also with post-punker Muriel Gray
From New Mania no 5, 1981
The Business are a band from Lewisham in south London. Their only vinyl output at the time of the interview is two tracks, “Product” and “Suburban Rebels” on the Carry On Oi! LP, although they are due to have a single released on Secret records. This interview took place in a pub near Charing Cross station with Steve Kent, Quint Smith and manager Lol Pryor. So that’s the introductions over, let’s get to (the) business…
When did Business start?
October ’79, although we didn’t get serious until the next year. The first gig was in February that year at this girl’s party in Waterloo. We had been talking about forming a band for ages. We started off doing covers, before writing our own.
What were your first gigs like?
The first ones were just arranged through friends. We played at small pubs, gradually working up to better pubs. We played one gig at Guy’s Hospital.
What happened at that Rock Garden gig?
We were supporting a “Rough Trade” type band, called Vincent Units. We arrived at opening time, so by the time we went on, around 10.15, we was more than drunk. It was the first time we’d played up the West End and the place was packed with our mates. The owner said we were “generally unruly” and the sound engineer said we was the best band to play there since the Sex Pistols. The manager of the place didn’t have the guts to tell us to our face that we’re banned, he waited until he phoned us up the next day.
What do you think of the gig at the Bridge House with Cock Sparrer, 4-Skins etc? Cos I didn’t think the sound was really good.
Well, we nearly went home because we was being mucked about so much. The bloke at the place said we had to go on at 8 o’clock or not at all. When we went on the place was empty. If it hadn’t been Garry Bushell’s birthday we would have gone home. The guitar sounded like a ukelele. I think that gig done us more harm than good.
How did the gig at Southall with the Last Resort and 4-Skins come about?
We was going to do three gigs with them on an alternate headline basis. The 4-Skins headlining at Southall, Last Resort at Hastings and us at Crayford Town Hall. In the end that was the only gig of the three.
What happened when you got to Southall?
We didn’t get there until 8 o’clock. We got as far as the road to the Hamborough Tavern was in. There was a big traffic jam so we asked an Asian woman what was going on and she said there was an accident. Then about fifty Asians steamed into the van, so we wound the windows up and shot off down the road towards the Hamborough Tavern and ended up in the forecourt. We went into the pub, which was packed, and went straight on stage.
Did you get all the way through the set?
We only had 25 minutes to play and the singer just picked out the songs as we went along.
Who do you think was to blame for the trouble?
The police. They should have moved the Asians or called the gig off. Trouble could have been avoided.
After Southall, I suppose it was pretty hard getting gigs?
We tried lots of places. Some said wait until things cool down, and others said “no chance”.
Don’t you think you are now branded as “Oi!”, along with the other bands at Southall, even though your music is much different?
In our first poster we said we were an “oi-punk” band. Oi! is just something you get called, rather than something you are. Oi! is punk, 1981 punk.
Do you think you could appeal to a larger, wider audience than the other bands currently under the Oi! banner?
Yes. We appeal to the punks, the Skinheads and the herberts, the lads in the pub. It depends a lot on the area you live in. A lot of punk bands don’t want to get across to the 20-22 year olds who ain’t punk or Skinhead. No-one has really tried to get across to these people.
What sort of things do you write about?
Steve writes most of the words, but we don’t really sit down and try to write about anything in particular. We write about anything that’s in our heads.
Do you think the Oi! tag has done you more harm than good?
Being in with the Oi! tag did get us more gigs at first, as well as getting a record out. Now that’s all been cancelled out as no-one will put us on.
Are you signed to a gig agency?
No. We haven’t got much faith in agencies. They just get you gigs at places we’d try, but they take 15%. We just ring up places ourselves.
One side of your single is “National Insurance Blacklist”. What’s that about?
It’s about a blacklist for extreme trade unionists and rebels that cause a lot of grief for the government. They take the National Insurance number and when they go for another job, it cuts their chances down. (There is a monster said not to exist, they call it the Employer’s Blacklist.)
The other, “Harry May”, what is the story behind that?
Harry May is a well-known south London celebrity and ‘Robin Hood’, in no way a villain, contrary to rumours spread by the Metropolitan Police.
What is the deal with Secret Records?
A shady one! It’s an optional deal where, if the first single does well, then we’ll do another one. “Harry May” was going to be on the Oi! LP originally but Secret wanted to put it on the single.
What does the future hold in store for the band?
There are a couple of promotors in Dublin prepared to put on an Oi! package, so hopefully we’ll play there sometime. There’s also talk of New York dates sometime in 1982. Finally we’d like to find out whether ‘Crowd’s Favourite’ and Mickey have got a good thing going…
I sensed that this signalled the end of the serious conversation. So, I made my excuses and headed back to Charing Cross and boarded the train home…