Music that makes your brain go soft? Hot doggerel]

LEGAL history is being made in a current court case. The plaintiff is seeking to establish that his life has been ruined by passive listening - being forced to listen to other people's background music, in the way non- smokers are forced to inhale other people's smoke. Last week John Lariat faced questioning from the counsel representing the defendant, Tower of Babel Music Systems.

Counsel: Now, Mr Lariat, it is your contention that your life has been altered for the worse by listening to background music.

Lariat: No, it is not.

Counsel: But I was under the impression that you thought all background music softened the brain. That after a track or two of Nat King Cole, our brains all resembled over-ripe tomatoes.

Lariat: Not at all. I have nothing against background music of my own choosing. If I enter a piano bar where a pianist is playing softly, or if I put on a record while I am reading, I see no objection to that. What I object to is background music chosen for me in places where music is not necessary or customary.

Counsel: Could you give me an example of this kind of place? Lariat: Certainly. Lifts. Waiting rooms. Hotel lobbies. Supermarkets. Railway stations. Pubs. Aeroplanes awaiting take-off. Restaurants. Hospitals . . .

Counsel: Thank you, Mr Lariat.

Lariat: . . . Corporate vestibules. Hotel cocktail bars. Long-distance coaches. Jean shops . . .

Counsel: Thank you, Mr Lariat]

Lariat: Telephone waiting systems. Cinema lobbies. DIY and garden centres . . .

Judge: Mr Lariat] I think you have made your point.

Counsel: But surely, Mr Lariat, most people who hear the background music provided by Tower of Babel Music Systems Ltd and other such firms do not object to it. Why should you interfere with their enjoyment?

Lariat: Most people do not openly object to the sounds of traffic, or the body odour of fellow passengers in Tube trains, or . . .

Judge: Thank you, Mr Lariat. I think you have made your point well again. Incidentally, what was your point?

Lariat: That there is a good deal that is unpleasant in our environment which we have to put up with. I do not think we ought to add to it with environmental unpleasantnesses such as recorded background music.

Counsel: My Lord, I aim to prove that recorded background music brings pleasure to a lot of people.

Lariat: And how do you intend to prove that?

Counsel: I intend to call witnesses whose lives have been enriched, or just made more pleasant, by the unconscious addition of a recorded music background. Lariat: If the effect was an unconscious one, then they cannot consciously testify to the effect. Anything they say will not be proof. You cannot wittingly testify to an unwitting process, can you?

Counsel: Well . . .

Lariat: Well, can you?

Counsel: My Lord, the witness is putting questions to me] I object]

Judge: Yes, Mr Lariat, you really must wait to be asked questions by counsel. That is his job.

Lariat: If putting questions is your task, all you have to do is ask. I hope that I will make a good witness. But it's up to you to test my fitness]

Judge: Will someone explain why the witness has just burst into appallingly low-grade verse?

Lariat: My Lord, it is called rapping. Rap is a kind of street verse, what you might call hot doggerel, and is one of the many kinds of pap music which I have been subjected to over the years in public places and which has led to the softening of the brain that caused me to bring this case in the first place.

Judge: I begin to sympathise.

(The case continues . . .)