This initially started off with my writing a small piece as part of my ‘This Week’ articles but I ended up writing quite a bit more so now I’ve made it a separate article.

I can’t believe that, after almost three years since the government pledged to put a step to conversion therapy in the UK, any form of legislation still has not been brought forward. Actually, scratch that, I can believe it, given this governments track record. Granted, I’ll give some grace here for the fact that they have also been dealing with a global pandemic over the last year. That is a priority as it should be, but this conversation has been ongoing since long before the pandemic.

The much-needed legislation was discussed in March, but the update given by equalities minister Kemi Badenoch was at best, vague. No actual commitments were made on when the legislation would be brought forward or what form it would take when it does. As a result of the dawdling, three members of the LGBT Advisory Panel stepped down and it has since been announced that the panel has now been disbanded. On top of all that, prime minister Boris Johnson has said in a letter to the Evangelical Alliance that any legislation will not apply to adults who seek “pastoral support” from churches while exploring sexual orientation or gender identity.

Call me cynical, but Johnson’s comments sound like they are already planning to facilitate a back door for conversion therapy to continue, on religious grounds. It is beginning to look like this is legislation is no longer going to be an outright ban on the controversial practice. Arguably, it is too soon to make any assumptions about what this legislation will actually dictate but these not so early warning signs aren’t filling me with confidence. The fact that the Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, has now disbanded the LGBT Advisory Panel also adds to my concern, not just because of conversion therapy, but because it is another removal of voices for the LGBTQ+ community. A community that has fought long and hard to be heard at all.

What I find most frustrating about this discussion is that scientifically speaking, there is no reliable evidence that these ‘conversions’ work and actually there is more evidence to suggest that they are ineffective and potentially harmful. Conversion therapy is pseudoscientific in that it consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience can be very dangerous in that it can drive people away from proven scientific breakthroughs such as vaccines (topical I know!). Historically, pseudoscientific theories have even led to racism and genocide.  

Why is the actual science being ignored here? If we have learned anything over the last year, surely it is that we need to pay more attention to science, not less. With an ever-increasing awareness of mental health, including the mental health of those within the LGBTQ+ community, now is the time for governments to be listening to the scientists and health care professionals when it comes to this barbaric and homophobic practice.

Many of those that argue in favour of these conversions use ‘religious belief’ as justification for the therapy. I am so tired of this notion that religious beliefs entitle people to dictate a complete stranger’s life. I do not begrudge anyone of any faith their beliefs. I swear I have said this so many times before. In terms of religion, everyone is entitled to believe whatever they like however that does not give them license to dictate how anyone else should live their lives.

To reduce this down to a most simplistic analogy (and one I may have made before), I personally do not feel that pineapple belongs on a pizza. For me, it is gross and a bit weird. It goes against my ‘belief’ that fruit (and don’t start with me about tomatoes – I tend to go for a barbecue base anyway haha) should not be on a pizza. Does that mean I get to dictate to everyone else that they can’t have pineapple on pizza anymore? Does that mean I can use torturous methods in an attempt to ensure people never try to have pineapple on pizza anymore? It sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? I can’t do those things and neither would I want to. Instead, I just don’t have pineapple on pizza, and I let anyone who does enjoy it do exactly that.

Of course, the conversation of homosexuality in relation to religious beliefs is far more complex but it really doesn’t have to be. Those who do hold religious beliefs just need to understand that it does not give them any right to impose those beliefs on anyone else. Conversion therapy is a potentially dangerous method of imposing those beliefs on others. It should not be allowed.

There is no reason to continue delaying this legislation. It has been almost three years which in my view time has been ample time to conduct consultations, gather evidence and so on. The only reason I can think of which could be holding back an outright ban on conversion therapy is the government attempting to keep religious institutions happy. I’m sorry, but that simply isn’t good enough. I have read too many heartbreaking stories about people being forced into these therapies against their will. Some of them are outright horrific. 'Ice-pick' lobotomies, chemical castration, electro-shock therapy and nausea-inducing drugs are just some of the examples of conversion therapy that sound terrifying in their names alone! Religious belief is in no way justification for any of them.  

Ok. So the plan for a new series of articles didn’t exactly get off to a great start after only one got published. What can I say? I got distracted?!?!? Well, I'm gonna try again… So, this week in LGBTQ+ news…

Hi all! I hope you all had a lovely Easter Weekend? Here we go again with another rundown of the music I have been listening to. Kicking it off with the stats:

 

 

"THE QUEER BREWING PROJECT WAS SET UP TO PROVIDE VISIBILITY FOR LGBTQ+ PEOPLE IN AND AROUND BEER, AND TO BUILD COMMUNITY, ADVOCATE FOR LGBTQ+ RIGHTS, AND RAISE MONEY FOR VITAL LGBTQ+ CHARITIES. LED BY BEER WRITER, PHOTOGRAPHER, AND CERAMICIST LILY WAITE, THE PROJECT HAS SO FAR BREWED OVER 30 BEERS IN 5 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND HAS RAISED THOUSANDS OF POUNDS FOR SOME INCREDIBLE AND IMPORTANT CHARITIES."

The beer industry, much like many other industries (and as you can probably imagine), is heavily dominated by cisgender, heterosexual, male voices. Oh, the surprise! Enter Lily Waite. She is the founder of Queer Brewing and is on a mission to change all that. Up until recently, Queer Brewing as a brand was a solo effort from Lily working particularly in collaboration with other breweries. 

For me personally, it is wonderful to see small businesses like these enter industries that you wouldn't necessarily associate with the LGBTQ+ community. Sure, the LGBTQ+ community drinks beer the same way everyone else does. However, in terms of visibility and that thing I talk about a lot, representation, it is both inspiring and really important that our community has a voice, especially in those industries where LGBTQ+ people have historically been shut out. Quite often, as a result of that visibility and representation, it helps facilitate change even outside of a specific industry.

It could be said that a real "big break" for the Queer Brewing project came in the form of a ground-breaking program from Manchester brewery (and already one of my favourites), Cloudwater. Cloudwater makes fantastic beers themselves and is heavily focused on diversity and inclusion in their business. Owner and Managing Director Paul Jones is very clear on his position, "If our privilege doesn’t create a platform that we can hand over to folk with less privilege than us, I don’t think we’ll sleep easy with ourselves. Certainly not now. Nor in the years to come." The Wayfinder Program is designed to share Cloudwater resources with a new generation of visionaries and affect change both within the craft beer industry and beyond. In order to bring about that change, the program has sought to bring in talent that had previously been shut out. Lily Waite and her Queer Brewing Project are the first participants in this Wayfinder program. If you want to read a little bit more about the program, you can do so HERE. From this program, Lily has been able to double her workforce (to two) and launch the new Queer Brewing 'core range' of beers.

If you follow any of my other social media you will know that I do love a beer and more specifically a good beer. Now, I will say I am in no way an expert on beer but on the flip side of that, since downloading the Untappd app back in September 2016, I have tried just shy of 900 unique beers. That means I have certainly tried enough to know what I like and what I don't. I have also got a bit better at picking out different flavour profiles in beers and so on. I have a long way to go on that front which I hope to rectify at some point this year with some proper beer tasting courses. Nevertheless, with the launch of the Queer Brewing core range, I was pretty adamant about supporting them and trying the beers. I wouldn't class this as a review by any stretch, like I say, I'm not quite at the level of proficiency for that. However, I will share my thoughts through my 'amateur' level beer tasting, which may encourage you to give these a try for yourself. 

Flowers - 4% ABV

Tiny Dots - 4.5% ABV

Existence As A Radical Act - 5% ABV

Here we go again with another rundown of what I have been listening to throughout the last month, starting off with those top-line numbers that I enjoy so much...

I'm not going to lie and the statistics speak for themselves, I listened to a lot less music. In part because I didn't have Christmas music playing A LOT. I was definitely expecting the January numbers to come in lower but I wasn't expecting them to be quite this low. Whoops. That is also a big part of why the chart has no tracks that were played in December. There are no ups or down this month!

In fact, pretty much the entire chart is new entries with only three tracks having charted prior to December and one of those being the "Bluey Theme Tune" which gets played a lot for my daughter. Some of the new entries are questionable though, given that they aren't really new as much as they just existed long before I started doing these charts.

Diving into all those lovely new entries, seven of them are taken up by an album that almost slipped me by. It was released in November 2020 but after hearing one of the tracks on the radio I went searching and pretty much instantly fell in love with it. I initially 'discovered' Raye after hearing her fabulous track "Natalie Don't" last summer and it has been a favourite ever since so when I found her album "Euphoric Sad Songs" I had to give it a listen. I was not disappointed. The album as a body of work is so very good and I have played right through a few times already. I can't even pick out a top track from it because four of them all have 5 plays, but the highest 'charting' was "All Dressed Up". Honestly, go stream this album because it is just brilliant. I reckon and hope that Raye will have a lot of success with it.

Another new entry came from the Irish and very eclectic band, Wild Youth, taking number 9 with their latest offering "Champagne Butterflies". It's a throbbing, feel-good track all about that feeling you get when you first fall in love. It is upbeat, hopeful and has a real summer vibe to it. The band themselves have been around since 2016 but they have been gaining a lot of popularity since and I can totally see why. I haven't yet, but I fully intend to dig further into their catalogue so you can expect to see more of them on the charts in the future.

Damien Rice picked up a couple of song spots on the chart this month, neither of which is what you would class as new. Rice is one of those artists that I dip in and out of, very much depending on my mood haha. I find him very relaxing to listen to, very cerebral and quite often emotional. "It Takes A Lot To Know A Man", in at number 16, is a superb and epic track coming in at just over 9 minutes long. It opens with a beautiful piano solo and builds throughout, layering in brass and strings. I love it. 

The other entry from him came as a bit of a surprise when I stumbled across it as I was just poking around Apple Music to see if he had anything new out as it has been quite a while. Sadly, there is no new album or anything but I did discover that he had done a cover of the Sia track "Chandelier" in early 2020. I really enjoy the original so downloaded it out of curiosity. It is certainly a very different style to the original and is very much in that typical Damien Rice style but one thing really struck me and that was the lyrics. I had never really processed what the lyrics were or what the story of the song was in the original. It was just a great song. Hearing the Rice version really puts those lyrics front and centre in the most emotive way. I would say that, for me, it has added an entirely new dimension to the song which is why it comes in at number 3.

Continuing the trend of emotive songs, Years & Years almost took the top spot, coming in at number 2 with their cover of Pet Shop Boys "It's A Sin". The song was released in tandem with the new Russell T. Davies TV show that is currently airing on Channel 4. I'm not going to get into the TV show as this isn't the place, in fact, I keep debating writing a piece about it specifically but you have probably heard about it already. Anyway, "It's A Sin" has always been one of my favourite songs from the 1980s. It is another one of those covers that takes an upbeat song from the past and reframes it in a ballad form. Although at times I have found that trend of 'ballad versions' a little bit overdone, this one works beautifully. Olly Alexanders vocals on this stripped back track sound so pure and full of emotion. There is no full video for it sadly, but I can't resist sharing the YouTube video that does exist...

I've also been listening to a fair bit of what I would refer to as dance music this month, with highlights from Meduza, Rina Sawayama, Jax Jones (and collaborators), Cedric Gervais & Franklin, James Hype and HOLA! All of which are absolute 'bangers' but there was a real stand out this month from Bingo Players & Ida Corr. Coming in at number 1 is their track "I Know This Club" and it is most definitely a BANGER! Considering that none of us can actually get out to a club right now, this is the perfect tonic. I must confess I have had this on repeat very loud and very late on a Saturday night after drinks with friends via Skype. It is quite a 'simple' dance track but it just thumps and makes me want to dance. Lyrically it amuses me because of the line "This club feels just like home" and right now, that is because it is home! Honestly, get this on and making your living room your own nightclub for the night. Have a lyric video and enjoy... (It also just came on Gaydio as I was writing this bit so yay!)

That is going to do it for my musical musings this month with the full chart just below. As always, if you have any music recommendations or tracks you think I really should be listening to, drop me comment below or drop me a line via Twitter...

The whole debate about heterosexual actors playing homosexual characters has been flickering along for quite some time now. The conversation waxes and wanes a lot, as you would expect, depending on what films or TV shows are being produced. The discussion has been stoked further recently as a result of screenwriter, director, and producer Russell T. Davies adding his opinions to the mix. He has argued that straight actors can not bring 'authenticity' to a gay role. This in turn has sparked the conversation further and a large number of people, including prominent performers both gay and straight, are responding. It really is a multifaceted and complex discussion and of course, I too have some thoughts that I wanted to write down. I will start out by saying that in principle, I am not against the notion of straight people playing gay characters. Some of my absolute favourite pieces of LGBTQ+ cinema and television have featured heterosexual actors displaying incredible performances as homosexual characters. That being said, I wanted to dig into my own thoughts and feelings on the debate itself.

One of the key arguments that I have seen repeatedly is that by its very definition, acting is the art of performing a role on film, television, or on stage, etc. An actor portrays a character and performs 'in the flesh' of said character. The very nature of acting is that it grants the actor the opportunity, or at least attempt, to live in someone else's skin. A massive part of acting is that you are performing as something that you are not in your own life. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. The whole beauty of acting is that for a short time, it enables you to be a completely different person, with a different personality, different background, different opinions, different motivations, and so on.

While I agree with this argument, you do have to acknowledge that there are also rules when it comes to acting. Broadly speaking, males play male roles, females play female roles. Of course, that sounds rather obvious when I write it like that, but it really is a fundamental 'rule' that is simply accepted. There are exceptions of course, and sometimes males do play female characters and vice versa. However, that is quite often due to the very nature of the character that is being played. 'Drag' as an art form and performance is one such area where, by its very nature, the rules are different. That is a whole different discussion which I am not going to get into here. There is also the discussion around trans characters and performers which I will touch upon in a bit. My main point here is that you don't see a woman in costume as a man playing James Bond. Yes, there have been discussions about a female 'Bond' but that is not the same thing as a woman actually performing as a man. That is, of course, unless they decide to make that a part of the character being portrayed. 

What is really interesting about this 'rule', is that it was not always the case. Historically, it was quite common to see an all-male cast. Shakespeare productions frequently did this. In more recent times, these concepts and rules have been played around with as an exploration of gender and crossing boundaries. I found a fascinating article by Claire McManus, discussing gender in Shakespeare over on the British Library website. It is well worth a read! 

Similarly, it is a commonly accepted and perhaps even more strictly enforced rule, that an actor should never paint their skin colour for a role. The whole notion of a performer donning 'blackface' (I detest even writing that word) for a role is widely regarded as offensive, racist, and quite rightly unacceptable. I am not going to get into lots of detail as to why that is. I don't think I really need to. Putting it simply though, if a character is written as a person of colour, use an appropriate person of colour for the role. If you did want to read more about this discussion, a good place to start is HERE. I also recommend reading about how the practice is rooted in racism HERE. Again though, historically, the current rule was not always the case and was actually common practice on screen and on stage. 

Just to be clear, I am in no way comparing straight performers playing gay to blackface. While it could possibly be argued that there is some commonality here, they are not the same thing. Historically, the very practice of blackface was to mock, demean, and dehumanize people of colour. Throughout history, the inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters has also frequently been seen to mock, demean, and dehumanize LGBTQ+ people. That does not make them the same thing though. I am merely making the point that many of the commonly accepted 'rules' for acting have evolved and changed over time. As much as I agree that acting should be just that and that anyone should be allowed to play any role, you can not deny that certain rules exist already. If that is the case, why shouldn't there be a rule about LGBTQ+ people playing LGBTQ+ characters?

Part of the push back against such a rule is that it then begs the question, where do the rules stop? I have seen it argued that if we are going to apply a rule about straight performers playing gay and vice versa, then surely we shouldn't have a non-superhero playing a superhero or a human playing an alien. That is, of course, taking the discussion to an absolute extreme and I would like to remind anyone using that as an argument, you are talking about characters that do not actually exist in real life (at least we don't think they do... - hehe). This makes it incomparable. Similarly, I have seen it argued that if we want to apply a 'gay people for gay roles' rule we should also do the same for characters that are criminals, murderers, and so on. Again, I think this a rather extreme example and there is a whole host of reasons why that rule wouldn't work... I totally appreciate the sentiment but this whole line of argument is comparing apples to oranges. They simply are not the same thing.

The Queer As Folk DVD Box Set. Available from Amazon

As is so often the case these days, it is very important to also consider representation when having this discussion. I have said it before and I will keep saying it. Representation is key. If you want to understand why there is a discussion about 'gay roles for gay people' you have to look at how gay people and the full spectrum of the LGBTQ+ community have been represented in the past. By and large, the LGBTQ+ community was ignored in mainstream film and TV. In the past, those characters simply did not exist as if to suggest that we did not exist. In reality, a huge portion of our community was hidden or 'in the closet' and so it is not a stretch to suggest that this, in turn, was reflected in film and television. That is why Russell T. Davies's own "Queer As Folk" TV show is considered so groundbreaking. It brought to screen at least a part of the LGBTQ+ community and our lives that had never been seen on TV before. It wasn't just groundbreaking, it quite literally smashed down that closet door. It should be noted that despite being a 'superficially realistic depiction of gay life', the main cast of gay characters were played by artists that identify as heterosexual.

Quite often in the past and arguably even now, when an LGBTQ+ character was included, it was done in such a way that it was a caricature played for laughs, or to highlight our apparent 'immorality'. Think about how the LGBTQ+  community had been portrayed, when they were, in some of the older mainstream films and television you have seen. I also want to note here that in terms of LGBTQ+ representation it is possibly the trans part of the community that has borne the worst of these terrible caricaturish, offensive, and downright transphobic portrayals. If you haven't already, I strongly recommend watching the documentary "Disclosure" currently available on Netflix. It is an alarming and eye-opening exposé of how trans performers and characters have been treated in the industry. I will agree that there is a lot to be said about how these historical performances are reflective of the times because that was widely how society viewed our community but that doesn't make it any more acceptable though. 

A part of the justification for having LGBTQ+ people play LGBTQ+ roles is to ensure that we are represented accurately and to avoid falling back into the usual tropes and stereotypes. Again, I must stress that I do agree that a heterosexual performer is absolutely capable of giving an accurate and fair portrayal of a homosexual character. That is the very nature of the craft. I have seen several absolutely outstanding performances given by heterosexual artists and I would not want to rob the world of those incredible performances either. I wholeheartedly believe that heterosexual performers CAN play homosexual characters but I guess what I am questioning here, at this current time, is whether they SHOULD? 

The reason I say that is because one also has to acknowledge that as well as a lack of well-written characters, historically there has been a lack of LGBTQ+ performers given roles or even auditions. I have heard the argument that any role should be given to the actor who puts in the best audition. I agree with that too, but again, that can be considered a flawed argument because LGBTQ+ performers have often been denied even having an audition. For many years, a performer who identifies as LGBTQ+ would be denied an audition or role simply for that fact, regardless of their ability to play the part. For many years, casting an LGBTQ+ artist was, and to a degree still is (and unfairly I hasten to add), considered to be damaging to the chances of success for a film or a TV show. If that wasn't true then why would many LGBTQ+ performers still choose to hide or even lie about their sexuality even now, whether that is out of personal choice or because it is expected of them by studio bosses? Even now, many will do this because they fear it will limit the opportunities they are given. Given that there has been a distinct and disproportionate lack of opportunities for LGBTQ+ artists, there are grounds to argue that surely, at the very least, they can be offered the roles of LGBTQ+ characters? 

Of course, all of this has improved drastically in more recent years. We are now seeing more out and proud LGBTQ+ performers and more film and TV depictions of our community. We do see gay men convincingly playing straight men. For instance, Neil Patrick Harris as Barney in "How I Met Your Mother". This example is frequently cited as a justification for having straight men playing gay men too. Personally, I do feel that it is still tremendously skewed towards heterosexual men playing homosexual characters. I am pretty sure that if you listed the number of straight men playing gay compared to gay men playing straight, there would be a clear dominance. In fact, nowadays, it seems to me that having a straight actor playing gay can be a novelty or marketing tool used to help sell the film or TV show. That practice even appears to be widely accepted. I'd go so far as to say that we have to acknowledge that even us within the LGBTQ+ community sometimes buy into that too. 

As an example, if you have seen it. Did you watch "Brokeback Mountain" just because it was a film to watch, or because it was a piece of LGBTQ+ cinema, or was it in part because you were intrigued by the notion of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal 'playing gay'? I for one love to see LGBTQ+ film and TV and I seek it out but I will put my hands up and say that in the case of "Brokeback Mountain" is was a bit of all of the above for me. Sure, that probably says more about me than anything else. I mean, come on, be honest, can you say that there isn't at least a small part of you that would pay good money to see someone like Chris Evans (or insert any of your favourite gorgeous straight actors here) playing gay? Ok, so I am veering into a very different, fantasy fulfilment type discussion at this point, but I am sure you understand what I am saying. There is certainly a discussion to be had about using heterosexual artists in homosexual roles to drive interest and marketing for a movie which in turn could be seen as monetising homosexuality. ( - Get back on track already Mark!!!).

Eddie Redmayne in The Danish Girl

Also, and as discussed in the "Disclosure" documentary, having a heterosexual, cis-gender male play the role of a transgender character is considered 'acceptable' because it isn't real, it is just an act, it is just a costume. Take the film "The Danish Girl" for instance. Much of the buzz and marketing that was generated for the film centered on the fact that it was Eddie Redmayne, a straight, cis-gender male playing at being transgender. That isn't to say he didn't deliver a compelling, thought-provoking performance but it does also evoke the notion that the transgender 'experience' was treated as merely a costume. It really is not. Honestly, I'm probably paraphrasing and simplifying it a bit too much so go and watch the "Disclosure" documentary. It is really very powerful. 

Anyway, forcing myself back on track again. As I said previously, with there now being more discussion on the subject, things are getting better. All of this has happened concurrently with the fact that society as a whole accepts and even celebrates our existence more than ever before. I genuinely believe there are still ways to go. I have discussed this in the past on a purely statistical level when reflecting on an argument that there were too many LGBTQ+ characters in TV soaps. You can read that one HERE. TV soaps are actually one of the better areas of LGBTQ+ representation in terms of the number of characters that are written as part of our community relative to the full cast. That isn't the case when considering the broader spectrum of film and TV. 

Take the popular Marvel Cinematic Universe as an example. Across the ten years of those movies, how many of the prominent characters or even supporting characters can be identified as part of the LGBTQ+ community? I can tell you that it is not reflective of the most widely accepted research into the proportion of people that identify as LGBTQ+. How many of the actors and actresses in those roles openly identify as LGBTQ+? Again, it is not reflective. This is not a criticism of Marvel or their movies by the way. I am a huge fan of them. I just wanted to use them as an example. They are actually one of a few companies that have been quite vocal about addressing the issue of representation and trying to do better and so I feel that should be recognized. 

Of course, you could turn my earlier argument back on me here and say, "oh but Mark, you are talking about a fictional version of our world where superheroes exist, perhaps LGBTQ+ people do not exist in that world". I'll give you that but I would also point out that whilst it is a fictional version of our world, it is still a representation of our world (and others for that matter) and so surely, it should also include representation of the diversity of our world.

As I have already said several times now, as much as I agree that acting should be just that and that anyone should be allowed to play any role within the commonly accepted rules, perhaps that can only truly happen when there is a fairer and more accurate representation of LGBTQ+ performers and characters in the first place.

What are your thoughts on this? Let me know in the comments below or come let me know over on Twitter.

- Thanks for stopping by and reading x

Hello, hello, hello and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

I hope you all had a wonderful festive season despite the craziness that is the world right now. I have just about recovered from all of my New Year shenanigans and wanted to kick the year off with a rundown of what I was listening to throughout December.

First off, here are the top-line numbers!

As you can see, it was a much bigger month for sure, driven by having music playlists running a lot more throughout the day. Of course, this does mean that my Top 20 tracks have been slightly less prominent in terms of my overall music listening habits but they still make up just shy of one-fifth of everything I listened to throughout the month.

Much like in November, there have been quite a few 'New-Entries' for December, 12 to be exact. Three of those are not new songs to me and have been in my library for some time, they are simply songs that have never appeared in my recorded charts before. The rest are all brand new and just like last month, there has been a lot of influence from the Gaydio Breakfast Show. If you have never listened to Dean McCullough's show before I strongly recommend it. It is always a good mix of bangers and banter and a great start to the day. And no, I am not being sponsored, coerced or paid by Gaydio, I just genuinely love the show.

The biggest dropping track but still clinging into the chart was the Kari Kimmel version of 'Cruel Summer', down 10 places to Number 20. The song was featured in the show Cobra Kai at the end of Season 2. If you haven't watched the show and therefore haven't heard it, the song is a slower, darker and moodier version of the 1984 camptastic classic from Bananarama. I love hearing a staple of the '80s given a contemporary twist and this one works incredibly well both within the context of the TV show and as a standalone track.

Also dropping down the chart this month was Little Mix with 'Confetti' and Steps 'Something In Your Eyes'. I was curious how these tracks would do this month as mentioned in the previous chart. They were brand new so I was listening to them a lot. Interestingly to me though, is the fact that Steps didn't make up more of the chart for December. Their new album released right at the end of November so did not have much time to make an impact on the chart there and hasn't really appeared this month either with only one other track staying in the chart, 'To The Beat Of My Heart'.

Only one song actually climbed back up the chart and that was my favourite from the latest self-titled Melanie C album. 'Nowhere To Run' is actually a song about panic attacks and anxiety so the lyrics really resonate with me and I listen to it a lot, hence it climbing 5 places to Number 6. I will always be a huge Melanie C fan and champion her as one of the most underrated and underappreciated artists in British music. If you haven't listened to the latest album I really think you should. You may find yourself quite surprised by it.

Another artist who I will always champion and adore is Kelis. It doesn't matter what she releases or who she collaborates with, I am there for it. She is another of those artists that I actively follow so that I can download absolutely anything that she has her name on. 'Watch Your Step' is no exception and although it has been out for a while, it is definitely still a must-play for me, hence it being the top re-entry for the month. Kelis often features on other artists tracks as a vocalist and this Disclosure release is superb.

As I have already mentioned there have been quite a few new-entries this month and aside from this month's Number 1 the top performer was 'Forever Love' by Bingo Players & Disco Fries feat. Viiq. It is an incredibly feel-good type dance track that takes me back to the late 90s and early 00s without sounding dated. It is so much fun that I will even include the video:

I do want to include a special mention for an online friend and fellow SpiceFan who has just released his very own solo album that was all completely self-written, recorded and produced. It is a fantastic album and one of his tracks made the chart at Number 17. 'Slow Dance' is fantastic and if you get a chance to go check out the album it would be fantastic.

I am writing this and thinking that everything feels a bit all over the place, even by my standards. A big part of that comes from the weight of the new entries and also the fact that Christmas songs also get added into the mix for December. I have a hard rule when it comes to Christmas songs in that I refuse to play them until December 1st. After December 25th that is it, they get unticked for another year. In addition, I also have songs in my Christmas playlist that aren't exactly Christmas songs but were Christmas No.1 in the UK such as Spice Girls, '2 Become 1' which came in at Number 3 on the chart.

A few of my favourite Christmas songs naturally made the chart including 'Last Christmas' by Wham. I have never and probably never will play 'Whamageddon'. I love the song too much to join in the game of avoiding hearing it throughout December. I was really chuffed to hear that it also made it No.1 in the real UK charts for the first time since its release 36 years ago! 

In all my 'basic-bitch' glory, Mariah Carey's 'All I Want For Christmas Is You' is my favourite Christmas song of all time and was almost my top listened to Christmas song for December. That was until Todrick Hall dropped another reworked version of his track 'Nails, Hair, Hips, Heels' in the form of 'Bells, Bows Gifts, Trees' which took my Number 1 spot this month. To me, it is everything that a contemporary, camp, fierce Christmas song needs to be. Obviously, I am writing this in January and to say that the moment has passed would be rather fitting. For that reason I'm not going to go into a whole discussion of its merits (and awesomeness), instead, I shall just see whether it makes an impact in the December 2021 charts...

Anyhow, that is going to do it for my musical musings this month. The full chart can be seen just below.

As always, if you have any music recommendations or tracks you think I really should be listening to, drop me comment below or drop me a line via Twitter...

Thank you for stopping by and reading xx