Camera phones at gigs? You can get too much of a good thing

I'm not one to bemoan the camera phone - far from it. I love to snap a double entendre sign in a shop for posterity, send a silly face picture on Twitter or even Snapchat (yep, down with the kids), or capture an image of something genuinely intriguing/interesting in day to day life. Without wishing to sound like a Werther's Original-wielding grandad it really isn't that long since all that seemed a distant possibility is it?

But while I do understand their value and allure, it's a different matter when it comes to a gig.

I've been to two gigs recently, both at smallish, non-arena venues. I may be of diminutive stature but over the years I've become accustomed to the art of engineering a clear line of sight to the stage. Until recently.

The problem now is that some people feel the need to take photos/video of every last second of the gig they're at - blocking otherwise clear lines of sight with their £40-a-month weapon of choice.

I know it's really about the sound but it's quite nice to get a good look at whoever you've paid decent money to see - and having to peer through the dodgy screen on someone's scratched Samsung doesn't count as a 'good look'.

I am also genuinely fascinated as to what happens to these photos and videos. I am not against taking a quick pic as a reminder but some of the ones I've had the misfortune of seeing being taken were beyond abysmal. And the videos? Good luck trying to work out which song you'd even filmed when the sound is drowned out by a nearby scream or the out of tune drawl from the sweaty fella next to you.

The thing that leaves me scratching my head most though is the fact that these people surely don't enjoy the moment. The best bit about a gig for me is seeing just how good an artist is - how easily they can roar out their best hits outside of the comfort of the studio. That and the one or two songs that a powerful live performance can give a new lease of life to and make you appreciate them more than when they were just 'another one on the CD'.

If your main consideration is your battery life, faffing about getting the artist in shot and Snapchatting your mates every minute (I may be down with the kids but even I was appalled by this), then do you really allow yourself to soak in the performance? 

I'm all for chronicling the events of your life...but it might be nice to have some events that you properly enjoyed to reflect on surely?

Oh and seriously, don't think that that demented funky chicken dance is acceptable either... 

British Museum opens your eyes to Germany's story

I love the British Museum. A beautiful building housing more wonders than you could possibly take in in one trip. Ok, the ownership of some items may be a little dubious (yes, that's you Elgin Marbles) but the fact it's free is fantastic. Everyone ought to go. Several times.

Of course the visiting exhibitions aren't free. (How dare they make you pay for the privilege of getting more of the world's most thought-provoking and fascinating artefacts to come to this country on 'tour'?!) In recent times I've been wowed by stunning shows on the Aztecs, Egypt, Pompeii and the Vikings - each sumptuosly put together and all giving eye catching lessons in periods of history you maybe already thought you knew well.

The museum has currently turned its attentions to Germany for a timely reflection on a nation marking 25 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The show, which runs until January 25, begins with that very landmark.

I've always had something of an interest in Germany - paricularly its culture, football and past - so this, and the accompanying Radio 4 series (available in easy to digest podcasts), has been a real treat.

The exhibition and radio series seem to be a labour of love for British Museum director Neil MacGregor - who picks up on the work of A History of the World in 100 Objects in some style.

There are a couple of key themes that run throughout.  Firstly, that you can't hope to understand Germany's history without looking at places such as Strasbourg,  Kaliningrad, Prague - all no longer German, but each play an important part in its story and, in the words of the organisers, are key contributors to the 'memories of a nation'.

The series and exhibition also, interestingly,  looks at how Germany's development as a patchwork of small kingdoms and states (it wasn't a nation until 1871) feeds in to its development. MacGregor reckons, for example, that the competition and lack of one overbearing central power created the conditions that Gutenberg and Luther would have struggled without. In France or England, he argues, Luther would have been banned and suppressed much more easily without the ability to look anywhere else for more favourable conditions.

He also seems to think Germany's traditions mean compromise and coalition are at the heart of its politics and shape favourable views to the EU. It may be stretching it a little but MacGregor suggests that Germany sees the state as a collaborative entity and so presumes that is how the EU could and should work. In Britain, so the theory goes, we are used to one party 'strong' government so we presume that is what the EU is/wants to become and are, as such, more skeptical about its aims and concerned about it dominating our life.

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting point about the present, inspired by the past and our understanding of it.

Those themes are played out more explicitly on the radio, whereas it's the objects themselves that naturally come to the fore at the museum.  An unsung highlight has to be the triple portrait that, face on, appears to be Wilhelm I but (with the nifty use of wooden strips) from the left appears to be Bismarck and on the right Frederick III. The child in me is still fascinated by things like that. Surely this would be a nifty marketing idea even now?

From Marx to the Bauhaus with books and paintings there's plenty more of the culture you'd expect/hope to see. Oddly the most interesting exhibit for me proved to be the detailed model of Friedrichstrasse station. At first glance this looks a rather fun piece that wouldn't be amiss alongside a child's train set. Upon closer inspection you realise this painstaking replica was used to instruct spies. It's a telling example of how the Stasi - keepers of smell samples etc - made the mundane menacing and how it obsessed over its quest to keep East German society under close watch.

What of the Nazis?  Well, in some respects this exhibition and series could be seen as an attempt to broaden our understanding beyond 1933-45. Indeed MacGregor has spoken of the fact that many other nations have made a concerted effort to move beyond the two terrible wars and understand the close ties they have with Germany. He clearly feels we still need that here and does his bit for the cause here.

When I went for an interview for my history degree, I was asked: "You're not obsessed with the Nazis are you?" It seemed a bizarre question. When I confirmed I wasn't and asked why they'd enquired, I was told they got many students who had come to them having studied Hitler, his rise to power and the Second World War at school, GCSE and A-level and wanted to carry that tradition on at university.

In some respects I can completely understand the teaching of the topic. It's a period that has huge relevance to recent generations in this country and offers a chance to do one of the most important things you can with the past - learn the lessons of history. The Nazis were barbarous and, naturally, form a massive part of German history study. But stereotyping and scapegoating a nation are surely the very opposite approach if you've truly understood the lessons of that period.

The period is covered here with a number of items - most movingly a concentration camp gate set in a starkly white corner. I thought it was a tasteful and powerful way of looking at the horrors of the Holocaust.

Not everyone was satisfied.  The woman who left before us wrote on an iPad, which had been left out for feedback, that there was 'not enough on the Nazis'.

I guess some people will have gone to this exhibition expecting a glut of Nazi artefacts.  The fact that some of those couldn't be swayed by the items they saw shows MacGregor still has a way to go.

The British Museum should definitely be applauded for its exhibition and accompanying series. I felt enriched and informed after my visit. Then again, I always do.

Why so Swift to judge Taylor?

Taylor Swift has a new album out today. There'll be plenty of publicity surrounding it, as there is with any big star, but why is it different for her?

For some reason, people seem to be queuing up to accuse her of ditching her country roots and - more juicily for the gossip mags and red tops - engaging in some sort of musical kiss and tell on her ex-boyfriends.

I haven't heard Taylor's latest effort yet but my girlfriend is a fan and I expect it'll be a similar blend of super catchy pop that she managed with Red.

For some reason, people want to be snobby about such music. I can't be doing with reviewers who fail to praise someone simply because they don't think it's cool or that it doesn't reference an obscure B side from the 1970s. An awful lot of music reviewers seem to have disappeared up their own B sides. A lot of the time you finish a review still none the wiser as to whether they thought it was any good or not.

So, yes, she's a little less country now but still has the odd nod to her roots. There's a blurred line (not a Thicke one) in the UK between country and pop anyway with many of the boyband ballads inflicted on our eardrums in the 90s having their roots in the Stetson-wearing Nashville set.

But what should she do? Is she not allowed to mature and develop her sound? Should she be forever bound by singing songs about 'losing her man, her dawg but still having a geetar and a ticket to the Grand Ol Opry'?

More serious is the suggestion that she's wrong to sing about her love life because it appears to be largely based on sexist nonsense.

She recently, rightly, pointed to the fact that artists such as Ed Sheeran and Bruno Mars aren't pulled up for apparently 'spilling the beans' through the medium of song.

Sadly we still seem to be in the dark ages whereby a 'bloke' can either boast about his 'conquests' or appear 'cute' by talking of heartbreak while a woman faces being seen as 'bitter' and not 'lady-like' for similar outbursts.

Of course Taylor Swift should write about what matters to her. We should welcome young artists who write their own material that means something to them and, by now, we ought to be over these silly gender stereotypes. Most of the people criticising her haven't got the talent to do what she does. It's not easy to write a successful pop song, if it was we'd all be at it.

I feel sorry for Taylor. She seems nice enough and her music is good fun. She proved in her recent Shake It Off video that she doesn't take herself seriously. Maybe it's about time some of her critics followed suit.

The election they don't want to win

Since when did we have to sleep with a party leader?

I only ask since the parties - in particular the Conservatives - have spent a lot of time telling us the perils of jumping between the sheets with old Farage since we might wake up with Ed Miliband. 

I don't know about you but I thought these were political parties,  not swingers parties.

A shuddering thought but if considered further - and party sock puppet Grant Shapps was keen to push it as often as possible - you're led to believe the slogan might be 'jump in to bed with Dave...and wake up with him the next morning too'. Not exactly appealing either.

And don't even get me started on the horrific thought of a 'hung Parliament' (very Sid James!).

Still if you forget this whole tawdry business - and I'm trying to, honest - you're left with the thought that the party leaders may well, aside from the prospect of having hordes of strangers jump in their beds (Ok, last mention) be approaching May with a sense of trepidation.

Assuming Ed Miliband does secure a victory, what prospect is there for his administration? Looming on the horizon would be the 'Scottish question'. It seems unfeasible that he could avoid some form of 'English votes for English laws' given the post-referendum mood south of the border.

But that could mean a Miliband Government loses the support of key numbers that it may need to carry the day on issues such as education. Any chance of reform could be seriously hampered.

Assuming the UKIP surge continues, he'd also have to come up with a plausible way of appeasing the growing calls for change in the EU. The 'fingers in ears while hoping that the whole thing causes the Tories to explode' tactic won't work forever.

Miliband could either ignore both issues and look out of touch or take them on and suffer. Either way it seems grounds for a fractious period in office.

But what about Cameron? Well, if he returns to Number 10 he really will have to deliver on his promise (what's stronger than cast iron I wonder?) to tackle the European question.

It looks like there'd be a significant - at least in audible volume - batch of UKIP MPs baiting him on this at every turn too.

It seems likely that his promised EU renegotiation will bring about some changes to our relationship with Brussels, but it also, to me at least, seems unlikely that any crumbs he gets will be enough to satisfy the big Eurosceptic bellies of his party.

What happens if he gets some concessions but not that many? Does he lead the 'out' campaign, arguing against the very changes he has been able to engineer? Or does he back something he knows isn't quite enough and make the case to stay in the EU, putting himself at odds with the party faithful? It's the heart of what makes his current stance more than a little confusing for voters and party members alike.

This is all, of course, presuming that none of two will need to go into a coalition with the Lib Dems or even UKIP - again weakening what they can do.

In fact, how about a bet on none of Clegg, Cameron or Miliband lasting the aftermath of the election? It's maybe a little far fetched but if Miliband fails to win he'd surely be ditched while if Cameron fails to win outright for a second time he'd face big questions - especially with a certain floppy haired former Mayor of London waiting in the wings. And Clegg? Well, he's surely being fed to the electoral slaughter. The Lib Dems know they face a brutal kicking so why put another leader through that?

They seem content to concentrate on keeping as many seats as possible and hoping to hold on to enough to be vaguely relevant in the Commons after May. UKIP may well poll a high share of the public vote but as the Lib Dems have found out, that doesn't matter one bit unless the support can translate into winning seats. It's no good being a strong second everywhere.

The election may well turn into one of those cricketing tosses that you'd rather lose and let the other team make your mind up for you. Going into the bat for either a Labour or Tory government after May would be tricky. Maybe, perversely, it's best (in a narrow party interest way) to lose and let the other side have their own meltdown? 

Whichever party emerges victorious, you'd certainly not be putting money on a second full five year term, would you? 

2015 could well be a quick fling rather than a full blown relationship - maybe that's why they're so keen to bombard us with 'going to bed' analogies after all.