Tag Archives: creativity

Outdoor ad fail

How classy does this ad look to you? How smooth and sophisticated?

Let’s see where it goes wrong. First – the image itself. Who is this for? As the radio station it’s promoting is aimed at women, I’m going to guess that’s the target for the ad too. Not lusty blokes, but women who, the station would hope, will identify with the image and want something of the experience portrayed. Laid back, relaxed, smooth, indulgent, not a care in the world.

Now put that image where outdoor ads tend to be displayed. In this case, sticking out from under a bridge. The kind of place you wouldn’t hang around late at night. It’s not an ideal fit for the image, is it?

Add a bit of particularly unfortunate placement. Where is the woman in this ad? What does that suggest she might be doing, or what might be happening to her? Don’t blame me if that thought disturbs you, it’s your imagination at this point. It would be working just as hard without your conscious awareness if we hadn’t asked the questions.

So maybe this is one bad example. But I’m hard pushed to think of a context where this ad would work. It’s a cut off half body, for goodness sake – your mind is always going to fill in the blanks. Even if the placement were perfect, in beautiful isolation and a splendid, pristine, relaxing environment (the kind of place no-one sees ad hoardings), it’s still not that good an image. It’s impersonal and devoid of identifiable character, the opposite of good radio for their target audience.

The station owners are Celador, by the way, creators of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Next time… (insert your own “phone a friend” / “ask the audience” related joke here.)

Reproducible kingdom


At Pip n Jay, we are spending this term with our interns looking at what God’s kingdom is really about. Life defined by God’s rule is, we believe, something for now as well as a hope for more in the future. But what does it look like, and how do we know if we have it for real?

I wanted to get into the mind of Jewish people in Jesus’ day, and see if we could empathise with those who felt they were following God faithfully, but couldn’t believe that Jesus was the long promised bringer of God’s kingdom. We looked at various expressions of kingdom through the Old Testament and history up to the time of Jesus, starting with Genesis 1. We couldn’t help but feel how important a recognisable kingdom was (and is) to people struggling with issues of security and identity, forced exile and imposed foreign rule. No-one wants to be walked over, and if your history tells you that you are God’s chosen people, destined for much greater things, it’s totally understandable that a lot of thought and effort would have gone into the escape plan, the redemption, the hope of God’s kingdom to come.

We believe what so many found hard to accept – that God intervened in an unexpected, if long prophesied, way. He did not just send a blessed man to revive a kingdom which looked like David’s or Moses’ day. Much more radically, he gave himself to the world through Jesus, and asked for our lives in return. God’s kingdom which is here and still coming through Jesus is not the human construction of a nation, but God’s original plan for the world. It’s Genesis 1, life with God, three dimensional in nature: loving God first, and our neighbours as ourselves.

So by looking at Jesus and trying to follow him, we have an idea of what kingdom should look like. Many of Jesus’ examples are organic. For example, from Mark 4: God’s kingdom is like when a farmer scatters seeds which grow (“whether the farmer sleeps or gets up”). Without the farmer understanding how, grain appears, which the farmer then knows he should harvest. I used to think this farmer was God. But God doesn’t lack understanding – that’s more like US! In God’s kingdom we are called to be farmers (just as Adam and Eve were to look after the land) and we have roles – e.g. to scatter seed and harvest grain – but growth itself is a job we don’t understand. God designed the seed so that it would happen, but it appears to happen “all by itself”, not because we made it so.

I wonder how different this is from our expectations and practice when it comes to kingdom growth, or at least church growth. We are so tempted to measure our work and define our success by growth – numerical or spiritual. More people through the church door, or more commitments made, more money raised, more money given away, or more activity visible – all kinds of numerical growth look good to us. Spiritual growth is harder to measure, but we probably think we have a sense of it – increasing prayer, bible engagement, personal maturity, maybe even engagement with spiritual gifts, signs and wonders… all good stuff. Growth is good AND totally expected in healthy lives, and we believe Jesus’ promise that God’s kingdom is about life in all its fulness. But does this growth come about by our understanding of it and working for it directly? 

I think there is a tremendous temptation to think that we must understand growth in order to see God’s kingdom come, and that this can lead us into construction where we should be farming. (I know Jesus also uses construction pictures for the kingdom, but just stick with me on this for a bit…) 

If the kingdom is like a tree which grows from a seed, this is a picture of reproducible life. More seeds will follow, meaning more trees can grow. But we can, instead, construct something which looks like a tree. It might look a lot like a tree, enough to fool birds or even people. The differences:

  • A real tree starts small and grows unpredictably. A fake tree is simply constructed into a predictable tree-like shape. 
  • A real tree needs the right environment for growth. A fake tree can be placed anywhere. 
  • A real tree needs our attention for nurturing, but grows by itself. A fake tree requires us to do everything to make it the right size and shape, and never grows by itself. 
  • A real tree will reproduce. A fake tree will not. 

It strikes me that there is a LOT of work needed to make and maintain a convincing fake tree (check out the gallery pics above), and it’s a very different type of work from farming. 

Evangelicals aren’t usually big on mystery. We want projects we can work on, things we can build, life we understand. We want to get to grips with scripture and so we pay attention and take Jesus’ words seriously. But Jesus speaks of the farmer and growth in Mark 4:27 – “He doesn’t know how it happens.” The farmer does know his role, planting and harvesting, but God takes care of the growth, something also affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:6

Reproducible kingdom is real trees. Man-made trees are not reproducing. So what are we working with? Are we seeing decline in Western European Christianity because God has withheld blessing or changed the hearts of our neighbours so the gospel doesn’t get through? Or have we somehow ended up switching our attention away from reproducible kingdom by investing in institutions, buildings, denominations, even growth plans which look kingdom-shaped, but are simply sterile because we felt had to take on God’s role to make things grow, and ended up constructing fake trees? 

Here is my dilemma. I love to study, understand and shape things. I enjoy feeing like an expert and useful as a teacher or guide. So life leading people to construct a beautiful looking kingdom-shaped tree might actually look quite attractive. But I want to be the farmer who sees real kingdom growth and a harvest. I’m reminded that it’s God’s kingdom, not mine.

10 O’Clock Live: did the Channel 4 hype backfire?


I admit I haven’t seen this yet. But everyone else is reviewing it, so I’m going to pile in too, based on this screen captured moment of hilarity.

Lauren Laverne – she loves the camera, and the camera loves her
Jimmy Carr – he loves the camera, the camera isn’t so sure about him, thinks he’s a bit creepy
Charlie Brooker – he hates the camera, the camera hates him, so they have this mutual understanding which has worked for a long time now
David Mitchell – is in complete denial that there is a camera, and would prefer to be somewhere else much more comfortable out of his new “job interview” suit.

As I mentioned, I haven’t seen it yet, but I feel my expectations have been suitably lowered by the anti-hype.

Making something as good as the Daily Show takes a huge, talented and committed team AND lots of time and attempts to get working properly. So it’s never yet happened on Channel 4′s system. But this looks really promising. I really hope it’s not as awful as everyone else says, but even if it is, I hope they keep trying…

Why don’t Christians praise more during sermons?

(Hello! If you’ve been reading my blog mainly for X Factor, radio or similar bits, I’m thinking the spiritual interjections like this might be unexpected. With best blogging practice in mind – focusing to grow a reputation and an audience – this might be better in a separate blog, But to be honest, I’m writing this to express things I’m thinking about rather than things to impress readers. So I hope you forgive me if this seems a bit random. There’ll be more like it to come, but I’ll continue tagging posts so you can follow the topics which interest you. Thanks for reading!)


I’ve been reading “Multipliers” by Liz Wiseman, a useful and challenging book about the differences between leading people in a way which shows how clever you are, and leading people in a way which gets the best out of them. I want to do less of the former, more of the latter. It’s clearly ideal for a leader to unleash a dozen (or a thousand) people’s potential, yet it is surprisingly tempting for clever people in leadership roles to prioritise the establishment of their own authority and recognition of their genius, and all too easy for this to end up stifling others’ potential. A clever leader may not even see this happening. But a great leader will put the work in to make sure it does not.

I found myself getting distracted while reading. I’m keen to put the core ideas into practice, and trying to imagine the situations where this can happen. In some, I need to behave differently. In others, I think we need a change of culture, new and higher expectations of each other, and perhaps new structures for our meetings together which enable people to participate more fully. 

In church, for example, Sunday meetings have a structure. This varies across different styles of church, and I have more experience in some than others, but I’ve seen a bit of a range. The central focus, the reason for being together, is normally worship – our expression of love to a God who loved us first and loves us most, who even supplies all the love and inspiration we need, but asks for that to become visible and audible in us. In worship we connect with God, we bond with each other as we do this together, and we express visible qualities of an invisible God to anyone else in the world who may be watching. All of this should end up being a personal and corporate growth experience – a fresh touch from God who wants us to call him Father – but worship is not primarily about us or for us. It’s for God. This is incredible in theory, and amazing in reality. If you’ve not experienced it, look for somewhere that practises it, and see if it changes your mind about God.

There are normally other things mixed into a church’s Sunday meeting structure. There’ll be some business to announce while everyone is there and paying attention, “the notices”, which might be a list of stuff read out, or a newsletter, or if you’re at Hillsong, a whizzy video produced impressively in super widescreen, Often these will be about life and ongoing worship together. There’ll be a collection to pay for the costs of church, and most churches will make it clear that this is also a part of worship – it’s another expression of love and thankfulness. The structure and mechanisms vary (from informal plate passing to high expectation bucket patrols) but it’s all clearly in need of a worshipful response.

Then, at some point, there will be teaching. A church leader or special guest will take a position at the front of the crowd, ask for order, and then start sharing wisdom. This is the bit which intrigues me. In the church where I grew up, it would never be longer than ten minutes. People would start checking their watches after five, and tutting after six. If the sighing and shuffling didn’t put the speaker off after seven or eight minutes, the sound of prams wheeling and doors slamming would deliver a pretty strong hint at the ten minute mark. I later joined churches with far bigger appetites for preaching, and looked back on this bite-sized word culture as deeply unspiritual, but I think God has challenged my view of that lately. The people I grew up with loved God, worship and community. They sent their children for six to fourteen years of church education. They placed a massive value on spiritual learning, but expected worship to flow on a Sunday. I’m not sure the resistance to change was entirely healthy, but the love of God and desire to be in community with God’s people were real.

For the last fifteen years or so, I’ve been part of evangelical Anglican churches – ones which place a high value on learning and applying the Bible to life, and which generally reflect this desire on a Sunday with talks which last from between 30 and 60 minutes. This format goes back a long way. Lengthy speeches were actually quite popular in the Victorian times when the pews went in. There is evidence much further back, in the New Testament, that teaching sessions could go on for a really long time. My favourite example is when Paul taught for so long that Eutychus, sitting on a window sill, fell asleep, fell out the window and died when he hit the ground. Thankfully people had the faith to pray for his revival, they enjoyed communion together, and then carried on until dawn. An hour seems pretty short in that context.

But how do you hold someone’s attention for an hour? In our multichannel age, when so many media messages are tightly shaped to fit short attention spans, is it surprising that people’s attention can drift during a long sermon? Of course speakers never want this to happen, and there is no reason why it has to. Well crafted, relevant messages, stories, engaging challenges and genuine connections with the exciting things God is doing somewhere can certainly hold attention for as long as a standard TV documentary. Teach as well as Jesus did, and people will give their attention for days and longer.

What I’m wondering is whether clever teachers (possibly myself included) actually make this harder than it needs to be. We know we’re not there to focus on ourselves and our cleverness. We know the job of sharing truths about God should be part of our worship of God. But I’m thinking that the sermon form itself, if it demands talking from one person and only listening from everyone else, looks like the perfect platform for the least helpful behaviours of clever leaders. One way communication is not a good format for ‘multiplier’ leaders to get the best from their teams. So should we be looking to change the format? If so, how?

One answer to this is ‘workshopping’ – using some of the time for discussion and practical work in smaller groups, and expecting creative input and commitment from individuals. This is good stuff, but it might be a long way from what’s expected (and helpful) in a Sunday worship gathering. I’m thinking we’re wise to keep the focus on God and worship throughout, and have other times where our personal development might be the central focus. When we commit ourselves to grow and serve God, that is part of our worship, so there is a link, but I’m also thinking that for someone expecting simply to meet with God, be inspired and learn something, regular workshopping might be a bit try-hard and offputting.

I’m thinking more about expecting a basic level of response during teaching. If a speaker is pointing people to God, and people are recognising and connecting with this, isn’t worship a natural response? Doesn’t that fit pretty neatly with everything else people are gathered to do on a Sunday? That response might be pretty simple – many churches encourage “Amen!” (meaning “we agree!”) and “Hallelujah!” (meaning “praise God!”), and even demand those responses during a talk. Why not encourage that, or even English words(!), as we expect and encourage people to listen and respond actively? (My wife Helen walked in a few minutes ago, saw the title of this post and responded “Because it’d be really annoying” – which I guess might be fair enough…)

To be honest, I don’t think raising the noise and chatter level would make a big difference by itself.

The real inspiration is in the way Jesus, and those who followed him, taught truth with love and grace, always ready to respond to people’s needs, and in a way which seemed inseparable from praise and worship. Jesus had a speaking engagement which was so packed, the house filled up to bursting point. But someone needed healing from paralysis, so his friends cut a hole in the roof and lowered him down. Can you imagine that happening in church? Apart from whether or not we’d expect church to be that full, just imagine how uncomfortable everyone would get with the noise. It would be a pretty noticeable interruption when the roof comes off, and someone starts getting winched down directly in front of the speaker! And if things were allowed to get that far, would we expect the speaker to respond, or kindly remind everyone that healing ministry takes place after the sermon, just before the coffee? Jesus responded to this expression of faith, not just with healing, but the almighty challenge of forgiving the man’s sins – something shocking and unprecedented which revealed the true nature of his mission and God’s love. Talk about disruption on every level.

When Paul wrote to churches to explain the gospel and what we need to do about it, teaching and praise were virtually inseparable. His challenging first letter to the Corinthians opens with recognition and praise of God, which links with praise to God for who he has made the church to be. The practical lessons are hard, but the context is always worship of God who makes all things possible in Jesus. The writer of the letter to the Romans – teaching so clever it gets taught in secular law schools today – cannot separate truth about God from praise to God. The letter opens with praise for what God is doing, develops into a story and legal case concerning our standards in life and how we can relate to God, and it is woven through with recognition and worship of God. At one pivotal point, between recognising God’s mercy and openness, and showing the response we need to make, the writer leads readers into worship – it might even have been a song:

“Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways! For who can know the Lord’s thoughts? Who knows enough to give him advice? And who has given him so much that he needs to pay it back? For everything comes from him and exists by his power and is intended for his glory. All glory to him forever! Amen.” (Romans 11:33-36, New Living Translation)

A typical Anglican service borrows praise from the New Testament letters and puts them all the way through our led prayer and worship. Are we as ready to let the teaching slots fill up with praise, even if that disrupts our structure? And for the non-Anglicans too: every church I’ve ever visited which rejoices in its freedom from liturgy and overly-structured services still has a structure and culture of its own. We probably can’t function as a body without structure. But we restrict ourselves, maybe even restrict what God can do among us, if our meetings have a “silo” structure separating worship, teaching and response into things we know we can easily plan and operate. Being true to God’s word, sharing it faithfully, brings worship, and growing faith that God can and will work among us, live, is an exciting and engaging thing.

So the really big challenge to speakers, I think, is to be as authentic and faithful as Jesus, Paul and the other apostles, full of grace and truth, while flexible and ready to respond to something God may choose to do as it happens. Paul had to interrupt what I’m sure was a great sermon in order to bring someone back from the dead. What an inconvenience! What was the bit people remembered from that night? Eutychus’ experience was memorable enough to include in the scriptural history of the early church. God does things at times we don’t expect – perhaps even when we meet together to worship!

Are our preachers trained to look and respond to those times, leading people into praise and worship, prayer and seeking, thanks and sharing DURING the sermon time when appropriate? It might demand more flexibility from the team which leads a service. It might require more attention from the congregation, and produce even more meaningful worship and whole hearted commitment to follow the things God is doing outside church as well as inside. I think I’d like to see more of that. I’d love to be the kind of leader who expects it, and gets the most from everyone following too, for God’s glory.

Living a Chilled Life

Is chilling out something we have to wait for – a quiet time, a holiday, or just when things are settled down – or can we do it now? What does it mean to be chilled in the middle of stress? Do we have to insulate ourselves from shock, or can we choose to learn from the stresses of life?

I’m re-posting a podcast series I made in 2008 about making that choice to learn from life. It’s based on “The Circle” in Mike Breen’s LifeShapes, a model for learning through experience while connecting with other people, and it’s something I live every day with the people around me. The series became the top life coaching podcasts on iTunes (!) and there will be new episodes to follow.

They’re going up at http://chilledlife.posterous.com

Looking for life without limits

How much of our lives is dedicated to finding ways around our limitations?

Right wing politics says we shouldn’t limit what resourceful people can do.

Left wing politics says we shouldn’t limit who gets access to resources.

Both sound good, until they end up scrapping over how to distribute limited resources – from money and commodities to energy, time and attention – quite a lot of what we have to deal with. If everyone wants more of everything good, that is a real challenge to organise.

Is there a basis for a satisfying life which doesn’t depend on limited resources? Is there such a thing as a resource which can be multiplied without limit, and yet is still valuable and desirable?

I believe there is, and that we all have experience of this. It’s what creativity is all about. We’re not allowed to create money – if I want to give you five pounds, I have to lose that money, not photocopy it. But if I give you an idea, and you give me an idea, we both have more than we started with. People who work creatively, who live by “win-win” and build rewarding relationships, and those who work to bring out the best in someone else without fear of being diminished themselves – these are real creators of wealth.

I also believe in a creative, creator God – the only real source of anything limitless – who loves to give us good things which can be multiplied and given away without us having any less when we do. Church founder Paul lists some of these things and calls them “the fruit of the spirit“, products of God’s character in us – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control. Give any of these out and you have more, not less, for yourself. Christians believe we can’t do that on our own, however – only if we’re in relationship with God, the source of all that good stuff.

It isn’t easy to do this consistently when we are challenged by the fear of running out of physical things we know are in limited supply. If there is one seat left on the train and we have to rush for it, someone will get it and someone won’t. If there is one slice of chocolate cake left at the counter, and two customers ahead of me in the queue, there’s a good chance I won’t get it. I’ll be honest – sometimes it is the little things like that which, for me, get in the way of grand ideas about the abundance of really important things. That’s a work in progress. What I am learning is how some pleasure lasts, and some doesn’t.

So a life without limits could be about striving to organise better, or to grab quicker, or to change focus onto things which don’t run out and can be multiplied sustainably. Maybe more than one of these.

What are you looking for, and how is it working out?

Don’t hire experts

I’m about to pitch for 30 days of work to spread a message and practical tools I feel are really important. I’ll be proposing to use social media to gather people who “get it” and grow communities that do it and pass it on to other people through relationships. But I’m anticipating the question “why me?” – what is my expertise or credibility for getting this together? I’m considering a radically different answer from the norm…

This presentation by Quentin Charlier, based on an idea blogged by Tim Baker, sums it up quite nicely. In fact, I think their idea is gaining credibility faster than my expertise could on its own.

I set up the first UK radio station presence on Myspace. Our company stumbled over the power of social networks, not as an addition to marketing but INSTEAD of marketing. We learned the importance of going to be where people are, rather than expecting people to come to you.

The exciting days of fast growth in the Myspace community seem like an age ago. All the tricks and tips, the measurable and sharable “expertise” from that particular project, are largely outdated. If we tried the same thing again, it would fail.

The scary, real, exciting thing is that the world has moved on. This is very noticeable online, and particularly within social media which are reinvented daily. Facebook is a moving target. For all we know about it now, there is far more we don’t know. It’s not just uncertainty about the next redesign, or changing rules about embedded widgets. The biggest force changing Facebook and how we engage with it is the changing community itself – it may have just been your mates, but is now also your mum. In turn, people change their engagement as they go from excitement about a social platform to utility, and often ultimately to disappointment and withdrawal. That changes the community again, and it’s a huge challenge to stay on top of what works best to keep people engaged.

So what’s the problem with experts? By the time they have finished crystallising their ideas into a shareable form and laying out for you the basis of their expertise, the world has changed. They may no longer be experts.

I’m torn here. I want to work, and “expert” is handy packaging for clients who want to hand over a job to someone else. But I’m not an expert. I’m learning, asking, testing, trying, observing, reading around, experimenting and – hopefully – still learning, and I can’t see that coming to an end.

In music, I’ve put a lot of work into tools and processes which help radio stations observe the world around them, absorb other opinions, and grow in the ability to make good judgements about songs listeners will grow to love. I would really love to do this better. The people I know who are brilliant and grow their stations are the ones who know how much they have to learn every week, and keep asking good questions as well as giving some good answers. Music is part of their lives and who they are, and not just a day job.

Is there a word for people like that, who are always learning as well as teaching, always testing as well as telling, and resolving to set about a job with a certain amount of “I don’t know” which may be more than what they do know?

Tim Baker calls himself a “junkie” instead of an expert, which is pretty cool, if slightly offputting for my potential client… Junkies need to keep consuming, and I guess that is one way to look at learning – we can’t do it in isolation. A junkie’s consumption influences who they are and what they do, and they need to keep consuming and keep doing what they do because they are junkies. Maybe that’s attractive to a boss who wants commitment. But it doesn’t sound like the healthiest picture…

I think the best word to describe something better than “expert” is from another culture. We use the word “disciple” in church – and hardly anyone else does. It means someone who learns and implies a lifestyle structure for learning – it’s where we get the word “discipline” from. Disciples lived a life of constant learning.

In Jesus’ case, we don’t know the exact Aramaic word he used to refer to his followers, but we do know the ancient Greek translation of that word – mathaytes, which meant someone who learned by hearing and practising. Jesus expected disciples to become good at what he did, including making disciples. That’s a really good way to make sure learning spreads and has influence – to make passing it on integral to the learning experience.

I am not a social media expert. I am a disciple. I am not a music expert. I am a mathaytes. (Discussion for extra credit: can we be disciples of things, or only of people? I’m a disciple of Jesus, and perhaps also of the people I know who do music and media really well. I just edited this paragraph to take out the term “social media disciple” because I don’t know if it means anything. What do you think?)

I don’t know as “mathaytes” or “disciple” stand any chance of becoming popular words to describe a good alternative to experts. But I am pretty sure they are the things we’re looking for which can make a difference. After all, Jesus could have hired experts – there were plenty of well respected teachers in his day. But instead he called disciples who made disciples and changed the world.

Are you pitching yourself as an expert or a disciple? And, given that we are all learning from life one way or another, whose disciple are you?

What is a social network worth to you?

Here are the five stages of Facebook grief:

1. Confusion. What’s it for? How do I use it? Why would anyone want to post here? Who’s seeing this?

2. Discovery. Hey, my high school friends are here. Reading my News Feed actually makes me feel more connected to people. This is actually pretty fun. I look forward to checking Facebook every day. I love this.

3. Utility. Facebook helps me stay connected to former colleagues, which could help me find a job in the future. I learn things about my own kids that is valuable to me that I wouldn’t otherwise hear. It’s easier to communicate with everyone on Facebook than e-mail, phone calls or any other means. I need this.

4. Embarrassment. Whoa! I did NOT want my co-workers to see the picture of me someone else tagged. Too much personal information in that post! Whoops! I did not mean to offend someone — I forgot who would be listening.

5. Withdrawal. To avoid problems, I’m going to have to assume that everything I say is public, not private like I used to think. I’ll minimize my posts or stop using Facebook altogether.

Facebook has lived through many predictions of doom. Some expected it would decline a year after it started being market leader, because everything before it did (Friendster, Myspace…) But the next bigger thing hasn’t yet arrived.

Now that everyone and their mum seem to be on Facebook, it’s squarely in the mainstream, no longer an exciting novelty but an everyday utility, like banks and bins – the sort of thing the Daily Mail loves to moan and scare about.

But will Facebook become a nuisance to you, or will you just get fed up of it? If so, what’s next?

Pete Lawrence emailed me today confirming the details of his new “Pic-Nic Village” for creative types. He’s hoping it can avoid privacy concerns and advertising, and instead be based on community-sourced funding and development. This means the main functions of the site, due to launch next year, will not be free. I’m pretty sure there will be a passionate crowd of supporters. The question is, will that crowd be big enough to make it all go in a satisfying way, and not so big that people feel insignificant or even threatened by it all?

Would you pay to join a specialist social network?

Your vinyl resting place

Rumours of the death of the music industry may be greatly exaggerated, but we’ve all got to go some time. How about making a lasting impression with your remains? Death metal fans – it’s not just for you.

www.andvinyly.com (see what they did there!) will press up 30 discs with your name, audio you supply (up to 12 minutes per side) and something you don’t find enough in music – you can genuinely pour yourself into it. Well, someone else can pour your ashes into it, after you are dead. Could be a little soulless (I believe that bit’s going elsewhere…) but you can always opt to record a speech, or simply have silence which will only be interrupted by your pops and crackles.

The basics cost £2000, extras range from “bespook music” at £500 a track, and distribution “to reputable vinyl stores worldwide” for £1000, to artwork from renowned portrait painter James Hague for £3500.

With the British music industry desperate to extend copyright terms from 50 years to life + 70 years or longer, it could be said that there is an increading demand to reap shareholder value from the grave. But at least these guys are upfront about it.

For the record, my choice of funeral anthem is “God Gave Rock And Roll To You”. I’m not yet sure if I want to be part of the recording.

Suggested playlist choices for your AndVinyly compilation:
1. “You Spin Me Round (Like A Record)” – Dead Or Alive
2. … errr…
3. … that’s it.
(feel free to comment with more)