After a year of a lot of travelling I am now back in the UK and have a lot more time to listen to music which leads me increasingly to think that 1971 – 1977 was the golden era for music. I originally planned 71 – 76, but couldn’t leave out Exodus on any “must have” list.

Here are 30 brilliant albums that were released during this time that in my opinion should be in every music lover’s collection listed here in no particular order –

1. Sticky Fingers – The Rolling Stones
2. Ziggy Stardust – David Bowie
3. Station to Station – David Bowie
4. Born to Run – Bruce Springsteen
5. Closing Time – Tom Waits
6. Small Change – Tom Waits
7. On the Beach – Neil Young
8. Tonight’s the Night – Neil Young
9. Paris 1919 – John Cale
10. Blue – Joni Mitchell
11. The Hissing of Summer Lawns – Joni Mitchell
12. Hejira – Joni Mitchell
13. Blood on the Tracks – Bob Dylan
14. Hard Rain – Bob Dylan
15. John Martyn – Solid Air
16. Black Market – Weather Report
17. Overnight Sensation – Frank Zappa
18. A Tribute to Jack Johnson – Miles Davis
19. Get up with it – Miles Davis
20. Who’s Next – The Who
21. Tapestry – Carol King
22. Eat a Peach – Allman Brothers
23. Another Green World – Brian Eno
24. Can’t buy a Thrill – Steely Dan
25. Natty Dread – Bob Marley
26. What’s going on – Marvin Gaye
27. Here come the Warm Jets – Brian Eno
28. Exodus – Bob Marley
29. Talking Heads – Talking Heads
30. Songs in the Key of Life – Stevie Wonder

Of course there were many great albums pre 1971, including Electric Ladyland, Velvet Underground first album and many others as well as post 1977. Highlights from these albums include Station to Station, title track. Barbara O Reilly, So Far Way, Exodus, Tonight’s the Night & Tired Eyes, Buckets of Rain, Can’t hear me knocking, Baby’s on Fire, Solid Air, Do it Again amount many others. Of course everything was on vinyl back then, which was wonderful in that you had a BIG product with lots of space for artwork, but prone to dust, warping, scratches etc. I remember playing Blood on the Tracks over and over and it’s still my favorite all time album.

I keep returning to great songwriters and of course each one of these was ahead of their time and many record companies were not initially delighted with what the artist presented. Neil Young was eventually sued by Geffen for making music not considered to be commercial! Many from the public were bemused by Miles Davis’s “On the Corner” (not included in this list, but wonderfully crazy) which was a favorite during the all night parties I attended in 1970s.  I was 12 years old in 1971 and remember hearing the Stones on the radio and just loving their music. By the age of 13 I was collecting albums by Hendrix and The doors, mostly purchased from Threshold Records in Cobham Surrey owned by The Moody Blues who rejoiced in stocking all the albums from the USA underground scene as well as UK artists. I was also fortunate enough to see Neil Young, Frank Zappa, John Martyn and Bob Dylan all in the 1970s. I continued to listen to all these artists until the present day, still enjoying their music.

In 1975 I was still at school when Born to Run by Bruce Springsteen was released and was hailed as a classic. The album didn’t happen as Springsteen spent so long in the studio “getting it right”. By 1980s music had changed and in my view this golden era had passed. Artists like Bowie, Neil Young and The Who continued to make good albums but rarely to the same heights. Still there were a few new artists that would appear like Elvis Costello, Martin Simpson and The Clash, so there was still hope for music although in my view we may never see such a golden era again.

Nick Kemp Training Schedule 2012 (more dates due to be added)

January
January 13/14 PCW module for Auspicium NLP Master Prac UK

February
Feb 4/5th PCW Presentations Tokyo Japan hosted by NLP Medics
Feb 10 – 12 PCW Presentations Hiroshima Japan hosted by NLP Medics

March
March 10/11th Stories from the Outside Inn with Doug O Brien in New York USA
March 15/16th PCW module for Kath Temple NLP Master Prac UK
March 30th – PCW for Hungarian NLP Institute Budapest Hungary

April
April – April 1st PCW in Budapest for Hungarian NLP Institute Hungary
April 14/15th PCW Training Prof Business Group Training and Coaching School in Szczecin – Poland
April 29th PCW training AEPNL Valencia Spain

May
May 1st PCW training AEPNL Valencia Spain
May 19/20th PCW Training Prof Business Group Training and Coaching School in Szczecin – Poland
May 27th PCW Skills Day Leeds UK

June
June 1st PCW Introduction Ericksonian Institute Paris France

September
Events TBC

October
4th - 8th October PCW - Cochin, Kerala India

November
November 9 – 12th Advanced PCW Warsaw Poland - hosted by METAmorfoza

Confirmation awaiting for Austria event and other dates

A number of years ago Frank Farrelly told me a story. He was running a workshop in Europe and on day one an attractive woman came up to him and made the following comment – “I want to take you to lunch so I can see you on a one to one basis and tell me EVERYTHING about Provocative Therapy” Frank replied “Have you read my book?” She replied “No” Frank responded “Well, fuck you!” and the woman burst into tears and headed for the rest room! At the time I thought “Blimey that’s a bit harsh” but have since begun to appreciate that “fuck you” is in some situations the most appropriate response.

I have noticed in recent times that more people appear to think that they have a right for all others to answer and respond to any questions they may ask. I consider myself pretty relaxed when it comes to answering questions even when they are a bit daft because I used to ask what I call many “Homer Simpson questions” myself, BUT I am in some cases leaning more towards Frank’s style of dealing with such scenarios! Such questioners can often believe that others “must respond” to anything they ask until they feel satisfied with the response. This essentially translates into then being in agreement with the questioner or answering in a manner where the questioner feels that they now feel “important”. 

 In many such instances questions are either extremely ill formed where the questioner is not able or refuses to define what they are asking, or there is an assumption that everyone “should” reply to their satisfaction in the manner that they feel is “appropriate” Those therapists who deal with anger issues will recognize how similar this behaviour is to clients with anger problems where they feel everyone “should” behave in a manner according to “their beliefs!” Such folks tend to bully others and are attention seekers, often making all kinds of generalizations about other people’s behaviour and how they “should explain themselves” In extreme cases these folks appoint themselves as the moral compass for how everybody else “should behave”.

My own view is that healthy discussion and debate is a great way for all of us to learn but there is not duty for any of us to answer any questions, it’s our individual choice. I mentioned that “I’m leaning towards using the fuck you response” but at present have found a useful strategy is just not to engage with such nonsense as the other person has already made their minds up (from the evidence in their imagination) and online discussions are full of such folks spending hours posting about how others “should behave” and how every “well meaning person” would be “on the right track” if only they agreed with them and followed their step by step advice. In the era of the internet, this nonsense occurs on a daily basis and is mostly harmless. However in some cases as reported in the media it’s very easy for people in their overheated and sometimes alcohol charged states to actually libel others which can have a whole bunch of other consequences.  Legal advice is always to take screenshots of any libelous comments and never to engage with such individuals.

This kind of behaviour is a far cry from constructive discussion and in many instances the questioners only create a toxic environment where nobody now wants to discuss anything. Usually once they are sufficiently challenged by others they then adopt “the victim role” again behaviorally very similar to anger clients, who adopt this strategy to once again attempt to be the centre of attention! To quote Frank once again I think the more extended response I heard him once use in 2004 is actually totally appropriate – “Fuck you and the horse you rode in on…”
 

Anger is usually a very fast totally automatic response and those clients with anger management issues discover that because it is an emotional response, no amount of analysing the "whys" of the behaviour actually assist in creating different outcomes. The triggers for this kind of behaviour can be many and as varied as the wide range of clients who exhibit this behaviour. Often the anger is directed at one or a specific set of individuals and it's easy to identify a clear pattern in what is happening to create and maintain these not useful behaviours. I see a lot of clients with this problem and many clients have status issues and endlessly refer to how they believe others should be behaving. Many find it hard to form longstanding relationships and are very unaware of how their behaviour affects others. For this and other reasons many find themselves in financial trouble as often others keep a healthy distance, not knowing when “the volcano will next erupt!”

Anger can be resolved once a client learns how to relax in those situations that used to spark the old behaviour. Anger management problems are increasingly common and in my experience anger problems are not solved by endless analysis, but rather by learning how to think and “feel differently”. Anger management problems can then be replaced by a more appropriate calmness. Often “the sense of injustice” and their beliefs about “how people should behave” are created by how they process their own patterns of internal dialogue. The forthcoming PCW book will have a chapter on this with examples of client sessions and other examples of this behavioral problem.

"This outline of hypnosis and the world of Provocative Therapy is based on the definitive work of Milton Erickson, the father of hypnosis in America, and the conception of trance states by Stephen Wolinsky ("Trances People Live"; c 1991).I quote extensively from that book. In short, I consider that what Wolinsky maintains as the focus of his trance work is also the focus of the extraordinary work of Provocative Therapy. The client presents with the symptom-trance and phenomena intact and functioning! In particular, the concept of (oppositional) hypnotic identities and the pattern interruption of that trance state are integral to outcomes of Provocative Therapy. The symptom -trance is irrevocably altered by Provocative Therapy, and this happens reliably and consistently. You can argue about the "why" of change-hence this outline from one point of view- but not that it does occur as a result of the Provocative Therapy session. Trance
"Stephen Wolinsky postulates that trance phenomena hold symptoms together. He believes that haw we subjectively experience events, interactions, and our own inner self is observer-created-created by us... that we, the knowers of the experience, choose how an experience is experienced. This is the pivotal entry point of Deep Trance Phenomena, the medium in which our creative activity takes place whereby we select how experiences are perceived, interpreted and understood ... each self-created reality is comprised of a specific Deep Trance Phenomenon (or clusters of several) that results in what we typically refer to as symptoms or problems. Acknowledging our observer-created trances - trances created by us - begins a deeper process of assuming responsibility for the part we all play in creating (however unknowingly or unconsciously) our own hypnotic and phenomenological realities … (this understanding) sets the stage for de- hypnosis.
• Trance phenomena are at the core of symptom structure and, thus, at the core of symptom relief. Clients present symptoms and trances together.
• We create the trance process as a coping mechanism, originally in response to
• the content of trauma.
• We enter trance states frequently, in a series of attachments and identifications
• We are not our trances
• We may develop a hypnotic identity, which means we have fused with a set of
• experiences which define how we view ourselves. It is limited, fixated and narrow, compared to our being.
• Changing the trances that hold the symptom structures together will have a cybernetic effect, impacting the deeper "organising principle" (which generates our behavioral, emotional and lifestyle inevitabilities).
Trance has 3 core characteristics:
a) it is characterised by a narrowing, shrinking or fixating of attention.
b) it is most often experienced as happening to the person
c) it is characterised by the spontaneous emergence of various hypnotic phenomena, including age-regression, dissociation, time distortion, pseudo-orientation in time, confusion, post-hypnotic suggestion and amnesia.
According to Milton Erickson, trance can be used therapeutically to evoke unconscious resources, whereas Wolinsky works to expand the focus of attention out of trance, so that resources emerge. Wolinsky refers to the therapeutic process work wherein the person is not trained in experiencing various hypnotic phenomena, but rather brings his/her own trance symptoms into the session. Content is used only as a stimulus to help the client re-create the symptom via its underlying Deep Trance Phenomena ... once the trance phenomena underlying the problem are shifted interrupted re-associated or dissolved(my emphases) the person's resources will automatically float to the surface (since they are no longer so identified)... the mechanism that sustains the symptoms is effectively altered ... the therapist learns to communicate with the creative being, the "self', behind the trance; it is the self that can change the trance and hence the symptom.
By asking clients to describe their symptoms while breathing and looking at me, I interrupt their self-to-self trance of the symptom by placing them (via eye-contact) in a self-to-other trance with me. This changes the context in which the symptom occurs, and adds the therapist as a resource in present time.

Polarity
One's identity is a common psychological concept. What is uncommon is the realisation that many of the identities that people casually own as being representative of who they are, are actually trance identities. Like all Deep Trance Phenomena, a trance identity is created by the child as a means of self-preservation, and to handle various problems and traumas. This identity is comprised of the child's assumptions and beliefs about his interactions with his parents: "This is how I should be... That is how I should not be... This is who I am". These fused / resistant identities continue to function automatically throughout life. Confusion is the transitional state m which a person shifts out of his real self and into the creation of defensive or compensatory identities. Confusion is the primary 'trance-substance' fueling this process. We identify with our role, our profession, our self- image and m oppositional ways as well.
Whenever an identity is negative or uncomfortable there is often an oppositional identity formed too - "I'm a winner, no matter what". If you say "I have a part that wants approval, and I also have a part that just wants to be me", you are experiencing your oppositional identities. A co-dependent person may offer an alcoholic partner a drink, but shortly after, get angry with the partner for drinking. We spend our lives struggling with the tension between what "should be" and "what is"! The task for the therapist is to de-hypnotise the client so that the larger self behind the trance of identification can be experienced.

Paradox
The symptom is the cure. Whatever thought or emotion is completely experienced disappears into something else, and the experiencer enters a deepened state of well-being (The Law of Paradoxical Change Gestalt Therapy Now: Fagan & Shepard). Rossi explains symptom prescription like this: "by asking the patient to experience and worsen the symptom we are presumably turning on right-hemispheric processes that have a readier access to the state-dependent encoding of the problem" This means the therapist is working with the psycho-biological states of the problem rather than the cognitive version.
Intensifying the dynamic that creates the symptom actually helps the person move out of it into an expanded state. The more you shrink your focus of attention in therapeutic trance, the more your perspective spontaneously expands. Gilligan states that trance involves a paradoxical both/and logic, (where) a person identifies with both sides of a complementary distinction of 'this' and 'that', 'subject' and 'object' … the identification with either side does become so reduced that an integration naturally and effortlessly occurs - many times on a non-verbal level. Often, clients experience a deep comprehension of both sides of their issue without identifying with either.

Provocative Therapy
In Provocative Therapy there are numerous strategies which serve as pattern interruption or reframing of symptoms, especially using paradox. These could easily be defined as trance formations or &formations. I think the Provocative session functions as a massive confusion induction and reframe of the "problem" after comprehensive pattern interruption with humour. The therapist sides with the negative, the resistance, the opposite, the symptom! Provocative Therapy gives a difficult lesson about consequences of behavior by excusing or encouraging the opposite. Humour is the essential ingredient of transmission in Provocative Therapy, and is a teaching as well as a balancing. It assaults logic. We laugh when we see the irony of the "yes" and the "no" together (and we use both sides of the brain to do this). We laugh because the problem isn't logical. We laugh because we have to - or else we would cry at our own deadly seriousness. Our problem is never the same after we've laughed at it. We have left our trance when we laugh authentically at ourselves.
Those who have studied the work of Milton Erickson closely have found that when a client is faced with a generalisation, they use cognitively "'transderivational search" for meaning, in a highly personal way. We use the non-dominant hemisphere to associate and seek correlations. Provocative Therapy uses generalisations as an art form; there are enough to use on either side of a polarity of meaning to confuse a client indefinitely. The associative and oppositional shifting of identifications in the client will produce resourceful change, and self-affirming.

Frank Farrelly
Frank Farrelly also functions in person as a highly-skilled utiliser of techniques which any hypnotherapist (or NLP practitioner) would be proud to own. He has developed them naturalistically, and honed their effectiveness over years, without labelling or intellectualising the process. I suspect he uses what "works", and avoids what doesn't! His use of his voice alone would be worthy of a book on the subject (of trance). He is a master of trance management. If his process is hypnotising, it is also de-hypnotising when the trance is in opposition to the symptoms or problem. This is a highly confusing experience, and a hallmark of a session with Frank. He specialises in stimulating (and frustrating) dual oppositional-identities. If you can't find one, he'll create it for you! Thus he represents a "nightmare" for the falsely comfortable and those in denial. Instead of reinforcing our false self with unreal encouragement (as many therapies unfortunately tend to do), the Provocative therapist destroys the falsity by perverse support and bizarre help. The paradoxical opposite to our inner reality does not coexist peacefully in our mind. We flee into reality reluctantly…
Who goes into trance?
Frank ("I go into trance")

The Client
The Audience ("Are you all in trance?")
Anybody ("She was so gorgeous, she was a trance induction on two legs..")
Here are some "interrupting" techniques from his work in sessions:
Naming
"do they think you're the wicked witch of the West? "

Relabelling
tears become "leakage" (content becomes process)

Jumping In
"I see from your expression you've answered that question!"

Incompleting
"It's just so..God.. .well.. .arghh.. ..(muttering and groaning)"

Guffawing, Smirking, Grinning, Joshing, Yukking It Up, Kidding Around.. ..
"you think she understands your needs?? HA HA HA HA !"

Pretending (confusion, embarrassment, being impressed, crying.. ..)
''you what??. .."
"I'm kind of embarrassed for you.. ."
"way to go! ..."
"I was only trying to help.. ."
"I shouldn't be laughing at a guy really trying, but.. ."

Fantasies (with a cast of thousands) and Imaginary Comic Dialogues Pithy Comments, Quips, Sayings, Folk Wisdom, Popular Song Lyrics and Frank's Irish Daddy:
"stick with me honey, I'll have you farting through silk!"

"the best indicator of your future behaviour is your past behaviour" ,

male and female 'tribal wisdom'

Exaggerations
"you're probably the worst mother in the world--or at least the state.. ."

Instant Research
"my research shows that Fridays occupy at least a seventh of our life span..."

Lampooning, Cartooning, Playing with the Problem, Consequences
Grimaces, Mirroring and other Expressions (typically the client's chief features)
Voice Tones
Deeply confidential: "now some gals/guys…"
Authoritarian "my research indicates…"
Wheedling "come on, be reasonable!"
Whinging/Whining/Blaming/Meek and Mild

Gestures
nodding emphatically

Non Sequiteurs
"if you see what I mean......

Self-deprecation
"now where was I? … thank you for finishing my sentence"

The session
"So, what's the problem?"

The session is exclusively person to person: the "contract" means no interruption (and no trance interruption except by Frank). The session incorporates a narrowed focus of attention, confusion, laughter, paradox and relaxation, as well as emotional release. It has a rhythm. Initially, the client is surprised by the paradoxical responses. Frank trawls the bottom of their mental harbour and examines the catch; whatever the client responds to, Frank keeps. Soon the tension builds. They find themselves looking deep into the glittering eyes of a person who isn't playing the game of the client's choosing. He laughs, and seems to mock the issue. He encourages, but all in the wrong direction. They are bombarded with double-binding ideas which "worsen" the problem. They struggle with the "oppositional" but empathic therapist, then find that the problem has been completely redefined. Then they begin a search for deeper meaning, with constant re-inductions of the original problem-trance by the therapist! This continues until the end of the "discussion" part of therapy demonstrations (after the "module" part). In hypnotherapy, such re-induction is called "fractionation", and serves to deepen a trance, and provide a tension which only a general "letting go" can relieve.

"So, what's the problem?"

The constant re-inducing occurs with numerous cues from Frank: he uses everything, from the client's presentation and reactions, to his own extensive intuitive resources, on as many communication levels as possible. Particularly, he will choose the client's involuntary reactions and call attention to these, or assume a deeply confidential voice tone, or touch, or use a cute description made up in the session, or generally over-agree with the pathology and dysfunction/symptom until it's "too much". He does all this simultaneously! It's funny-it's silly-it's ? The result is a client who doesn't know what to think any more! Then Frank can step in and teach them how to really make their "show-business" produce results, or teach them how to do the opposite of what they thought was right (and enjoy it), and generally shred their cognitive dysfunction. Frank has more "show business" than the client, and meets their "act" with worse! He is the worst audience a symptom ever had, and takes over the theatre of the client's mind.

"So, what's the problem?"

By this time, the client is so desperate for guidance that they will accept some very simple and direct help-especially if Frank labels it as the secret of solving the problem. As a corollary, Frank will never let the client's label or reframed solution go-he constantly uses it to keep the paradox alive. He is happy to contract you over and over a5 you expand out of that state (until it seems silly…) This stimulates reality-testing intensely. Wolinsky says: "the repetitious shifting in and out (of oppositional hypnotic identities) gives the client the experience of being more than the identities". The triggers and labels developed in the session also function as a new series of bizarre 'post-hypnotic suggestions' for problem behaviour in the future.

"I'm the problem!!" (authentic client response, Sydney 1999)
The last word

Q: Does Frank Farrelly use hypnosis?

A: No, but if he did, he'd be very good at it.

A: No, he only uses humour.

A: No, I read a big book on the subject, and he wasn't mentioned

A: No; it looks like a trance, and sounds like a trance, but it probably isn't a trance.

A: No, but he likes hypnotherapists to explain things to him.

A: What's hypnosis?

David Lake, September 1999.