Ga-Ga Blah Blah Blah.......

So I don't really care for Lady Ga-Ga. When I say this, it tends to drive people banana's. They absolutely love her, or have no opinion. The people who also hate her (who are what this post is about) are generally a little bit crazy and or crank like. My problem with her is that the one thing that she is supposed to be (a musician, or at least a musical performer) is by far and away the weakest part of her whole persona. So for me, a person who doesn't really care about the lightening if the thunder is weak, Lady Ga-Ga is pretty much the antithesis of everything I like about music.

I have heard all the arguments, and I do respect Ga-Ga, especially the fact that because she acted suuuper famous before she was, she managed to completely take control of her image and turn the tables on the usual media saturation of a pop star of her calibre. But, at the end of the day, to me, her music sounds no more interesting than anything on Dance Mix 98-2010. Its just your standard, club music (I do realize I have very little knowledge of club music, but given it is the most reviled form of music, my criticism stands).

But all of this is not my main point. My main point is for the people who hate and protest her, from the World Champion in dumb, terrible music Katy Perry, to the always lovable Phelps family and the Westboro Baptist Church, is that she is not worth your time. Both examples (amazingly) have criticised or outright protested her for sacrilege (and, in the case of the Phelps', for advancing the gay agenda). But I wonder, has Madonna become that irrelevant? Do these people not remember how "provocative" and "sacrilegious" she was? Because seriously, Ga-Ga's provocations are pretty much standard Madonna fair. I know, I know, her outfits are crazy, the music videos better etc.. etc.., but really, is she doing anything more risque than Madge herself? I also don't say this as a fan of Madonna, I say this as someone who finds both of them tiresome.

But like people who protest "hate speech" or picket appearances by controversial speakers/performers always forget is that the controversy fuels them. Think about the career of Marilyn Manson if you need any further proof.

So I say to all those who are "offended" by Ga-Ga (and not just her music) relax, if she even has half the career of Madonna, she will marry a mediocre British film maker, develop lizard arms, and start to look like that cat plastic surgery lady.

Live!

Good afternoon y'all! I haven't posted anything in a while, so I figured, why not? In the spirit of keeping posts relatively short, this one will be brief. I've started to ramp up my summer concert going, which is always a great way to spend the summer. I have three shows to write about, two that I have already been to, and one that I will be jetting off to tonight, after I post. And kill another 4 hours.

1) Band of Horses, Broken Social Scene and Pavement @ the Toronto Island - this was a pretty dissapointing show, to tell the truth. Not so much because of the artists, who all performed admirably, but because of the set up. This was easily the worst run concert I have ever been too. There were lines for the access to the beer tent, to get tickets for beer and then to actually get beer. We waited, without shade, for three hours for two warm beers. By the time we realized we were going to have to wait for the ferry to get home, we left. My advice: don't see shows at the Toronto Island. It will only encourage them to keep happening.

2) The Flaming Lips @ Ottawa Bluesfest - now the Ottawa Bluesfest knows how to put on a show. Never waited more than five minutes for a beer, because they basically line the place with tents. But the best part was the actual show. The Flaming Lips are absolutely mind bending in concert. The band is delivered through a giant cartoon vagina, Wayne Coyne jumps into the audience in a giant, inflatable ball, the balloons and confetti cannon's are blasting the entire time, and all of this is the first song. Needless to say, it basically stays at this level till the end. If you can see the Flaming Lips before you die (I'm assuming everyone knows when they will die, right?) you should. Two words that should make you want to do this all the more: Laser Hands.

3) Titus Androncus @ The Horseshoe - this is the one I am attending tonight. I saw them the last time they were in town at Sneaky Dee's, and it was one of the best shows I have ever seen. Just a high energy, no nonsense bash it out band. Needless to say, I am pumped. I am not pumped about the fact that I thought this was on Saturday, and thus will not have the three people who I was supposed to go with, as they all planned on it being Saturday. So I have three available tickets. If in the highly highly unlikely chance that someone reads this before I go, get in touch with me and you are more than welcome to join.

So thats it for now. Follow my advice, avoid the Island, see the Flaming Lips, and quit your job and start following Titus Andronicus around the world. It is worth it.

Until Next Time.

So whats new?

Everyone should read the book "Risk" by Dan Gardner. How's that for an opening sentence? But seriously, you should read it. It is both well researched and written, and is a pretty fascinating read to boot. The basic idea of the book is that the human brain is pretty much built for a bunch of pre-literate hunter gatherer types wandering around, barely surviving day to day, so that when bombarded with the complexities of modern life, we pretty much don't know how to react. He talks a lot about psychology and sociology and how thee two fields in particular need to be better understood in order for people to better understand how they should make decisions, and why the way they do it now is more or less wrong.

He also uses a lot of fascinating examples, and explains a bunch of psychological concepts like confirmation bias, the rule of typical things, the example rule and more. It is definitely a good entry point into understanding these concepts, and getting a solid footing in understanding the human decision making process.

The best part of the book, however, is, like I mentioned before when I suggested that people read his newspaper columns, is that he causes you to rethink the way you think. I know that recently I have found myself rethinking a lot of things I always thought, or things that I always just assumed were fact, or could only be looked at from one perspective. Writer like Gardner have definitely helped me in my reconsideration of many of the "sacred truths" I find myself questioning. But more importantly, writers like Gardner help me to question these things logically, and not just because I like to be oppositional. I don't think I am the only middle-class white male who was frequently against things just to be against them. I still talk to people who approach opposition this way, railing against things without taking the time to understand why those things exist, how and why they came to be, and, most importantly, understanding the supporters of whatever you oppose position. You might surprise yourself into actually coming to some sort of understanding with something you thought your whole life was wrong headed, or evil. And it can be pretty fun. So as I said, everyone should read "Risk" by Dan Gardner.

Some Suggestions:

Good afternoon all, this will just be a quick post with a few suggestions for your listening/watching/reading pleasure. I might pop by to drop a few of these nuggets a month for anybody looking for something to read/watch/listen to. So here goes:

Listen: I just picked up the soundtrack to the movie "Shutter Island" that is comprised entirely of modern classical music, assembled by none other than the great Robbie Robertson. Saw the movie a couple weekends ago and really enjoyed it. Part of its greatness is the soundtrack, which is at times jarring and abrasive, but always perfect for the film. All in all, this is a pretty good entry into modern classical music, but its not exactly an easy entry.

Watch: Well, I recommend "Shutter island" which was pretty fantastic, but I don't really want to make this a two-for, so instead I will suggest the 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs. As I actually have no idea whether anyone reads this or not, and I definitely don't know if my potential readers are hockey fan's, this suggestion could be pointless. But if you are not a hockey fan, I highly recommend you start watching the playoffs. San Jose with a stranglehold on Detroit? Pittsburgh/Montreal in one of the more entertaining series I've seen? And with Vancouver/Chicago and Boston/Philly looking like they are going to get real ugly, real quick, there really isn't much more you could ask for. So if you aren't already, start that playoff beard and see if Detroit can come back from impossible odds, or if it's finally San Jose's year, or if the Canucks can get it done, or if Sidney is going to repeat. Either way, it will be entertaining.

Read: Already recommended "The Rest is Noise" but it still stands. But right now I am going to suggest you read the journalism and books of one Dan Gardner. He is a Vulcan-like logical thinker, and has gone a long way to influencing me and the thought process I would like to have. At the very least his writing and overall style have taught me to look at anything, regardless of how certain I am in it, from all sides to measure the actual evidence in its favour. Very good, and very challenging stuff. Also, I have used some of his arguments multiple times when arguing for marijuana legalization (and all drugs, for that matter) with friends who would trend more towards the "we can win the war on drugs" mind set. Definitely worth the read.

Alright, so that's it for now. Enjoy these suggestions, and feel free to leave me some feed back. The only comments I get appear to be from Chinese Spam Trolls, and I don't think they are commenting on the finer points of Mahler.

Quick Thoughts:

New worst artist making music right now: Kei$a.

Good God is she fu*king dreadful. Just absolutley terrible.

Leaving Your Comfort Zone

Since I was last posting, I have done quite a bit of thinking about why I like the things I like, and how I am exposed to new things. Generally, I use a small group of websites for pop culture, especially movies and music. My first and foremost source is The AV Club (http://www.avclub.com) which is a fantastic site with all kinds of goodies. It has definitely introduced me to a lot of great music that I was either too young or too clueless to discover on my own. If you share some of my proclivities, you can definitely lose yourself in it for hours. Pitchfork, of course, because I am obsessed with what other people think of me, and its the number one site for people who like music for that very reason (I kid, mostly).

But what I got thinking about was how these sites reflect music that skews towards my established tastes anyway. I don't listen to music radio much (I'm more of a CBC guy), so I don't get whats new and popular from there, so I really rely on the web and friends to find new things. And as I said, these sources tend to skew to my current tastes. There's been a lot of talk about how the Internet will create tribalism and epistemic closure, that people with access to infinite information will only seek out that which confirms their existent biases, beliefs etc.. There may or may not be some truth to this, I'm not really sure, but I do know that pop culture in general and music more specifically definitely trend towards tribal closure. Genre addiction is definitely the number one illness that afflicts music fans. Look no further than metal, punk and rap. I would argue that 90% of people who identify themselves as fans of any of the above genres, or even belonging to their sub-cultures, will only listen to music that belongs to that category. I always think of myself as someone with an expansive taste in music, because I listen to 1930's blues, or 60's garage rock, experimental noise rock, and any other number of styles, but at the end of the day, I'm sure that if I took enough time, I could draw a fairly straight line connecting all of them, and not in abstract, or stretching ways. People tend to like sounds that are similar, which makes Woody Guthrie and the White Stripes easier for me to digest than, say, Michael Jackson and R. Kelly (bad examples?).

In politics, I consider myself "left-of-center" but I try and read predominantly conservative writers and commentators. I could sit around agreeing with 80% of what Paul Krugman has to say, but I find it more enriching to see what someone like Mark Steyn or Kathleen Parker has to say, and seeing how that affects my world view. Thinking about that, I have been trying to apply this to my pop culture intake, and especially music.

In a book store a few weeks ago, a volume caught my eye. "The Rest is Noise" by Alex Ross (http://www.therestisnoise.com), which is a great book about classical music in the 20th Century. This is a subject I knew next to nothing about, aside from the "Rite of Spring" riot legend, and some stuff I picked up at University about Aaron Copland and New Deal music. Having gotten about halfway through the book, I can definitely say it is an engrossing subject, and I recommend everyone who hasn't already pick up this book and read. But the best thing I am taking from it is the music itself. This is a perfect example of a subject outside my comfort zone, that I knew nothing about, and that I am now slowly enveloping myself in. Its a bit of a slow grind to pick up all the music, a lot if it is hard to find (although the Toronto Public Library is a great resource), but it's definitely helped me expand my musical horizons. Right now, Stravinsky and Shostakovich are what I have, but I am looking forward to getting some Strauss and Mahler, some Gershwin, Copland and Messiaen, and countless more.

Listening to 20th Century classical music will be an obvious gateway to classical in general, which will give me a further understanding of where music has come from. I think this is the best part about discovering new things, new ideas, new genres. Understanding (or at least appreciating) 20th Century Classical music has definitely given me an understanding of a lot of trends in 20th Century music in general. Listening to Strauss or Stravinsky not only gives me an appreciation of their work, and of classical music in the last century, but I think it gives me a better appreciation of music in general. Listening to Shostakovich can make make Animal Collective that much more interesting. Or that much less. And that's the best thing about leaving your comfort zone.

............and we're back

After over a year of silence, I have returned. Due to unintentional, but much appreciated influence of an honest to goodness writer, I have decided to resurrect good old Possible Side-Effects. There is going to be a fairly major stylistic change, however. I am not going to be reviewing the record collection in total, per se. I will still write about the albums I love, but I am also going to start focusing on many of my other obsessions, such as books, films, the odd current events story, you name it. Hopefully I can be a little more focused (by expanding my focus) and maybe even attract some actual readers. Keep on checking the blog, I'm going to try and post a couple of times a week.

Until Next Time,