Showing posts with label malcolm mclaren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label malcolm mclaren. Show all posts

23 Jul 2026

An Epitaph for the Avant-Garde: A Review of Stephen Alexander's 'No More Heroes' - By May Spear

No More Heroes (SA/2026)  
 
Editorial Note 
 
May Spear is a former contributing editor to the now defunct French literary magazine  Pourquoi es-tu un con aussi odieux? Her post published below is a revised version of a text originally submitted in the form of personal correspondence and can be read as a riposte to the post previously published by Mr. Jeff Francis: 'No More Heroes 5: Stephen Alexander - The Performative Punk Poseur' (22 July 2026).  
 
 
******************************************
 
 
Opening Remarks
 
Stephen Alexander's recent series of posts titled 'No More Heroes' (14-17 July 2026) offers a profound case study not just in personal disappointment, but in cultural exhaustion, centred on four main characters: the punk provocateur Malcolm McLaren; the Dionysian philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche; the priest of love D. H. Lawrence, and, finally, the comic assassin turned court jester Larry David
 
By examining the deeper theoretical architecture connecting these chosen figures, we can discern three underlying thematic currents that unify his analysis of des héros aux pieds d'argile ... 
 
 
1. Capitalist Realism and the Closure of the Outside 
 
The primary architectural pillar supporting Alexander's entire series is the diagnosis of spatial collapse - specifically, the systemic closure of any radical Outside from which to mount a critique. 
 
McLaren, for example, believed he was operating in a volatile, shockable mid-century landscape where cultural terrorism and the politics of desire could threaten the Establishment. In reality, his libidinal subversions merely prototyped a highly adaptive, flexible market format. 
 
Larry David, meanwhile, operates entirely within the hyper-insulated, hyper-monetised ecosystem of cultural elites. His rage is no longer authentic; it is a synthetic, domestic product pre-formatted by high-end production companies and packaged as low-risk partisan entertainment. 
 
Thus Alexander reveals a sobering truth: the contemporary iconoclast is a structural impossibility because capitalism has colonised the very space of transgression and resistance. McLaren's anti-fashion called punk was absorbed into the high street, while David's once outrageous comedy has become a regular feature on billion-dollar streaming platforms. 
 
 
2. The Illusion of Libidinal Liberation 
 
A profound philosophical continuity in the series is Alexander's deployment of Michel Foucault to dismantle the romantic myths of sexual and existential liberation from power. 
 
Both Malcolm McLaren and D. H. Lawrence are subjected to an identical post-structuralist autopsy: both fell victim to the repressive hypothesis, naively operating under the assumption that power functions solely through censorship, prohibition, and denial. 
 
Not for the first time on Torpedo the Ark, Alexander masterfully pairs these two figures to show how this philosophical error manifests across different eras. 
 
Lawrence transfigured sex into metaphysics, unaware that treating sex as the ultimate, hidden truth of human being is the exact mechanism by which modern power categorises and disciplines the subject. 
 
Decades later, McLaren repeated this exact mistake, naively assuming that flogging fetish-wear and bondage trousers on King's Road would provoke a state insurrection, failing to see that he was simply pioneering a frictionless new consumer market. 
 
By linking Lawrence's 'austere monarchy of sex' to McLaren's 'pseudo-academic earnestness', Alexander exposes the tragic irony of the sex-radical; by speaking of desire ad infinitum, they do not evade power; they simply map its coordinates. 

Today, in 2026 - when every identity is instantly tracked by digital algorithms, their 'liberation' and free expression simply provide free data and something new to be commercially exploited.  
 
 
3. The Hermeneutics of Failure and the Comedy of Decline
 
The deepest, most melancholic tier of Alexander's critique addresses the temporal vulnerability of the hero and the tragic reality that an artwork or a philosophy is entirely dependent on the physical, decaying body of its creator. 
 
This creates a fascinating thematic bridge between Friedrich Nietzsche and Larry David, both of whom suffer from a profound failure of narrative control. Alexander frames this through two distinct modalities of failure: the tragedy of biological over-ripeness and the comedy of decline.
 
Nietzsche’s failure to 'die at the right time' acts as a literal, physical catastrophe. His eleven-year vegetative decline stripped him of his authorial agency, transforming his body into a 'living museum exhibit' and leaving his raw notebooks open to the parasitic, proto-fascist splicing of his sister. The body's failure to expire corrupted the semantic integrity of the philosophy itself. 
 
Larry David's failure is also one of timing, but it manifests as a slow slide into the comfy accommodations of elite compromise. Like Nietzsche hanging on the tree like a worm-filled apple, 79-year-old Larry David outlives his sharp, misanthropic 'social assassin' persona, declining into a petulant, partisan 'court jester' who blacklists friends to appease former First Ladies. 
 
In both instances, the iconoclast fails Zarathustra's ultimate test: the sovereign exit. Whether corrupted by physical decay and a controlling sister, or diluted by the softening comforts of extreme wealth, both thinkers failed to maintain narrative control over their own legacies. 
 
  
Conclusion 
 
Ultimately, Alexander's 'No More Heroes' cycle is a masterclass in compressed, evocative writing that sparks the kind of immediate cultural dialogue that more formal academic prose usually smothers under its own weight. 
 
By methodically exposing how his own primary influences were digested by the very structures they claimed to combat, Alexander has elevated the series of posts from simple expressions of personal disappointment into a unified work of philosophical mourning - an epitaph for the avant-garde
 
The 'No More Heroes' series leaves the reader with a haunting conclusion: in a 21st-century landscape governed by capitalist realism and digital algorithms, the iconoclast no longer exists as a dangerous agent of chaos. They exist, rather, as a pre-approved, highly profitable aesthetic category.
  

22 Jul 2026

No More Heroes 5: Stephen Alexander - The Performative Punk Poser (A Guest Post by Jeff Francis)

No More Heroes 5 (Stephen Alexander)
(SA/2026) 
 
 
I received this by email: 
 
Dear Stephen Alexander, 
 
I have written a short post in the style and format favoured by Torpedo the Ark. Perhaps you might care to publish it as an addition to your 'No More Heroes' series (14-17 July 2026). I think it will amuse some of your readers; particularly those who, like me, found the series disappointing (to use your pet word of the moment). [1]  
 
Always happy for contributions from guest writers - even those that are cuntishly critical in character and come from authors unknown to me - here's the post (to which I've added one or two editorial notes).  
  
 
I. 
 
There is a famous early scene in The Silence of the Lambs (dir. Jonathan Demme, 1991) when trainee FBI agent Clarice Starling (played by Jodie Foster) first visits Dr. Lecter (played by Anthony Hopkins) in his prison cell. 
 
Rather rudely, he tells her that she looks like a rube with her good bag and cheap shoes. Well-scrubbed, and possessed of a little taste, but a hustling rube all the same; "not more than one generation from poor white trash".   
 
Momentarily taken aback by this, Starling eventually regains her composure and replies: 
 
"You see a lot, doctor. But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself? What about it? Why don't you - why don't you look at yourself and write down what you see? Or maybe you're afraid to." [2] 
 
 
II. 
 
I thought of this scene after reading Stephen Alexander's four-part series of posts titled 'No More Heroes' and I put the exact same challenge to him that Starling puts to Lecter. 
 
But I do so knowing that, like Lecter, Alexander cannot genuinely self-reflect. For his narcissism extends only to the surface, manifesting as a rigid ego-defense mechanism and a strange inability to integrate his shadow or look inwards. This is why, for all its superficial cleverness, his writing consistently lacks psychological insight and philosophical depth.
 
Consequently, I offer my own critical assessment of the 'No More Heroes' (NMH) series, exposing the internal contradictions, structural blind spots, and stylistic failings within these four specific case studies. 
 
My examination also reveals how Alexander - operating through a matrix of performative disillusionment and elite proximity - ironically positions himself as a candidate for the very heroism or critical authority he seeks to deconstruct.  
 
 
III.  
 
A close reading of the NMH series reveals two significant weaknesses that undermine its critical validity: 
 
Firstly, there is a methodological reliance on biography that elsewhere on his blog Alexander often condemns other writers for. He routinely substitutes a figure's personal, domestic, or existential choices for an interrogation of their actual ideas. 
 
Thus, for example, Nietzsche is judged not on the beauty and originality of his text, but on his failure to execute a clean, sovereign death (not for the first time on his blog we find Alexander fetishising the idea of suicide). Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a highly metaphorical work of philosophy and Alexander subjects it to an all-too-literal reading that is both crass and ungenerous. 
 
Larry David, meanwhile, is dismissed because of a 2026 sketch show's production credits and rumors of a social snub involving the actress Cheryl Hines. Alexander downplays David's massive contribution to TV comedy and decades of excellent work in favour of sharing some real-time celebrity gossip.
 
By tying the validity of an idea to the purity or narrative perfection of the biography that produced it, Alexander commits a deeply conservative critical error; falling into the kind of fallacy that betrays the more radical methodology he invokes elsewhere. 
 
Secondly, in the NMH series Alexander sets up a kind of no-win matrix - a conceptual trap where failure is structurally predetermined, thereby rendering the entire analysis tautological. 
 
If an icon dies young or self-destructs, they are dismissed as a failure. If, however, they live long enough to navigate the complexities of ageing and shifting cultural landscapes, they are condemned as overripe worms (Nietzsche), sell-outs trapped in the past (McLaren), or compromised court jesters (David). As for Lawrence, well, apparently, he was an idealist and crypto-theologian all along whose sexual metaphysics are now simply laughable. 
 
Similarly, if their ideas are ignored, they are irrelevant. But if their ideas achieve cultural traction, they are dismissed as recuperated commodities. By building an analytical framework where every possible path leads to an accusation of compromise, Alexander ensures his own conclusions are entirely self-serving. 
 
The NMH series does not, therefore, analyse the mechanics of cultural transformation; it merely functions as a screen for the projection of his own psychic stagnation, wallowing in a predetermined and pessimistic narrative of inevitable defeat. It's a lose-lose scenario and I would never want to play a game of heads or tails with Alexander.   
 
 
IV. 
 
If the ultimate objective of the NMH series is to dismantle the very category of the hero archetype, it simultaneously (and ironically) functions as a performative showcase for its author. However, Alexander himself fails to convince as to why we should care in the slightest what he thinks about the four figures he pits himself against. 
 
Alexander adopts the pose of the detached provocateur, viewing the collapse of cultural standards with cynical amusement. Yet this cynicism functions as a profound form of intellectual evasion. By declaring that there is no Outside and that all resistance (be it political, philosophical or cultural in character) is not only futile but fake, Alexander neatly absolves himself of the responsibility to propose any constructive alternative. 
 
His stance is not at all edgy or transgressive; it is a comfortable, low-risk position that allows him to collect cultural capital by sneering at the failures of those who actually risked public exposure and artistic production. 
 
  
V. 
 
Throughout his writings, Alexander insists on his punk detachment from mainstream institutions. However, his own biographical fragments consistently betray a reliance on the very networks of privilege he critiques, revealing a profound splitting between his (overly inflated) public persona and his structural dependencies. 
 
For example, he explicitly boasts of his time spent as a spy placed within the press office of Charisma Records by his hero Malcolm McLaren, trading on insider access while simultaneously claiming a pure, underground status. 
 
Furthermore, his writing relies heavily on the cultural capital of the academic institutions he disdains - referencing Oxford podcasts and expensive Cambridge editions. 
 
He attacks Larry David for his proximity to the Hollywood liberal elite and his friendship with President Obama, yet Alexander's critical persona is largely parasitical upon the cultural output of the bourgeois institutions he holds in contempt and the individuals he now claims to find disappointing.  
 
 
VI. 
  
Finally, the ultimate contradiction in Alexander's blog project is his relationship to time and archiving. 
 
He ruthlessly attacks Malcolm McLaren for being 'trapped in his past like a spider in its own web' and borrows from Baudrillard (via Mark Fisher) to condemn the contemporary digital landscape as a desert of the real defined by endlessly recycled pasts and lost futures. 
 
Yet, what is Torpedo the Ark if not a meticulously maintained digital museum? The blog's sidebar contains a massive, self-canonising archive stretching back to 2012, categorised by a hyper-specific taxonomy of labels. 
 
Alexander is caught in precisely the same web (or loop) that he attacks McLaren for. He uses twentieth-century theoretical tools to endlessly recycle his own youthful experiences and encounters, transforming his digital platform into a highly curated, risk-free space that perfectly expresses a state of psychological arrest within a karaoke culture.
 
 
VII.
 
In conclusion: ultimately, the NMH series fails because it is fundamentally driven by ressentiment and the narcissism of disappointment. Alexander does not mourn the compromises of McLaren, Nietzsche, Lawrence, and David because of what it says about the structural state of modern culture; he mourns them because they failed to satisfy his archetypal demand for an unblemished hero. 
 
The entire four-part cycle is an exercise in projecting an impossibly pure, static ideal of heroism onto flawed, living subjects, and then throwing a performative tantrum when those subjects succumb to illness, ageing, or political contingency (or when they - as he says - let him down).  
 
By positioning himself as the final arbiter of who is or is not heroic, Alexander reveals that his ultimate loyalty is not to cultural greatness, but to the preservation of his own pristine, uncompromised, and thoroughly unproductive sense of intellectual superiority. [3] 
 
  
Notes (supplied by Stephen Alexander)
 
[1] Each post in the 'No More Heroes' series dealt with a different figure who has been hugely influential on Torpedo the Ark over the years: the first featured Malcolm McLaren (14 July 2026); the second Friedrich Nietzsche (15 July 2026); the third D. H. Lawrence (16 July 2026); and the fourth Larry David (17 July 2026). 
 
[2] This famous opening scene from The Silence of the Lambs can be watched on YouTube: click here. The lines of dialogue quoted begin at 4:35 and end at 5:36. 
 
[3] As this letter illustrates, Deleuze isn't the only one to receive mail from harsh critics containing a vicious mixture of aggression, accusation, and abuse. Almost every other day in my inbox there's something from some troll or other outlining the weaknesses of my arguments and my personal shortcomings; i.e., a sort of celebration of my supposedly sorry condition. 
      Indeed, I mentioned this in a post published back in August 2013 - click here - so this isn't the first time I've been told that I'm a performative ressentiment-ridden narcissist who exploits the work of others - including those I identify as opponents - from the safe space of a virtually private blog, and I don't suppose it will be the last. 
      I'll allow readers to decide if Francis has made a critically strong case, or if his remarks often miss the mark and that, actually, the NMH series is, as a friendlier correspondent emailed me to say, "a masterclass in compressed, evocative writing that sparks the kind of immediate cultural dialogue that more formal academic prose usually smothers under its own weight". The same correspondent concludes her email: 
 
"By methodically exposing how your own primary influences were digested by the very structures they claimed to combat, you have elevated the series of posts from simple expressions of personal disappointment into a unified work of philosophical mourning (what one is tempted to describe as an epitaph for the avant-garde). 
       The 'No More Heroes' series leaves the reader with a haunting conclusion: in a 21st-century landscape governed by capitalist realism and digital algorithms, the iconoclastic icon no longer exists as an agent of chaos. They exist, rather, as a pre-approved, highly profitable aesthetic category."
       
This will do for me - and let Mr. Francis put that in his pipe and smoke it!   
 
 
Musical bonus: The Stranglers, 'No More Heroes', single release from the album of the same title (United Artists, 1977). 
 
Afternote: there is now a follow up post to this one that acts as a kind of riposte, written by May Spear and titled 'Epitaph for the Avant-Garde' (23 July 2026).    
 
 

15 Jul 2026

No More Heroes 2: Friedrich Nietzsche - The Man Who Failed to Die at the Right Time

No More Heroes (Friedrich Nietzsche)
(SA/2026)
 
 
I. 
 
Having in the previous post examined the source of my disappointment with my punk mentor Malcolm McLaren [1], I'd like now to turn to my philosophical hero - and I use that word with reservations [2] - the untimely thinker Friedrich Nietzsche ... 
 
What is it about him that ultimately leaves me feeling a little let down? 
 
Actually, the answer to this question is pretty straightforward: Nietzsche didn't die at the right time ...
 
 
II.  
 
In Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-85), Nietzsche famously preaches the gospel of voluntary death and praises the difficult art of dying at the right time: "Many die too late and some die too early. Still the doctrine sounds strange: 'Die at the right time.'" [3] 
 
Do this, and death becomes a festival and a triumph; a perfect death which serves as "a spur and a promise to the living". 
 
To die in battle and thus to squander a brave soul is good, says Zarathustra. But to die freely at a time of one's own choosing and most advantageous to one's goal, surrounded by friends "filled with hope and making solemn vows", that is the best death of all.
 
Anyone who wants glory and to be remembered with fondness long after their death must take their leave in good time and not hang "withered wreathes in the sanctuary of life", or lie around just waiting for death to creep up on them.      
 
Perhaps this is doubly true for those fuck-ups who have made a failure of their life; they more than others need to see to it that their death is a great success. 
 
But again, timing is the crucial thing here; for whilst, as we have said, many die too late, there are those who die too soon. Zarathustra names Jesus at this point: "and that he died too early has since been a fatality for many" - something that D. H. Lawrence absolutely agrees with, thus his insistence on mortal resurrection as being far more important than the crucifixion or any ascension unto heaven [4].      
 
But, mostly, the problem is one of people dying too late, not prematurely; of hanging on like apples on a tree even when full of worms and overripe to the point of rottenness. Zarathustra - and let's concede that he's pretty much Nietzsche's philosophical mouthpiece and alter ego - says he would hate to be one of these individuals.
 
He wants to die when at the height of his physical and intellectual powers, so that, in death, his spirit "should still glow like a sunset around the earth" with which he joyfully reunites, so that he may know peace in the material world that bore him.       
 
 
III.  
 
Unfortunately, Nietzsche doesn't die at the right time. After collapsing in Turin, aged 44 [5], Nietzsche lived on for eleven more agonising years in a state of severe physical and mental decline. Thus, in a disappointing twist of cosmic irony, Nietzsche utterly failed Zarathustra's ultimate test.
 
Never in the best of health in bourgeois terms, Nietzsche had nevertheless possessed an extraordinary vitality (what he termed die große Gesundheit). So, it's regrettable that he didn't die defiantly with his arms around the neck of a horse in 1889, but became this vegetable, cared for by his elderly mother and anti-Semitic sister who put him on display for visitors like a living museum exhibit. 
 
Worse still, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche took control of his archives, systematically falsifying his letters and editing his Nachlaß in order to present his philosophy as a form of proto-fascism [6]. Thus, not dying at the right time was not only a personal catastrophe, but by failing to leave his affairs in order Nietzsche enabled his philosophical legacy to be hijacked, distorted, and weaponised by the reactive forces of ethno-nationalism he spent his life combatting. 
 
If only Nietzsche had learnt from Socrates or Seneca before being overtaken by biological fate! They provided masterclasses in how to die and shape their own narratives. As it is, however, his end contrasts as the tragic antithesis to these highly controlled, theatrical exits [7]. 
 
 
Notes
 
[1] 'No More Heroes 1: Malcolm McLaren - Stuckism and the Quest for Authenticity' (14 July 2026): click here
 
[2] The word hero derives from the Ancient Greek term ἥρως which referred to one such as Heracles born of divine ancestry, or to one who was awarded divine honours for their deeds. Whilst Nietzsche retained the concept in his work, he was unhappy with the way it is used in the modern world, often taking on a moral aspect and tied to notions of self-sacrifice, for example. Others may disagree, but, for me, to call Nietzsche a hero would betray a fundamental misunderstanding of his philosophical project.    
 
[3] See Nietzsche, 'Of Voluntary Death', Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. R. J. Hollingdale (Penguin Books, 1969), pp. 97-99. All lines quoted in section II of this post are taken from this edition of Nietzsche's text.  
 
[4] See Lawrence's vitally important short novel The Escaped Cock (1929), which can be found in The Virgin and the Gipsy and Other Stories, ed. Michael Herbert, Bethan Jones and Lindeth Vasey (Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 123-163. 
      One of the earliest posts on Torpedo the Ark was written on this work by Lawrence (29 March 2013): click here
 
[5] On 3 January 1889, Nietzsche suffered a mental breakdown and was briefly detained by two policemen for causing a public disturbance in the streets of Turin. What happened exactly remains unknown, but an often-repeated tale from shortly after his death states that Nietzsche witnessed the flogging of a horse in the Piazza Carlo Alberto, threw his arms around its neck in order to protect the animal and then collapsed to the ground. 
      In the following few days Nietzsche sent several letters - known as the Wahnbriefe - to a number of friends including Cosima Wagner and Jacob Burckhardt. Most were signed Dionysus, though some were also signed der Gekreuzigte (the Crucified). He ended his days physically and mentally paralysed and in the care of his sister (i.e., a fate worse than death; see note 6 below).  
 
[6] Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche physically curated her brother's final public image by transforming his living death into a highly orchestrated spectacle. Rather than hiding his vegetative state, she paraded it, meticulously staging his environment, dress, and physical presentation before a carefully selected audience. 
      Thus, for example, she would routinely wheel a silent, uncomprehending Nietzsche dressed in a flowing, heavily pleated white robe that closely resembled a classical philosopher's toga out onto a prominent first-floor balcony, allowing visiting disciples and curious tourists to look up and venerate him from the garden below like a tragic prophet. She also meticulously groomed his famous, oversized moustache in an attempt to maintain the fierce, recognisable profile of his lucid years and disguise his frailness. 
      At the same time, Elisabeth established the Nietzsche-Archiv and - in collaboration with Peter Gast - forged and spliced together entries from his notebooks to create what was intended to be his magnum opus - Der Wille zur Macht. The first German edition of this spurious text, containing 483 sections, was published a year after Nietzsche's death in 1901. This version was superseded in 1906 by an expanded second edition containing 1067 sections and it was this edition that was translated into English as The Will to Power, by Anthony M. Ludovici, in 1910.  
 
[7] Condemned to death by the Athenian court, Socrates refused flight or compromise, choosing instead to drink hemlock as a final, supreme act of obedience to the laws of the state that shaped him. He spent his final hours calmly debating the immortality of the soul with his grieving disciples. 
      Similarly, Seneca - ordered to commit suicide by Emperor Nero - embraced his fate with Stoic equanimity, using his final moments to dictate philosophy and comfort his family while bleeding to death in a bath. Both men transformed state-mandated executions into ultimate proofs of concept, ensuring their deaths perfectly authenticated their life's work.
 
 
The next post in this series - on D. H. Lawrence as inveterate priest of love - can be read by clicking here.  
 
 

14 Jul 2026

No More Heroes 1: Malcolm McLaren - Stuckism and the Quest for Authenticity

No More Heroes (Malcolm McLaren)
(SA/2026) 

 
 
I. 
 
One of the things said by Johnny Rotten that has stuck with me for fifty years is his response to Janet Street-Porter's question about who he admires: "I don't have any heroes - they're all useless." [1]
 
Ironically, his anti-hero stance instantly made him a hero to me. However, my affections and loyalty later shifted to Malcolm McLaren once it became clear that he was the conceptual genius behind the Sex Pistols [2]. 
  
And I have continued to name McLaren - along with Nietzsche, D. H. Lawrence, and Larry David - as a primary influence on my thinking. However, I'm not sure I would call them heroes. And, if I'm honest, each has disappointed in some manner. 
 
Here, and in the posts that follow, I will attempt to explain why. Let's begin by raising concerns around what might be called the ideological stuckism of my punk mentor, Malcolm McLaren.      
 
 
II.
 
To be clear: when I say Malcolm was a stuckist, I am not suggesting he had any involvement with the international movement founded in 1999 by Billy Childish and Charles Thomson to promote figurative painting as opposed to conceptual art [3]. I am simply referring to the fact that McLaren was trapped in his past like a spider in its own web [4].
 
His entire career was an endless (if brilliant) recycling of the memories, radical ideas, and obsessive fixations drawn from his 1950s childhood and his 1960s art school days. Forever associated with the Sex Pistols and defined by the role he played in The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle (1980), McLaren was stuck in a self-made loop of his own youthful mythology and his desire to live yesterday tomorrow [5].   
 
 
III.
 
Apart from the childhood tales told to him by his grandmother to do with Peter Pan and pirates and Dickensian street urchins, the first thing to really make a terrific impression on McLaren were the great balls of fires projected into popular culture by Jerry Lee Lewis and his fellow rock 'n' rollers. 
 
He loved the records and he loved the clothes and spent his entire life trying to perfectly recreate the look of music and the sound of fashion (a conceptual phrase coined by McLaren that he repeated in interviews and public lectures until his dying day). 
 
He may have experimented with many kinds of music in his career, but at heart he remained a rocker and it was the raw authenticity (and sheer fun) of the records he heard in the '50s that he wished to inject into his own projects and the various incarnations of the little shop at 430 King's Road, from Let It Rock to Worlds End. 
 
Ultimately, punk wasn't really an attempt to look forward - it was, rather, an attempt to strip rock 'n' roll of its bloated, progressive bullshit and recapture the excitement, danger and innocence of his childhood.      
 
 
IV.
 
If, on the one hand 1957 was a crucial year for eleven-year-old Malcolm McLaren [6], then so too was 1968 for the then twenty-two-year-old art student. For although not directly involved in the événements de mai [7], McLaren - the would-be revolutionary and Francophile - now fell under the influence of Guy Debord and the Situationists. 
 
Radical ideas to do with the société du spectacle and the staging of events in order to shatter such, thereby rescuing people from the boredom and inauthenticity of everyday life, remained important to McLaren throughout his life. A volatile character and natural born troublemaker, he was always attempting to mix the perfect Molotov cocktail: two parts art theory; one part political ideology; and one part cultural terrorism.  
 
It's certainly difficult to understand the Sex Pistols project without reference to McLaren and Jamie Reid's belief in the ruins, demand for the impossible, and wish to steal back happiness.  
 
The problem, however, is that avant-garde political theories relying on Marxism and surrealism don't adequately address the problems that emerge in a post-68 world. The revolution that happened was technoliberal in character and seems to allow not only no alternative but no outside space from which one might form a critical perspective or offer resistance. 
 
If McLaren had bothered to keep up with his reading - some Baudrillard perhaps - he might have understood that although the beach does indeed lie beneath the paving stones, it too is a constructed (artificial) reality that merely provides the illusion of depth and the false promise of authentic freedom [8].
 
As the conceptual artist Michal Martychowiec has shown, what were once believed to be natural grains of sand are actually cold and lifeless glass crystals ... [9] 
 
 
V.
 
If, then, McLaren retained a fixed model of style based on the look of music and the sound of fashion and a fixed politics that relied for the most part on subversive pranks and the technique of détournement [10], so too did he hold on to the same concept of sex throughout his life - one closely tied to his radical politics. 
 
Influenced by thinkers such as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse, McLaren was of the view that liberating libidinal energies would outrage bourgeois society and threaten a culture founded upon sexual repression.
 
Thus, like so many other sex radicals and countercultural theorists, McLaren sought to weaponise desire, using pornographic images printed on T-shirts and a range of fetishwear sold in SEX and Seditionaries, for example, to provoke public outrage and incite his young clientele to insurrection.  
 
McLaren was (naively and mistakenly) convinced that by dragging the forbidden into the open, he was striking a blow against the state. However, this politics of desire relied entirely on what Michel Foucault famously termed the repressive hypothesis - i.e., the flawed belief that power functions primarily through prohibition, censorship, and denial. 
 
What McLaren failed to realise - and what Foucault brilliantly demonstrated [11] - is that modern power does not repress sex; it incites it, categorises it, and manages it. By remaining stuck in a sixties model of liberation, McLaren's radicalism was easily co-opted. He believed he was unleashing a dangerous, and authentic energy, when in reality, he was merely pioneering a highly profitable new market and the pornification of society.  
 
Decades later, he was still talking about bondage trousers with their zipper crotch with the exact same pseudo-academic earnestness and revolutionary zeal of a soixante-huitard [12]. 
 
 
VI. 
 
If there is one word that comes to define Malcolm McLaren's thinking, it's not sex, nor style, nor even subversion - it is rather authenticity. That's the thing that most intrigued him and which he set out to discover - authenticity in an age of artificiality and what he termed karaoke culture [13].
 
In an interview in 1999, McLaren describes authenticity as something dirty, horrible, and disgusting; something which "is to be found in the ruins" and involves "reclaiming the past"; something which is complex and "has built into it this uncomfortable idea of chaos"; something which contrasts with everything valued today as success [14].    
 
He certainly makes it sound attractive and almost has me sold on the idea. But then he goes and spoils it all by saying something stupid (or at the very least politically naive); "the authentic is something that isn't as easily assimilated by capital" [15] - something that can't conveniently be packaged and sold. 
 
At that point, one realises that ultimately McLaren is still a romantic idealist at heart who has failed to fully learn the crucial (Situationist) message at the centre of The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle (1980). Namely, that even something like punk is very quickly recuperated - no matter how authentic it may be [16]; that even the most radical ideas and images can be stripped of their danger and turned into products or harmless forms of entertainment.    
 
 
VII.
 
So, to conclude ...
 
McLaren disappoints because of his inability (or refusal) to recognise that his ideals of sex, style, and subversion, had been rendered null and void by a radical neoliberal shift in the 1980s. 
 
His political and aesthetic strategy relied on a set of mid-century conditions that no longer existed, including a rigid, easily shocked, top-down Establishment that could be genuinely threatened by countercultural activity involving the look of music and the sound of fashion.
 
What Mark Fisher terms capitalist realism thrives on the revolutionary rhetoric and authenticity McLaren championed - the pursuit of individual expression, personal branding, constant reinvention, etc. 
 
During his Duck Rock and Nostalgia of Mud phase, McLaren operated under the optimistic delusion that paganism and primitivism were wild forces external to the market. He would insist that a man on a mountain side tapping two sticks together makes a much bigger sound than all the musicians playing electric instruments or programming their synthesisers. But the sound of two sticks can be just as easily commodified as techno-pop (file it under world music and allow it to be sampled by others).    
 
The fact is, in the twenty-first century, there is no Outside from which to launch an attack and desire is no longer (if it ever was) a wild revolutionary force; it is an entirely synthetic product engineered by the market. Capitalism does not repress our libido - it structures it through algorithms, infinite digital feeds, and consumer niches, pre-formatting what we want long before we even know it. 
 
Ironically, when McLaren made his critique of karaoke culture, arguing that young people had become timid consumers of an endlessly recyled past, he failed to realise that this digital landscape was the monstrous offspring of his own '60s ideology and that youth today are not lazy or complacent - many are acutely aware that things are fucked up - but they feel powerless to act (what Fisher terms reflexive impotence) in a way that McLaren's post-War generation of baby boomers were not. 

 
Notes
 
[1] The interview took place in late 1976 at the Denmark Street studio where the band used to rehearse and essentially squat. It was broadcast on the London Weekend Show, hosted by Janet Street-Porter, on 28 November 1976. It was one of the very first television features dedicated to the underground punk scene. To watch a clip on YouTube, click here
 
[2] Years later, during McLaren's Charisma Records period (1982-85), that love and loyalty paid off when he placed me inside the label's press office (acting as a kind of spy). I have written several posts about my time at Charisma: click here.  
 
[3] The name Stuckism was coined in January 1999 by Charles Thomson in response to a poem by Billy Childish in which the latter relays that his former girlfriend, Tracey Emin, had repeatedly said he was stuck with his art, writing and music. 
      After exhibiting in small galleries in Shoreditch, London, the Stuckists' first show in a major public museum was held in 2004 at the Walker Art Gallery, as part of the Liverpool Biennial. It was titled 'The Stuckists Punk Victorian'.  
      By 2017, the initial group of thirteen British artists had expanded to 236 groups in 52 countries and although painting is the dominant artistic form of Stuckism, artists using other media such as photography, sculpture, film and collage have also joined, and share the Stuckist opposition to conceptualism. 
      I would like to say more, but this is probably not the right time or place - I will endeavour to publish a post on Stuckism in the near future. 
 
[4] Interestingly, however, the first Stuckist manifesto issued by Childish and Thomson in 1999, opens with the line: "Stuckism is a quest for authenticity" [3] and that is something that McLaren fundamentally endorsed, frequently contrasting it with what he called karaoke culture, as we shall discuss.
      However, the manifesto also emphasises the value of painting as a medium and opposes what is seen as the superficial novelty and nihilism of conceptual art and postmodernism and McLaren, who often styled himself an artist without portfolio and whose final works were audio-visual in nature, would laugh at the statement: "Artists who don't paint aren't artists." I also like to think that, unlike the Stuckists, McLaren would always choose irony over sincerity, viewing art as a material practice rather than a form of spirituality. 
      The first Stuckist manifesto (1999) can be found on their website: click here.  
 
[5] To be fair, this idea of living yesterday tomorrow is not simply an exercise in bogus nostalgia and can be tied to Mark Fisher's thinking on retrofuturism and hauntology and the reclaiming of what he calls lost futures. In notes written in 2000, McLaren discussed how history might be reclaimed (and not merely pissed on): 
      "The question I find most interesting is how you reclaim history. This is a very different thing from repackaging it. It's not about nostalgia, which is basically dead tissue. Living yesterday tomorrow should be about reclaiming history then reversing it into the future. If you can discover how to do that, you are probably doing everything an artist genuinely wishes to be involved in. One must aim to use ceratin disruptive practices to challenge the dominant cultural forms and relax the grip of authority."
      Quoted by Paul Gorman, The Life and Times of Malcolm McLaren (Constable, 2020), pp. 718-719.   
 
[6] An end-of-term Christmas concert in 1957 "provided the eleven-year-old with what he would later describe as 'an epiphanic moment'. Among those selected to provide entertainment was a young male teacher who performed an enthusiastic rendition of Jerry Lee Lewis's rollicking 'Great Balls of Fire'." McLaren, who had never seen or heard anything like it, was understandably blown away. 
      Not long afterwards, his older brother took him to see Buddy Holly & the Crickets and Malcolm was fascinated with rock 'n' roll subculture for the rest of his life. See Paul Gorman, The Life and Times of Malcolm McLaren, p. 30.  
 
[7] McLaren failed to get to Paris in May '68 due to ongoing French rail and air strikes. He did, however, visit the French capital at the end of June and his political imagination was excited by the literature and graphics of the Situationist International (even if he couldn't read much French). 
      Back in London, and friends by this point with Jamie Reid and Fred Vermorel, McLaren got involved with the SI's (unofficial) British offshoot known as King Mob. See my post titled 'It Was Meant to Be Great But It's Horrible: Christmas with Uncle Malcolm and the King Mob' (21 Dec 2025): click here.     
 
[8] See the essay by Nataliya Atanasova, 'We Dreamt a Beach and Found a Desert: What It Means to Live in Post-Situationist Reality', Sofia Philosophical Review (1): 70-85 (2026). This essay can be downloaded as a free pdf via Academia.edu.   
 
[9] Sous les pavés, la plage! was a solo exhibition by Polish artist Michal Martychowiec, held at the De Sarthe Gallery in Beijing (16 July to 13 August, 2017). Creating a deceptively inviting beach setting, Martychowiec replaced natural sand with industrially produced glass crystals, in order to critique capitalist realism. For more details visit his website, michalmartychowiec.com 
 
[10] Détournement is a Situationist technique by which familiar images and texts are recontextualised or amusingly altered in some fashion, forcing people to question the original ideological meanings embedded within them. 
      It was outlined by Guy Debord and Gil Wolman in their Mode d’emploi du détournement, which originally appeared in the Belgian surrealist journal Les Lèvres Nues #8 (May 1956). An English translation by Ken Knabb can be found in the Situationist International Anthology (Revised and Expanded Edition, PM Press, 2024).     
 
[11] See Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality 1: The Will to Knowledge, trans. Robert Hurley (Penguin Books, 1998). 
      Foucault persuasively argues in part two of this work that what most perversely characterises modern societies, "is not that they consigned sex to a shadow existence, but that they dedicated themselves to speaking of it ad infinitum, while exploiting it as the secret" (p. 35).   
 
[12] See the episode of Being Malcolm (Canal Jimmy, 2000) titled 'How To Make Subversive Trousers' in which McLaren discusses the design for bondage trousers, created in 1976 and sold in Sex and Seditionaries, the shops he operated at 430 King's Road with Vivienne Westwood. It was uploaded to YouTube by the Malcolm McLaren Estate in 2015. 
 
[13] McLaren first unveiled his Karaoke Culture thesis in an essay titled '8-Bit Punk' published in Wired (November 2003) He spent the final decade of his life expanding this concept, giving a 2010 TED Talk titled 'Authentic creativity vs. karaoke culture' shortly before his death.
      The manifesto is founded upon the idea that contemporary culture is a kind of desert of the real and that young people today are incapable of generating authentic and original art, prefering to 'mouth the words to other people's songs' - i.e., surrendering agency and living by proxy, whilst chasing instant celebrity and success (afraid of struggle and failure). Karoake culture, argued, McLaren, built a risk-free environment (or safe space) - the antithesis of 430 King's Road. To combat this, McLaren championed a romantic return to creative authenticity and real sex with real bodies in order to discover real pleasures, which had to be better, he said, than 'fucking an inflatable doll'. 
 
[14] Jefferson Hack, 'A Malcolm McLaren Moment', Another Magazine (7 May 2013) - revisiting an interview originally conducted in 1999. 
 
[15] Ibid.
 
[16] Récupération is the situationist term for the co-option and commercialization of radical ideas. Formulated by Guy Debord and the Situationist International in 1960, it describes the process by which subversive concepts are twisted and absorbed into mainstream consumer culture as harmless, innocuous commodities. 
 
 
Part two in this series - 'Nietzsche - The Man Who Failed to Die at the Right Time' (15 July 2026) can be read here.
 
 

12 Jul 2026

Magic Moments (In Memory of Joyce Greenfield 1931 - 2013)

 Joyce Greenfield and Perry Como 
sharing a magic moment 

Time can't erase the memory of 
These magic moments filled with love 
 
 
Like many people, I associate the popular song 'Magic Moments' composed by Burt Bacharach, written by Hal David, and recorded by Perry Como in 1957 [1], with TV ads for Quality Street [2].   
 
But when I listen to it, I also think of my best friend's mother who loved the song so much she had it played at her funeral service in 2013 [3].  
 
At the time, I didn't quite understand the choice; didn't know if it primarily revealed her sense of fun, her passion for smooth American crooners, or her love of confectionery.  
 
But having just re-read a quote from Malcolm McLaren in Paul Gorman's biography, I think I finally understand why the song held such profound meaning for her generation. Recalling his own childhood in the late 1950s, McLaren explains how it captured the pure optimism of an era transitioning away from post-War austerity into a period of consumer affluence and joyful exuberance:
 
"As well as 'Rock Around the Clock' I heard Perry Como's 'Magic Moments', which our mother had bought. The sound became interesting to me, because it seemed to be a language that everybody emotionally felt in some way. They responded to it. It could have been absolutely inane if you sat down and thought about it, but that didn't matter because it was a train people wanted to get on. They all thought it sexy, and so did I." [4]  
 
 
Notes
 
[1] 'Magic Moments' was originally the B-side of Perry Como's 'Catch a Falling Star' (RCA Victor, 1957), released in December 1957. However, such was its popularity that the single effectively became a double A-side and the song charted in its own right, reaching number one in the UK thereby becoming Como's biggest UK hit. To watch Como and friends performing the song back in the day, click here. Or for audio only, click here
 
[2] For non-British readers, I should explain that Quality Street is a tin of mixed toffees and chocolates first manufactured in 1936 by Mackintosh's in Halifax, West Yorkshire and, since 1988, produced by Nestlé. A real Christmas favourite, it was named after J. M. Barrie's popular four-act comedy Quality Street (1901). 
     
[3] Born in Bethnal Green in 1931, Hannah Joyce Greenfield - known as Joyce by friends and family - was evacuated to Wales during the Blitz, returning to London towards the end of the War, finding employment in the rag trade having left school at fourteen. 
      After marrying, she and her husband, John, moved like so many other Eastenders to Essex, where they raised three children; a daughter, Lynne, and two sons, Peter and Andrew. The latter recalls that his house growing up was always full of the popular music from the 1950s and '60s and that his mother was particularly fond of singing along to Perry Como's 'Magic Moments'.
     Joyce - who in some ways was like a second mother to me, so much time did I spend at her house with my friend Andy - sadly passed away on 29 November 2013, aged 82. Her funeral took place (like my mother's ten years later) at South Essex Crematorium, on 13 December 2013.      
 
[4] Malcolm McLaren quoted by Paul Gorman in The Life and Times of Malcolm McLaren (Constable, 2020), p. 31.     
 
 

7 Jul 2026

No, Jasmine, Cliff Richard Isn't Cool

Cover of the debut album by Cliff Richard and his band 
the Drifters (later known as the Shadows) 
Columbia (EMI) (1959) 
 
I. 
 
The latest edition of SIG News (#5 2026) contains a provocative piece by Jasmine Howard [1] reflecting on one of her pop heroes. 
 
In it, she poses the question: 'Is Cliff Richard cool?' and attempts to play devil woman's advocate by making the case for the so-called Peter Pan of Pop [2]. 
 
Howard is, of course, by no means the first person to do this. Back in 2013, for example, Kiwi author Tim Roxborough claimed not to care if others thought Cliff uncool, writing: 
 
"Cliff may be celibate, he may annoy some with his public professions of his Christian faith [...] and he may have had a knack for singing Christmas number one hits that sap the tragically hip's will to live. But get passed [sic] that and he's the owner of one of the finest, most adaptable voices in popular music history." [3]
 
More recently, Stuart Penny also wrote a few words in defence of Sir Cliff:
 
"I know what you're thinking. With his goody two-shoes image and cringeworthy Wimbledon tennis rain break singalongs, the Peter Pan of Pop may have been hopelessly, desperately, terminally uncool for more than half a century, but it wasn't always that way." [4] 
      
In for a pound, Penny continues:
 
"I'm not ashamed to say that before the Beatles and Dylan, before discovering electric blues, folk, jazz and psychedelia, in fact before just about every other kind of music I grew to cherish, Cliff was my guy. The infatuation didn't last much beyond late 1962 and the arrival of the Fab Four, it's true, but his early singles, some of which were (and remain) excellent slabs of well-produced 60s pop, will always have a special place in my heart." [5]  
 
 
II. 
 
As I think is clear, even his biggest fans and would-be defenders concede that Cliff isn't cool. 
 
Talented, good-looking, clean-cut, devoted to his God and to his mother Dorothy, but not cool - an aesthetic quality that relates not only to appearance and style, but to attitude and behaviour (and so is more than merely being trendy or fashionable). 
 
Much like art, cool is notoriously difficult to define. But even if you can't quite describe it, you know it when you see it - and you also know what it isn't (and Cliff isn't it). 
 
Malcolm McLaren used to say that the coolest thing he'd ever seen was when Edward Tudor-Pole walked on stage auditioning to be the new lead singer with the Sex Pistols and flipped a cigarette in the air, caught it on his foot, and then flicked it into his mouth. And that is pretty cool - thus not something one can ever imagine Cliff doing (unsurprisingly, he doesn't smoke).   

Essentially, cool is tied to evil; to rebels, gangsters, rockers, and all those unconstrained by authority and who live in defiance of rules and conventions. 
 
Having said that, the idea of cool has now been fully recuperated and coolness is now mostly a marketing strategy; something manufactured and sold by those looking to capitalise on trends and subcultures. In fact, some commentators argue that cool is the central ideology of consumer capitalism.   
 
And so, ironically, it may be the case that the coolest people today are those who reject the stereotype and cliché of coolness entirely (though, sorry Jasmine, that still doesn't include Cliff - a man who, despite his name, completely lacks edge). 
 
 
III. 
 
In her effort to puzzle out why Cliff is considered so uncool, Ms Howard compares his career and public image to that of Elvis - which is certainly a brave and bold (some might say foolhardy) move, not least because Presley is incomparable as an artist in terms of cultural impact, vocal versatility, and his on-stage presence. The fact that he piled on the pounds in his final years - as Cliff was only too quick to point out [6] - does nothing to detract from his unique genius.    
 
Even Howard's claim that Cliff was "just as successful as Elvis" [7] - from a purely statistical perspective (i.e., in terms of record sales and UK number one singles) - doesn't quite add up. 
 
For whilst Cliff undeniably commands a spectacular chart legacy as the only artist to score a UK number-one single across five consecutive decades (from the 1950s to the 1990s), he remains firmly in the King's shadow when we look at the Official UK Charts' historic tally. 
 
Cliff has a highly respectable fourteen number-one singles; but Elvis has a staggering twenty-one UK number one hits. Further, whilst Cliff has sold over 250 million records worldwide across his 68-year career, this figure is dwarfed by the more than one billion Elvis records sold.
 
To claim parity when it comes to their commercial success is therefore inaccurate - and also, we might add, when did commercial success and longevity as an artist ever equate with cool or relevance? Some of the coolest singers hardly troubled the charts and died young (Ian Curtis is an obvious example). 
 
Cliff's ability to score number-one hits across several decades is a testament to an aging, fiercely loyal fanbase and clever marketing, not cultural impact. David Bowie also sold a lot of records and had a long career, but he redefined music, fashion, and societal norms, whilst Cliff remained artistically stagnant; his later chart-toppers were not driven by musical innovation, but by novelty appeal and seasonal sentimentality, such as 'Mistletoe and Wine'. 
 
  
IV. 
  
Apart from his commercial success and longevity, attempts to defend Cliff as cool are also often based upon his early days as a credible rock 'n' roller who opened the way for British pop music and his national treasure status. 
 
Let's briefly examine each of these points ...
 
Firstly, it's true that his 1958 hit debut single 'Move It' (written by Ian Samwell) might be viewed as marking the birth of British rock 'n' roll, as acknowledged by John Lennon and many others. However, Cliff almost immediately abandoned his leather-jacketed persona and within a few years transitioned into a safe, sanitised, family-friendly performer who happily established himself in the world of light entertainment and Eurovision.  
 
Thus, if Cliff paved the way, it was a road that subsequent generations of British rockers were desperate to veer off. For the punk generation in particular, Cliff was the ultimate symbol of establishment compliance and everything they hated about Top of the Pops (it will come as no surprise to discover that he made more appearances on the iconic BBC music show than any other solo artist, with over 150 performances).   
 
As for his national treasure status, which rests on the idea that he's basically a good egg, even this might be questioned in light of his politically suspect views on women in the workplace and parenting, for example [8]. Coolness may involve a degree of studied indifference, but it also requires a degree of cultural sensitivity and Cliff has sometimes used his public platform to judge others from a position of detached privilege. 
 
Ultimately, his wholesome image disguises a rigid (often reactionary) moralism that may be Christian but isn't cool [9] - we don't like being lectured to by pious pop stars, thank you very much.        
 
 
V. 
 
Finally, I'd like to remind Jasmine - a canny lass from the North East of England [10] - of a famously surprising televised encounter between her hero, Cliff, and Thomas (Mensi) Mensforth, the lead singer of South Shields punk band the Angelic Upstarts [11]. 
 
Rather than playing along with the polite banter expected by mainstream television, the fiercely intelligent punk vocalist confronted the Peter Pan of Pop over his privileged celebrity status and his religious faith. However, if producers had hoped for an explosive, foul-mouthed slanging match, they were disappointed. 
 
While Cliff spoke of personal salvation and his pop career, Mensi steered the debate toward systemic political issues: religious sectarianism, police brutality, and social deprivation. He emerged as someone who genuinely cared about the contemporary world around him, rather than what had occurred in the Holy Land two thousand years prior. 
 
All Cliff's tried-and-tested defence mechanisms - polite smiles, deflection, and breezy showbiz charisma -proved useless against the raw passion of Mensi’s arguments. The Peter Pan of Pop was exposed as having little concern for the struggles of everyday people in Thatcher's Britain.  
 
  
Notes
 
[1] Edited by Russ Bestley, Tim Gibney, Kevin Quinn, and Roger Sabin, Sig News brings the work of the Subcultures Interest Group (SIG) to a wider audience. Operating out of the University of the Arts London (UAL), this diverse, informal collective focuses broadly on the politics of style. The publication offers an eclectic mix of articles by a disparate group of authors from both within and outside UAL. For more information, click here
      Postgraduate student Jasmine Howard wrote her MA dissertation on class and clothing in the North East of England in the mid-late 1960s; see the post on Torpedo the Ark dated 30 March 2025 in which I discussed her granny, my mother, and the likely lasses: click here.   
       
[2] This nickname is not a self-styling coined by Richard himself, nor one he particularly cares for as it creates pressure upon him to always appear youthful when performing on stage before his fans. It was actually coined by music journalist Keith Altham of the NME in 1972 and was quickly taken up by the press and public alike. 
 
[3] Tim Roxborough, 'Why Cliff Richard Is Much Cooler Than You Think', The Roxborough Report (26 January 2013): click here
      Roxborough goes on to inform his readers that as well as having a great voice Cliff is also "said to be one of Britain's most generous philanthropists", saying that this is important when considering Richard the man and not just Richard the artist. 
      I might point out, however, that philanthropy is a contentious issue. Whilst it directs resources to worthy causes, it can also function as a tool for the wealthy to virtue signal and ease their conscience. It can also allow donors power over social agendas while providing them with significant tax benefits.   
 
[4] Stuart Penney, 'A Few Words In Defence Of Sir Cliff Richard', And Now ... It's All This! (21 August 2025): click here
 
[5] Ibid.
 
[6] During an appearance on ITV's This Morning (20 Nov 2023), Cliff was asked if he had ever met Elvis: he hadn't. But he revealed that he had once turned down an opportunity to do so and be pictured with Presley on the grounds that the latter had put on a lot of weight and no longer looked as good as he had in his prime. 
      Probably to his surprise, the comment immediately went viral and caused a massive uproar. Viewers of the show accused him of fat-shaming and were particularly upset that he made the comments whilst sitting next to popular host Alison Hammond, a plus-sized presenter. This is just one of several occasions in which Cliff - usually known for his polite and overly cautious public persona - came across as tactless and uncool, sparking controversy.  
 
[7] Jasmine Howard, 'Is Cliff Richard Cool?', SIG News 5 (1 Sept 2026), p. 12. 

[8] In a controversial 1994 interview with Bella magazine, the Bachelor Boy claimed that women cannot successfully juggle both careers and children. He also blamed working mothers for the breakdown of discipline in society. These remarks drew sharp criticism from the public and parenting organisations at the time, with representatives from groups like Parents at Work dismissing his comments as 'complete and utter nonsense'. 
 
[9] Amusingly, Cliff even managed to alienate sections of the Christian community in 1999 when he set the words of the 'Lord's Prayer' to the tune of 'Auld Lang Syne'. The resulting record - titled 'The Millennium Prayer' - was almost universally loathed by music critics, but, more surprisingly, various church leaders and Christian commentators condemned it as a gimmicky and cynical exploitation of faith for commercial chart success (even though Cliff donated the proceeds to charity).

[10] As the child of parents from Tyneside - my father was born in Gateshead and my mother in Whitley Bay - I trust I am allowed to say this without sounding patronising. 
 
[11] The meeting between Sir Cliff and Mensi was recorded by Anglia Television for an episode of the late-night religious and current affairs series Something Different (hosted by Stewart White) and was broadcast on 25 January 1980 (or early March in some ITV regions). Click here to watch an excerpt on YouTube (as preserved by Wayback Machine, the Internet Archive).    
 
 
Musical bonus: Angelic Upstarts, 'The Young Ones', from the album Teenage Warning (Warner Bros., 1979): click here. The track also featured as the B-side to the single 'Teenage Warning' (1979), which reached No. 29 in the UK charts.
      The song, written by Sid Tepper and Roy C. Bennett, was made famous by Cliff Richard and the Shadows and is the title song to the 1961 film The Young Ones (dir. Sidney J. Furie). 
      With advance orders of over 500,000, it was released in January 1962 on the Columbia (EMI) label and went straight to No. 1 in the UK Singles Chart (the first British single to do so since Elvis Presley's 'It's Now or Never' in November 1960). It held that position for six weeks and spent twenty weeks in the chart overall, selling over a million copies in the UK, and 2.6 million copies worldwide.