Give Blood?

My Dad was very keen on giving blood and donating organs - he even managed to get a special award for giving over 100 pints of blood, which is quite a feat.

I, however, did try to give blood while I was a student at university. Ignoring the fact that, at that time, my blood must have been near to being 100% proof, I did go along twice to do my civic duty.

Sadly, however, as some of you will know, I'm a wimp.

On both occasions I went I was horribly ill - I fainted, suffering from nausea (I think I was actually sick) and I wasn't allowed to leave for quite some time while I recovered from the trauma!

On the second occasion they noted that my records said "HH" on them - I have no idea what "HH" means in this context other than they immediately asked me if I was unwell on my previous visit - to which I had to say yes!

I've always been squeamish about all medical interventions and procedures. It's only in the past year that I joined the Organ Donor Register (yes, if I step in front of a bus tomorrow some poor sod might end up with parts of my body!).

So, 30 years later, maybe the time is right to try giving blood again?

Do a real painting?

Ok, cards on table time. I was hopeless at languages at school but my linguistic abilities far outshone my skills as a visual artist! In fact, the only time I dropped below a Grade B was art when I was given a C+ for attainment on the end of year report (for those of you who know me, you'll realise this devastated me!).

But I do love art - I love all sorts of art... I just struggle to do it myself!

Now, for my 50 things, I don't think it's practical to start hacking away at large lumps of rock and trying to produce a sculpture of some sort (has anyone else seen Tony Hancock's The Rebel?) and, as a vegetarian, I'm not about to start slicing animals up and mounting them in formaldehyde (whilst I like a fair bit of Damien Hirst's work I'm not convinced that his abuse of animals for profit (oh, sorry, ART) can really be justified so I think it best I consider doing a real painting.

I've never used oils or painted on a canvas (yes, I was that dreadful at school that it was only ever paper and watercolours for me) and the idea is quite daunting but to produce and painting that I could hang on a wall (albeit well away from anywhere where anyone might see it) is quite an exciting idea.

I do like a wide range of art - both traditional/figurative and abstract.

I'm not a fan of Constable and that whole biscuit tin school or art but I don't mind things that do actually represent something. I do love Rothko and, of course, the impressionists like Monet and Valette. I like some Lowry (though, having been to the Galleries in Salford recently, I did find some of his later work depressingly poor). I'm not going to try to paint in the style of Leonardo or Rembrandt - that would just be silly - but something more expressionistic, like Kandinsky or Miro has to be a possibility. My favourite artist has to be Turner but, again, I think that would be pushing my limited skills a bit too far to try to paint like he did. I also like Banksy...

Here are a few of my favourite painters and paintings:

Rain, Steam and Speed - The Great Western Railway

J. M. W. Turner

Black on Maroon

Mark Rothko

Albert Square, Manchester 1910

Adolphe Valette

The Tower of Babel

Peter Bruegel the Elder

The Houses of Parliament, Sunset

Claude Monet

Yes, I think painting a real painting has to be a good challenge for me to do.... the only problem is how much practise I might need!

Get a letter published in The Times?

I've had lots of letters published in a variety of newspapers and magazines in the past on a wide range of subjects from rants about the Grand National and Environmental issues to whinges about political parties and politicians of all persuasions.

I've had letters published in The Independent, The Guardian, The Sun (who send a cheque each time a letter is published), The Daily Mail, etc. I even had some published in The Scotsman (despite never having lived north of Hadrian's Wall) and the now defunct Sunday Correspondent! Added to this are letters in various magazines including such erstwhile titles as The British Bandsman and Classical Music but, as far as I recall, never one in The Times - maybe that should be one of my 50 things to do before my 50th birthday?

I do, however, wonder if getting a letter published in The Times is still the ultimate for those who like to write to the editor of a newspaper - since the whole Murdoch saga with News International and the closure of the News of the World, does The Times still hold the elevated position for letter writers?

Maybe I should be trying to get a letter published in something more international? The New Yorker (always one of my favourite reads) or The New York Times? Or maybe Pravda?

No, unless persuaded otherwise I think The Times still has to be the place... all I need is a subject to get me riled!

Should I be raising money for charity?

I've been asked a couple of times if I'm going to be doing my 50 things to raise money for charity. I had thought about it but wasn't sure....

I guess the problem is that I have a fundamental issue with charity and, as some of you will know, I absolutely despise a number of specific charities.

I really don't think that today, in the 21st century, that charities should have a place in a modern, civilised society. Why would any modern society allow some of their fellow citizens to get food from food banks or allow essential life saving research into killer diseases to be funded through charitable donations rather than being funded by the state? Why do the British sit back and accept that lifeboats are paid for through putting money in a collecting box instead of by the same method that funds the police, fire and ambulance?

And it gets worse - why does petty nationalism (that's a tautology, nationalism is always petty) mean that some Little Englanders think that help should go to people with whom they share a geographical accident of birth rather than those in foreign countries dying from starvation and awful illnesses which cost so little to sort out?

It's fair to say there are many charities that I abhor because their "cause", to me, is wrong; I find the hugely profligate Royal British Legion and it's pointless shadow Help for Heroes both deeply offensive. Likewise, I would never donate to any charity linked to any religious organisation - as far as I'm concerned all religions should lose their charitable status, and all charities who are nothing more missionary organisations in disguise. And, similarly, I don't think that things like Donkey Sanctuaries, etc. should get special financial benefits when they are far more worthy and urgent causes.

So what good does charity do? 

Surely charity, and the good heartedness of all those who put their hands in their pockets, or do challenges, or dress up as chickens, or do whatever give those doing it a warm glow but, sadly, let governments off the hook?

On an annual basis, if you added together the amounts donated to both Comic Relief and Children in Need the total comes to considerably less than half that paid out to have Liz Windsor and her cronies laud it over the nation. And while Comic Relief spends half its money overseas to save lives, the amount it raises is a drop in the ocean to the amounts of money spent on the arms trade to ruin and destroy lives, often in the same countries.

The next Comic Relief is in about three weeks time. It will be a major media event and the amount raised will be praised across newspapers, television and radio, and yet it will raise less than £1 per person in this country - less than 2 pence per person per week.

If we accept that charities are needed (a very sad state of affairs) then charities that I feel are worthwhile include UNICEF, Save the Children, Shelter, Amnesty International, Medicins sans Frontieres... I approve of Comic Relief's overseas help but wish they didn't have to include a percentage going to UK projects just to appease the racists and xenophobic brain deads that make up so much of the population (and the fact that Children in Need makes such a point of all monies going to UK projects make it a very dodgy, UKIP/BNP type organisation).

Instead of charity, shouldn't the British (and other developed nations) just pay a sensible amount of tax?

And then I start thinking that the system isn't going to change overnight, and there are people out there who do need help - they need food and shelter, they need medicine, they need cures. Maybe I should be doing something to help?

It is a dreadful dilemma. What should I do?

Should I be raising money for charity?

Run a marathon?

Maybe, for some of my 50 things to do before my 50th birthday, I should do something about being more healthy:

• Lose some weight? 
• Climb a mountain? 
• Walk from Land's End to John O'Groats? 
• Run a marathon?

Yes, run a marathon - I've run a marathon before, when I was 18 and it nearly killed me!

I posted the following on another blog once before...

It was 1983. I was studying for my A-levels at Cricklade College in Andover. I was young, fit and healthy but I wasn't a runner.

During the summer holidays after the exams, the Performing Arts faculty were going in a month long tour of North East USA, taking music, drama and dance shows with us. We'd been fundraising for months and, in a moment of madness, I had agreed to run the Basingstoke Marathon to raise more sponsorship. 

I did very little to prepare for the race. As I say, I was young and fit but, since leaving secondary school two years before, I wasn't doing any regular sporting activity. I did a couple of jogs around the fields near my parents' house but that was it. 

The race began at Basingstoke Rugby Club where, as a little 'un, I'd been taught how to play rugby by Reg Hurley, Liz Hurley's father.

I was nervous but excited. I can't remember how many competitors there were but this was the height of jogging mania. The London Marathon had begun a couple of years earlier and every medium-sized town now had its own marathon. 

I started well and did the first five miles in about 45 minutes. Yes, that was way too fast.
I remember being cheered on by various mates along the route and each time it gave md a huge burst, but it got harder and harder and my legs got heavier and heavier. After a while I could have probably walked faster - but I kept going. 

I was just about at the back of all the runners. I was in agony, and there were still miles to go. The ambulance sweeping up the strugglers drive along just behind me, but I kept going. 

I arrived back at the rugby club to find virtually nobody there. Most people had gone home. 

I decided to sprint to the finish. Summoning up my final burst of energy, I began a 385 yards sprint to the finish line... 

I didn't finish last, but in that that final sprint I was overtaken by a man running with a dog (I'm not sure whether the dog had run the whole 26 miles) AND a blind man being lead around by someone else. 

5 hours 23 minutes 49 seconds .

Absolutely knackered. 

My parents had gone home - they assumed I'd stopped somewhere out on the course.
I spent most of the evening in a hot bath soaking my aching legs. The following morning, a Monday, I had an exam. It took me 20 minutes to walk to the bus stop - normally it took 3 or 4 minutes. 

The following Saturday I played my friend Steve at tennis but, even a week later, I had to stand and stretch to reach balls as I was still in a lot of pain! 

One day it would be great to run another marathon but I suspect that now my 1983 time would be just a dream!

Based on that, maybe a full marathon isn't the best plan for me - maybe, as I approach my 50s less fit and noticeably fatter than when I was 18, a 10k is a better idea?

Or maybe it's all a bit too much?

Read a book?

I realise that, to many, the idea of reading a book doesn't sound like much of a challenge but, if you know me, you'll know that I'm not a big book reader.

I was a voracious reader as a child, and would often get through several books in a week - fiction and non-fiction - I loved books so much, whilst at Secondary School, I was a student librarian and, while my mates dreamt of careers as astronauts and footballers, I seriously wanted to be a librarian.

As an adult I've found I don't have the patience for fiction. If there were no distractions and I could read a book from beginning to end in one go it might be different, but, for some reason, when I put a book down I find I forget what's happened, who's who and, at times, what the book is about! I guess it's one of the reasons why I love movies.

I find reading non-fiction much easier. I think it's a very male thing. I like facts and want to know what happened. I don't want to be under the control of some author who might suddenly twist the plot at a whim and totally baffle me.

So, for me now, as a 40-something bloke, reading a book from cover to cover is a challenge and, therefore, it is something that is worthy of inclusion in my list of 50 things to do before my 50th birthday.

But I don't think it should just be any book. If I am going to read a book it should be a significant book, not simply some random airport trash.

A twitter friend suggested Gone with the Wind - Margaret Mitchell's epic love sort set against the background of the American Civil War. It has always been one of my absolutely favourite movies and I've never read the book, so it is a very good suggestion.

I guess the classic "big book" is Tolstoy's War and Peace - a book for which the word epic seems to have been invented and one which I have toyed with trying at various times but never got beyond the first couple of pages before realising it was a challenge too far!

But, of course, there are other epic books and series of books, many of them aimed at the teenage/young adult market:

• I read the complete Lord of the Rings trilogy as a teenager and, to be honest, I'm not sure I could be bothered to return to Tolkien's overly nonsensical and pretentious prose.

• I tried to read the first of the seven Harry Potter books over a decade ago but, really, it was just poorly written tosh, clearly designed as a rough sketch for a movie or TV mini-series, and since the movies (well, the last three or four which became quite good after the appalling first couple) why would anybody bother with the books?

• I saw The Hunger Games movie.... again, why bother with the books?

• I've heard good things about the Twilight saga, but I'm not a pubescent girl so not sure I'm really the target audience (though Mark Kermode, a film reviewer I admire, does say lots of positives about the Twilight movies).

• I recently saw the first movie in the Beautiful Creatures quadrilogy, which is based on the books by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl , and thoroughly enjoyed the movie so maybe the books would be good - though I am rather sceptical about a book that is written by two people...

• And as for the Narnia Chronicles and all the OTT Christian symbolism that C.S. Lewis shovels on.... ARGH!

As an atheist the sacred texts of the world's religions would be a particular challenge - and all the major religions have a big book to make their point, present their world view and justify their particular set of laws and rules and why people should look up and give money to their own variety of priest!

I read The Bible from cover to cover when I was a teenager - I'm not sure why, maybe it was a slightly autistic thing to want to do but I did it. I guess I could do it again, but then, having completed it I had to agree with Randolph Churchill who was challenged to read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and when he won the bet, declared: "God, isn't God a shit?!"

It might be interesting to read The Koran (Qur'an) though it is, of course, based on a similar lack of facts as The Bible and could be frustrating - after all, if I'm going to read a large tome of fiction why not make it something fun?

The Book of Mormon seems like absolute lunacy to consider - a work of blatant fiction that has conned many a mind and set up a nice little earner for the Church of the Latter Day Saints - and then there are texts like the Mahabharata and the Rig Veda....

Something that does appeal is the Diary of Samuel Pepys - not just the highlights but the full decade of writings. Pepys is a truly fascinating figure and I set some of the most famous sections into a piece for junior choir and orchestra back in the early 1990s.

Oh, I don't know! Reading a book seems like such a good idea. Has anyone got any other suggestions?

Learn to play an instrument?

So, if I'm not sure about learning a new language, how about I learn to play a musical instrument?

As some reading this will know, I am a musician - a composer - and have, as a result, played a variety of instruments (to varying degrees of success) over the years.

As a kid I learnt to play brass. Initially I was a cornet player in a local brass band, then I moved on to euphonium and, eventually, at the age of 15, to tuba. I was a pretty good tuba player, passing my Grade 8 (with distinction!) and then doing the ARCM performing diploma. I wasn't the cliché oompah tuba player and did, in fact, not only perform in bands and orchestras, but also performed concertos and solo recitals whilst at university. But I didn't want to be a professional tuba player and I lacked the dedication necessary to practise for hour after hour and make it into a career. My tuba now lives in the cellar and comes out maybe a couple of times a year at most.

I had piano lessons too. I was never very good at piano. I didn't start having piano lessons until I was 15. I came home from school one day and my parents had bought a piano and arranged for me to have a teacher because I "seemed to be taking this music thing quite seriously and it might be useful"!

It's a shame. It felt like a crash course in piano. I had to learn rapidly to try to catch up. By the time I stopped having lessons (two years later) I had passed Grade V and failed Grade VI. I don't do failure well and so that was that! Still, it taught me a lot. It was like the 18 months I learnt Latin,
I didn't become proficient in that specific skill but, I believe, I learnt a lot that helped me in other areas of music.

While in 6th form I had half a dozen lessons on the double bass so that I could play it in the college's big band. I enjoyed double bass (and have played it a few times over the years) but still prefer pizzicato playing to using the bow which, I don't think it's an overstatement, I always found a little awkward and bewildering.

I also played alto saxophone for a couple of years while I was in secondary school. I guess I wanted to play a cool instrument and saxophone has to be one of the coolest around. However, while being a good saxophonist is undoubtedly cool, while you're still learning you sound more like a wounded gnu shot on the Serengeti - and that is anything but cool!

As a result of being a teacher and playing in the pit for various shows, I've obviously had a go at (and performed publicly on) things like percussion (particularly timpani), accordion (in the days before keyboards were as good as they are today for a church organ effect) and, of course, I conduct.

Conducting is fab. I just love it. And, naturally, the best sort of conducting is conducting your own composition (I hate attending performances of my own music when I have no control and it's all in the hands of someone else - absolutely hate it!).

So, I guess, I could learn a new instrument or, perhaps, take one of the I detriments I've dabbled with before and try to improve - maybe I could pass that Grade VI piano exam?

If I were to learn a new instrument what would it be?

I've always liked the idea of learning to play the guitar, but, when I've tried, I've always found the left hand position just bizarre and unnatural.

Everyone these days (yes, everyone - how dare you think I'm exaggerating!) seems to play the ukulele. I presume, although it has the same left hand positional problems of the guitar, it's that bit easier because of its size and because of only having 4 strings. But do I want to join the cult of the ukulele - a cult growing more rapidly than the Moonies? Maybe not.

What else is there?

• Didgeridoo? Not a fan of circular breathing.

• Wobble board? No, I'm not Rolf Harris.

• Ophicleide? Rather limited performance opportunities!

• Stylophone? I refer you to my answer to wobble board!

Well, it's something I'll keep thinking about, but maybe my 50 things need to be a little further away from my natural habitat as a musician?

Learn a new language?

Amongst the suggestions I've received about things I could include in my list of 50 things to do has been to learn a new language. Now, considering my general inability to learn languages this would be quiet a challenge!

At school, I learnt French and Latin. I was fairly hopeless at both (though, in my defence, the Latin was a crash course from complete starter to O-level in a little over 18 months). I ended up having to "double enter" myself (no, that's not a dodgy porn term for those of you too young to remember the days before GCSEs, which was a good job as I failed the O-level but got a CSE grade 1 (the Uni I went to required all undergrads to have a language at O-level or "O-level equivalent"!

I loved Latin. I loved the logic and rigour. I loved that it enabled me to understand lots of languages, at least in written form. I genuinely wish that I'd been taught Latin instead of French from Year 7. Michael Gove, the often moronic Education Secretary, is right on one thing: school kids should be taught Latin - not because of any harping back to a by-gone era but because it is a fantastic grounding in a number of modern languages.

Let's be honest, French and German are pointless languages to learn today - German in particular. There are few languages that have any great purpose now that the Internet has underlined in bold the superiority of English as the international language. It is a dreadful failure of the British education system, and a betrayal of children, that, in many schools French and German are still the main foreign languages being taught. Why does this happen? Because too many MFL departments and teachers are stuck in the world of the 1930s -1950s when those languages seemed important. They're not. Schools must change.

So what are the useful languages? Obviously English (though I feel I get by in that and can't really have learning English as a new skill for my 50 things to do). Beyond English and Latin, I think schools, if they are to teach modern foreign languages (and I do think that shouldn't be an assumed position) then the languages should be Mandarin, Russian and, of course, Spanish. I guess, with the rise of Brazil as a major economic force some would argue that Portuguese should be taught too, but that, like German, is a language of very restricted geographical use and a solid grounding in Latin (and Spanish) would enable a rapid conversion to Portuguese should it be needed).

But maybe a language doesn't have to be useful? Maybe I should learnt a minority language just because it might be fun, an intellectual exercise. Really? A language that doesn't aid communication of understanding is, surely, a waste of time. I do often think that some of the minority languages should just be allowed to die out. If evolution is good for animals and plants, then why not languages too?

Let's be honest, the money wasted in Wales, the North of Scotland and Ireland on having dual-language signs everywhere is absolutely idiotic when so few people speak these dead (or, at very least, terminally ill) languages. Fine, a few enthusiasts can keep it going, a scholar or two research and study these painfully minor languages but to waste time, effort and tax payers money trying to prop up languages that are well past their sell by date is plain dumb. Let Welsh die. Let Gaelic slowly drift off this mortal coil. Lets allow language to evolve, be vibrant and move with the times. How much is wasted making road signs in Wales dual language and teaching pupils to speak an utterly pointless language because it seems the "right on" thing to do? Wouldn't that money be better spent teaching children better English, or useful languages for the 21st and 22nd centuries?

I did, briefly, start learning Esperanto as a kid. I got a book and worked my way through it. I loved the simplicity of it, the regular symmetry of the grammar, the fact there were no exceptions to rules and, of course, an international language appeals enormously to the idealist in me. However, particularly since the World Wide Web (and, to be fair, since the USA became a world power) there is a world language: English.

Yes, when visiting other countries we should all try to learn some key phrases and be able to say hello, please, thank you, etc. in the local tongue but, in my experience, within seconds the locals will detect I'm English, appreciate my flawed attempt at their language and then converse with me in my language. It's not arrogant or imperialist, I do feel guilty about it, but, through an accident of birth, the language I was taught as a child us the predominant world language.

So, do I learn a new one as one of my 50 things to do? I'm not sure. I think I need to be convinced. Which language would make sense for me to learn? I'm open to suggestions (though I don't want to even attempt whichever language is all clicking noises!).

50 things...

We've all seen those lists of 100 things to do before you die, etc. - I guess they get lumped in with bucket lists of the terminally ill. 

On April 1st 2013 I'll be 48 - it'll be just two years before I turn 50. 

I want to do 50 exciting and interesting things in the 104 weeks between my 48th and 50th birthday - 50 things I wouldn't normally do, things I've always wanted to do, things that push me to the edges of my limits...

At the moment, I'm not sure what my 50 things will be - I'm trying to come up with a list of things that are sufficiently interesting, diverse, achievable and, well, fun!

Please, please, please.... I'm open to suggestions as to things I can do over the next couple of years (particularly if you are able to help me any of them). 

Here are a few that I'm fairly sure will be in my final list: 

1. Play Poohsticks on the Poohsticks Bridge 
2. Watch a World Cup Final 
3. Be an extra in a movie 
4. Go for a flight in a hot air balloon 
5. Help at a homeless shelter 

 ... but, as I say, I'm open to suggestions!

Maybe I should be seeking sponsorship for this? Raising money for charity? Maybe I shouldn't be trying to do anything so stupid at my age?

What do you think?