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,

Titus Andronicus – “The Airing of Grievances.”

Everything I have read so far about this CD, which is as close to an actual review as this site gets* (it’s only been out for a week), talks about the singers screaming style and the deep nihilism that pretty much encompasses the whole record. That, and the fact that it’s a hell of a fun album, consistently described as something akin to standing at the end of the world chugging beers and screaming Clash tunes at the top of your lungs. Or something like that. No matter how you word it, all of the stuff written so far about these New Jersey indie-punks in this manner is true. “The Airing of Grievances” is a loud, nihilistic album, and Titus Andronicus’ lead singer does sound like Kurt Cobain channeling Shane McGowan while funneling nails, and it is ultimately a fun, exciting record. So what else is there to say about it? Well, for those of you who don’t obsessively read music journalism, congratulations, you have now had about 50 reviews from various reputable music publications condensed into one paragraph. You’re welcome. And secondly, all I can really do is try and explain to you, my loyal reader, why you should immediately pick this album up. It is awesome. The Cobain/McGowan hybrid is a good comparison, and the whole band sounds like it is getting out a lifetime of pent up anger, sounding for about 3 seconds like typical inde rock before whipping their songs into a frenzy. Constructing and de-constructing their sonic landscape, while painting a strangely celebratory picture of a grim, meaningless world (these guys are from New Jersey, so they probably couldn’t write about much else) is what this album is almost exclusively about. From the opening track “Fear and Loathing in Mahwah, NJ” which is pure bombast and probably sounds amazing live, to the track “Joset of Nazareth’s Blues” which may be the new record holder for drunkenest song on CD, Titus Andronicus attack their songs as much as they play them. The self titled "Titus Andronicus" is pretty much a blueprint of their sound, and isn't a bad place to start and see if you dig them. Pick up this CD if you get the chance, or download it. It is definitely worth a listen, and is on the short list for best album of 2009 so far for me.


*also coming soon will be an almost review of Animal Collectives new album, whenever I manage to pick a copy up. Which reminds me that I should probably write up “Strawberry Jam”.

Worst. Song. Ever.

Is:

"Honky Tonk, Badonkadonk" by Trace Adkins.

No contest. Not even Kiss has made worse music.

The Conet Project- Obscurity, Snobbery and the Difference Between Being a Dick and Being a Fan

This post is another theme post, because I kinda like writing them more than the reviews, which I also enjoy, but the themes let me wax a little more. After talking to my buddy Matt who is a friend of the blog, I have been informed that I can frequently come off as a bit of a ranter. This, I must admit, is probably true. It is difficult to write an opinion piece that you assume few people will read, about a subject you have drunkenly argued about for your entire life without sounding like a ranter. So, in the spirit of New Years resolutions, I am trying to make this posts less ranty and more thoughtful. I have a post in the pipe right now about music and politics, but it definitely requires some touching up to sound less, well, asshole-ish. So today, I thought I would try and take a concept in music that has always interested me, by way of the Conet Project.



A brief explanation of the Conet Project- The Conet Project is a collection of recordings of short-wave radio transmissions recorded across Europe that are assumed to be spy transmissions. These recordings are weird. They tend to be creepy loops of children's songs, followed or joined by disembodied female voices reciting off numbers, letters or nonsensical groupings of words. It's assumed that these recordings, which broadcast on short wave radio frequencies, and so can be picked up by anyone with a short wave radio, so it is assumed spy's in the field can hear the transmissions and theoretically interpret them based on some pre-determined code scheme. Needless to say, a group of short-wave radio enthusiasts (nerds) recorded these, and a music company called Irdial put them up for free download on their website. Check it out, download a few and listen to see what I mean, just Google Irdial, or the Conet Project. So what does this have to do with, you know, music? Well, a couple of things.



Firstly, the Conet Project has become a bit of a pet obsession with several musicians and film makers, including my personal favorite Jeff Tweedy, who used the Conet Project in his magnum opus Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. The title is taken from a Conet sequence, that plays at the end of the song "Poor Places" in which a female British voice chants "Yankee. Hotel. Foxtrot." What does this mean? Who the hell knows? But the point is, Tweedy is enamored with the Conet Project, and found in it an excellent source for sampling that fit with the overall atmosphere of the whole Yankee Hotel Foxtrot album. Which brings up the question: the Conet Project is a relatively unlistenable, creepy, random, weird collection of 1-5 minute recordings of, well, creepy, random, weird messages. So is listening to it (as I occasionally do), and integrating it into music (as Tweedy and others have done) being a musical experimentalist, a music snob, or simply utilizing something that sounds interesting when interspersed throughout an album? Or is it none of the above? Well, I'm not sure, but what thinking about this question did do for me was raise another one that has been tossed around in musical criticism: when is a musician making unlistenable, snobbish music, and when is he pushing his creativity and art into a new, interesting direction?



Well, this is the big question. I have been accused in my life of being a musical snob, because I dislike most mainstream music, and a lot of stuff considered essential (see my post about disliking Bob Marley for an indication of my musical douchebaggery if you doubt me). But I don't necessarily see it as such. Without launching into a rant defending my taste in music, which is relatively normal if you ask me, I will defend myself by saying there are two big qualifiers for me to like something, other than whether or not it is ascetically pleasing. The first is whether or not the artist is actually putting something of themselves into it. I am not suggesting that all music must be heart on the sleeve, confessional, or deeply personal, but my biggest complaint against a band like Nickelback or some such thing, is that their songs sound like they simply figured out how to write something catchy, and have since decided to repeat the process, ad nauseum. I do find some Nickelback stuff catchy, but its totally empty to me. When that "Hero" song was being played every 30 seconds a few years ago, it got stuck in my head a billion times. But I dislike it because its clearly just a catchy song, nothing more. Empty. Listening to artists like Nickelback is what I imagine sleeping with a really good looking prostitute would be like. Sure, she's gorgeous, and you are sleeping with her, but you cant kiss her, and she's thinking about her nail appointment or something, and when its all over, you just kinda want to strangle yourself with your belt. Or at least that's what I imagine it's like. I could be wrong.



Conversely, I will actually listen to something like, say, Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" which is just non-stop guitar feedback, because as tongue-in-cheek as he is about it, he really was experimenting with the whole form and idea of the song, ripping it apart to be nothing but noise. To me, this is a much more interesting, albeit almost unlistenable, album than anything by Nickelback or Theory of a Dead Man or some such nonsense. But it does raise the point- is it snobbery to feel like this, or just an appreciation of artists who push the boundaries of their art? It's probably a little of both, an argument in which I would say I am not a snob, I just have a different take on music, and in which someone else would say no, you are in fact a snob because you prefer unlistenable noise to, you know, actual songs.


The second thing I look for in an artist, generally, is really just a sub category of the "meaningful" idea. I like my music to be relatively evolutionary. Like I was saying about bands like Nickelback et al, they are just repeating a formula. They don't expand on what they started as, but simply grow static, re-making the same song, album, you name it, over and over again. This, I feel, is nowhere more embodies than U2. I love U2, which not a lot of people will say anymore because their last albums were absolutely dreadful. But listen to their first works, October, War and especially The Joshua Tree. Those are great albums, and you can hear the band growing, expanding on their sound, trying to perfect their musical vision. Then....stasis. Achtung Baby is a good album, but really, U2 have been banging out the same old same old "anthem," with all the atmosphere etc.. you expect from U2. But it's not new, or interesting, or even different. Its just.....the same.

So what am I saying about musical snobbery? Well, the point I am trying to make is that something like Metal Machine Noise, or to a much less abrasive extent Yankee Hotel Foxtrot (its a great album, one of my favorites), that utilize noise and bizarre, short-wave radio transmission samples, or deconstructs the traditional song structure, is not a musician trying to be a dick. It's an artist advancing the vision they have for their craft. I doubt there is anyone left alive who would admit to ever having said "Well Picasso, its alright, but what if you just painted the guitar the way it looks?" In all other art worlds, experimenting and innovation are generally seen as essential to keeping the art form fresh. In music, at least in the short term, experimentation and innovation are often seen as something negative, or at least as something that doesn't belong in the mainstream (which is a sentiment I can sort of agree with). But what I don't agree with is the sentiment that this is somehow snobbery. While not for everyone, without this kind of experimentation, music doesn't evolve. Think of the Beatles, or Elvis, or really any band that made a drastic change to the world of music. With all of the legends and innovators, there are countless lesser known bands whose contributions to music are almost as influential. Not many people can name a Sonic Youth song, and they definitely embody the "snob" wing of the music world, but without them, there may not have been a Nirvana, or even the "indie" rock world as it is today. That's just one example, but its the one I like to use the most. While there are tons of people who would dismiss Sonic Youth as noise, or worse, the same people probably have at least a few songs or albums by bands that would site them as a direct influence.

So after all of that, how can I sum up my point in a nice, concise conclusion? (It's like University all over. But I'm sober). The main point that I hope you, the reader, takes from this is that while snob's and dicks certainly exist in the music world, the music itself is rarely snobbery. Because something is not immediately recognizable and familiar musically doesn't mean its some artistic "fuck you" to the mainstream. To me, even if its terrible, or can't be listened to for more than 2 minutes, I can respect an artist who is experimenting with his or her craft, and trying to push it in a new direction. To me, snobbery is a relative term when it comes to music, which is why I think I can listen to The Rolling Stones '80's output and Mission of Burma on the same playlist. But that's just me, I'm sure I'm in the minority here.

Well, hopefully that wasn't too long winded for everyone, and let me know what you think of the new, less ranty Possible Side Effects.

Back to the Grind- "For Emma, Forever Ago" Bon Iver

Well, here we are, almost a New Year and I am getting back to the old habit of actually reviewing an album, instead of angering friends and family alike with lists of artists I hate, or failing to get my point across about live music. So I have decided to renew my reviews with a tasty little album from last year (2007, its still 2008 while I write this). Bon Iver's "For Emma, Forever Ago," was brought to my attention by my homeboy Casey and I regret that I took so long to eventually get around to listening to it, because it is good. Really good.

The album itself has a little bit of its own mythology, which always makes for interesting music. Recording in a cabin in the Wisconsin mountains (or hills? are there mountains in Wisconsin?), Justin Vernon made an album that sounds exactly like that- something recorded, in isolation, in a bare bones environment. It's a testament to his abilities as a musician and songwriter that such a spare, lonely album, is also such a captivating one. One of the obvious comparisons that people will probably make is to Iron and Wine, because of the simple, spare instrumentals, but I don't think this is an accurate comparison. I think it sounds more like an early blues recording somehow cross bred with the best of "white soul." Vernon's pained falsetto is both possessed and delicate. Come to think of it, if he hadn't hanged himself in a shitty Florida hotel, and instead sobered up, moved to a cabin and made a solo album, this could be the album that Richard Manuel was never stable enough to make.

The opening track "Flume" and the third song, "Skinny Love" are worth the purchase of the album alone. However, the fact that there is not a single bad song on this record make it one of the best I have heard in a while. The title track is the most musically complex, with horns and a soft snare drum accompanying Vernon and his guitar, but it in no way changes the feel of the album. All in all, "For Emma, Forever Ago" is a great album, one that I would recommend to anyone. It is not, however, the kind of album you will want to throw on at parties, or listen to in groups of people. Its a bit of a downer. But in the best way imaginable.

Happy New Years, all.

Sacrilage!

Today's post will follow what seem's to be a growing trend round here at Side-Effects headquarters. I will again not be discussing a specific album, not because I am out of albums or anything, but because when I started this, I didn't think about the fact that I might come up with different themes to write about, and since there really are no actual rules for this, I'm gonna do whatever the shit I want. So there you go. And in the efforts of driving people crazy, today is going to be a post about those artists that are almost universally revered, and that I can't fucking stand. I guarantee there will be at least one artist on this least you will disagree with me on. And there is even one on this list that I will tie into what was obviously an overly aggressive proclamation on my part: Concept Album Month. Just couldn't pull it off. So without further ado, here it is - the Possible Side-Effects Sacrilege list, the artists beloved by so many, hated so much by me.





1) The Eagles - This is a pretty typical one. For a certain type of music fan (such as myself), hating The Eagles is a badge of honor, made all the more special by The Big Lebowski, and The Dude's hatred of Don Henley and the rest of these soft rock melon heads. I mean seriously, Joe Walsh? Are you fucking kidding me? There is absolutely nothing good about a band that allows Joe Walsh and Don Henley to be prominent members. Also, as a side note: my hatred of Hippies is pretty much a direct link to my hatred of the song Hotel California. And to all those people who say - but have you heard the live version with the sweet Spanish guitar solo at the beginning? I look at those people with more disgust than I have in my heart for almost anyone.





2) Joni Mitchell - not sure exactly what it is, but I cannot stand Joni Mitchell. Just can't fucking stand her. This one always pisses off people that wish they were alive in the sixties. For some reason, everyone I've met who likes Joni Mitchell, wishes they were some kind of nuvo-hippie, and thinks that Big Yellow Taxi should be the new national anthem. Maybe I just hate Joni Mitchell fans. Hmmm, perhaps I will give her a second chance now that I am no longer at University and the chances of running into someone with dreadlocks are now slim to none (this is an idea that I have had with a few artists, one more of which who will appear on this list and draw me the most anger from the population at large).





3) David Bowie -the concept album tie in. Ziggy Stardust? Fuck Me Running I hate that album. Everyone, for some reason, thinks Bowie is this amazing musical chameleon who changes his style to suit the times, adapting, adopting and making his own the trends that he can seamlessly turn into blah blah blah. In reality, fuck Bowie. I think he has a couple of good songs, Heroes comes to mind immediately, but there are also lots and lots of stinkers. ever actually listen to Let's Dance or China Girl? Come on people. These are not the works of some musical savant. They are lousy 80's songs, even by 80's standards. But my real problem is not really with Bowie's music, exactly, but with how so many people talk about his music. As I mentioned above, die hard Bowie fan's think that he somehow changes all genres he touches, turning them into pure gold. I think at the very most, Bowie is ok at taking current styles and turning them into catchy tunes. And all his songs are instantly recognizable as a David Bowie song. But none of them sound like he actually......wants to be a part of them. Another musical genre jumper, who I enjoy, is Elvis Costello who to me sounds like the opposite of this. When Costello starts singing a jaunty country ballad, or a polka or whatever, it sounds like Costello is trying to own both the song and the genre, to make it his. Bowie, on the other hand, always sounds like a dilettante, like he hears some new sound and thinks "Hmmm, that's interesting, maybe a couple like that and I'll be the talk of the town again." Bowie is a dabbler, not a true believer. And that drives me bonkers. That and Saxaphone solo's. Seriously, Bowie might be the worst perpetrator of this crime against humanity.





4) Pearl Jam - Man is this one going to catch me some grief with a couple of my friends (a particular M.S. to be even more specific). But as the years pass and I re-listen to the Pearl Jam I have, which is not very much truthfully, it grows on me less and less, to the point where I am ready to say that I am not really a big fan. Actually, not really a fan at all. Why? Not sure, really. I remember when I was a youthful music snob, pissing about bands like Creed and their wannabe Eddie Vedder voices and how it bothered me because I thought they were affecting the sound of some much more "authentic" artist. But now, when I listen to Pearl Jam, I think that I might just hate the sound of Eddie Vedder's voice, period. Because when I listen to Pearl Jam now, I still get the same cringe that I used to experience when Creed was on the radio (and fuck, were Creed ever on the radio a lot when I was in the eighth grade). So blast away friends, but to me, Pearl Jam is the least interesting alternative band that is still considered to have been musically relevant (there is a difference between Creed and Pearl Jam - Pearl Jam are influential, even earning a place in history, while Creed just straight up suck). I think I would take almost any of the other "grunge" bands (even the much maligned Stone Temple Pilots) over Pearl Jam, and its not just Eddie Vedders voice, either. Well, its not exclusively his voice anyway, but it does play a large role in my feelings. I also find their music to be some weird, unfortunate hybrid of G'N'R and Nirvana. Which is nowhere near as awesome as it sounds.



5) Before I even drop this one, I am willing to say a lot of my problem with this artist is the fact that I went to a university that seemed to have a lot of douche bag hippies and douche bag frat boy types, and both revered this fellow. So I have told a friend that I will give it a year away from school, then return to the well and see if my feelings change being away from dreadlocked or popped collar devotee's of: Bob Marley - Yes, my musical snobbery does run deep enough that I can in fact claim to be disinterested in, if not downright hostile to the artist who, maybe second only to John Lennon, maybe even more so than the first dead Beatle, is universally beloved. He's like a goddamn poster for peace and understanding. Disliking Bob Marley, for any reason, is about the same as disliking Nelson Mandella or something. Do so at your own risk, because I stand on a very lonely platform whenever I quietly point out to someone who has put Legend on the stereo and begun to sway around and sing along that, actually, I would much rather listen to almost anything than Mr. Marley. Including Pearl Jam. But if your going to say you don't like Bob Marley, you gotta back that up with some powerful shit, right, mon? Well, ok, here goes, I'll try and justify this one. Ever had a terrible time at a party full of guys with frosted tips, Lacoste shirts and $800 shoes, talking about their "number of kills" and enjoying a refreshing Smirnoff Ice? Ever had a lousy time at a party full of guys and girls with dreadlocks, smoking tons of dope, talking about corporate evil while drinking Stella Artois and smoking Benson and Hedges? Ever realize that at both horrible parties, you are listening to Legend? Seriously, lets play a little game with memory, shall we? Imagine the worst party you've ever been at, with the worst people. I'm talking just an all around shitty time. Now think really hard: Bob Marley came on at some point in the night, didn't he? You can admit it, no-one is going to hold it against you. It's a fact. But wait, you say, what about all the great times you have had to Bob Marley? This is true, and I used to love the guys (and can still listen to Catch a Fire at any time), hell I even lost my virginity to the first 0:38 of "Is This Love?" (ZING!). But since going away to school, I will say my tolerance of douche bag fans and the actual music of Bob Marley has been eroded. After a while, if we are being honest, Legend (and by extension, much of Marley's other work) all just kinda sounds the same. It's like AC/DC, but reggae. So there you go. Between fans and the fact that it really doesn't change all that much, I gotta admit, I am not a Marley fan. But, as promised, I will revisit him in some time, now that I am as far away from frat boy/dip-shit hippie types as I'll ever be and see if my opinion changes. On a related note, I wonder if I am the only person who has ever publicly written this much about not liking Marley? I couldn't find a word of negative criticism in the two minutes I spent looking for it.



So there you have it folks, the sacrilege. That's not all of course, I will post another one of these some day to alienate a whole new set of peeps, but for now, that oughta be enough. Shit, maybe even my criticism of Bob Marley will get me my first troll? Who knows? Merry Christmas everyone, hopefully I can get something up here before the New Year.

Happy Holidays! (take that Christmas, don't you know there is a war against you?)

Happy Holiday's to all my loyal readers! Tis the season for non-stop talk about the war on Christmas!!! This is my favorite part of the Holiday's, watching people like Bill O'Riley and others try and convince the world that their is a vast, PC, multi-cultural war on Christmas, to have it replaced with Analsexmas, or perhaps Earth Day. The fact that the most prevalent, in your face, all consuming Holiday of the year is clearly a Christian holiday is still no match for the dastardly forces of progressivism. So I like to do my part to egg this on, which is why I love the expression Happy Holidays! Contained in this innocent expression of goodwill, the guardians of our Christian Heritage, without whom we would be pagans or gay, see the ultimate assault on Jesus' b-day. ( I am watching the Leafs Game on TSN while writing this and have one question: Whats up with Sarah Orlovsky's mouth? Its......weird). Where was I? Oh yes, Happy Holidays. This is obviously not the natural evolution of language, the result of wasting too much time saying "Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year (and for all our Jewish friends out there, Happy Hanukka(?)" but is a diabolical plan to ensure that everyone forgets that the reason they are off work/school/solitary confinement is because of Christ. The fact that every store is pumping songs with the word Christmas clearly in the title? Not enough. Its all of your fault, for saying Happy Holidays!

So what does this have to do with anything? Nothing really. I know you are all thinking, wait, last week he writes about a concert, this week its not even music related? What has happened to our beloved blog? He's turning into one of those sefl-important bloggers (all of them) who think they are the "new media" and changing the way things are done! Well, your lack of faith in me makes it no surprise that we are back-sliding into some pagan-assfucking celebration of the sun, instead of Christmas. Because this post is about Christmas carols that don't make you want to kill yourself! So Bam!

Rufus Wainwright - "Spotlight on Christmas": This is a solid, rollicking Christmas song that sounds absolutely nothing like a Christmas song. But, not only is it a Christmas Carrol, it even mentions the J-man, his mom and dad, and the whole nativity story. So here is a challenge Bill O'Riley: start playing this song before everyone of your Holiday shows as the ultimate Christmas carrol. Whats that? The artist may be the long prophesied re-born King of the Gays? So Christmas isn't the inclusive holiday that you all say it is? Hmmmm.......*

Eisley- "The Winter Song": Whats so good about this one? It has everything I like about Christmas songs. It sounds mind meltingly depressing, so what more do you want in the holidays? The lyrics are relatively up-beat, commenting on winter etc.., but the music and melody convey the sense of longing that I think most people feel around this time of year. Even if your Christmas is the best ever, there is still always something missing, like the sense of pure joy you had as a child, or a loved one who has passed on. The holidays are about everybody getting together for food, gifts and family, but they also remind you that another year is gone. All Christmas Carols should have a little longing in them.

Rilo Kiley- "Christmas Cake": Or you could listen to this one, which is just straight up depressing. Covers all the Holiday classics: isolation, financial strain, sudden un-employment, and just an all around feeling of misery. But man, is this a pretty song. Also, the lead singer of Rilo Kiley is a young lady named Jenny Lewis who I love, and will probably be writing a little more about later. This is the song that makes you think the perfect holiday gift is eggnogg and a hand gun.

Bing Crosby- "White Christmas": Surprised? The ultimate in sappy Christmas songs? Know how much you would have if you decided to buy the rights to this song? A billion dollars. You gotta respect this mo-fo.

That's all for now, just a couple of Christmas songs (all available from some collection called "Maybe this Christmas too?") that definitely don't get the respect they deserve. Or that most people have never heard of. Whatever, enjoy! Happy Holidays! (I will probably post again before Christmas, or if I am ambitious, I might post about the music I get for Christmas, so keep your ears to the ground, fools)

*Note: when I refer to Rufus Wainwright as the long lost king of the gays, I mean that in the most respectful way possible. If the Lord of the Rings taught me anything, its that a group of people is not complete unless they have a long lost royal bloodline that'll come along and return them to glory. Elton John has been shitting the bed hard for the last few years, so I'm thinking this might be Rufus' time to step up. Or something.

Neil Young - Friday Night (not an album)

This will be a short post, but just wanted to let y'all know I saw Neil Young Friday night (and Wilco!!!!) and that it was, contrary to my deepest fears and past history with Neil, amazing! One of the best shows I have seen, possibly ever. While my friend Dave in Ottawa told me it was just ok, i was pretty blown away by the whole concert. He opened strong, and played a shit-ton of classics, including "My, My, Hey, Hey" "Cortez the Killer," "Everyone Knows this is nowhere" and my personal favorite "Powderfinger." He pulled out the acoustic, played Needle and the Damage Done and a few others, and generally just rocked my socks.

So what is the point of this post, other than a re-cap of the tunes Neil played? Well good sirs, and lady sirs, the point is this: what responsibility does an artist have to his audience? This could be a continuing idea related to my concept album month. Because here is the thing about Neil: the last time I saw him, I was actually too shit faced to remember anything and slept through most of the concert, but my friends who were all coherent, and equally large Neil fans said it blew chunks. It was when he was touring in support of Greendale, (which is a concept album) so he just played that, start to finish, with a couple classics for encore (apparently two to be exact). While I would have been tremendously disappointed by this show, a part of me respects it, as it is the logical conclusion of creating a high art, "concept" album. Playing a series of related, narrative songs in a random unstructured manner doesn't really make any sense. While one or two songs from a concept album will stand alone ( see Neutral Milk Hotel "Holland, 1945" for example) the artist him (or her) self created the album with a specific theme, or idea in mind. So if they are touring behind that album, than it seems only logical that that is what they will play.

So why do people get so much more bothered with this type of concert, the concept concert, as opposed to the concept album? Especially with an artist like Neil, who has under his belt more great songs in three albums than most artists get in three decades, the idea of not performing any of the "hits" or the fan favorites is down right suicidal. And I think I know who to blame. Once again, our culprit here is the nineteen fucking sixties. But more specifically, the artists from the first wave of "huge" rock and roll acts from the sixties that have continued to tour, and even more specifically The Rolling Stones. I love the Stones. I paid $350 to see them, so that makes me an honorary baby boomer douchebag for being willing to shill out that kind of cash to see a couple of great-grandfathers play songs that have been widely available since 1968. But man was it a great fucking show. Me and the friends I went with loved every minute of it. We didn't drink all that much, it was a concert that was more about the show than the whole getting off your ass drunk and "feeling the music." They played most of my favorite mainstream Stones songs (being a super fan, I prefer the rest Beggars Banquet to Sympathy for the Devil, but still loved hearing them dust that one off). But when I had to take a piss, when did I run out to release my essence? During one of their new songs. They were promoting whatever their last album was, and when I song I knew was from it started, I ran down to the washroom of Landsdowne park, peed and made it back for Tumbling Dice.

So what does this say about an artist and their audience? Because the Dinosaurs are still touring, and have been since the '60's, everybody assumes, and takes for granted they will be playing all of their hits, the odd new song (if they are promoting a record) and maybe a few homage covers. That's the formula, and it has served the world well since 1980 when the bands of the '60's became nostalgia acts. But not everyone conforms to this formula. In the "indie rock" community (a term I loathe, by the way) it is not unusual for a band to play their most recent album in its entirety and then maybe a few older songs, or some variation on the older formula, focusing way more on new music that old. To pull this off, I think you need to have a following who are dedicated to the bands music in its entirety, and not just the hits. Neil Young appeals to such a broad range of people that at a concert the size that he will draw, probably 60% of the people are fans of "Decade" and other greatest hits collections. To play "Greendale" from start to finish in the Air Canada Center required Neil to either believe that 20,000 people all owned and wanted to hear nothing but "Greendale" or it meant that he knew he was going to be alienating a bunch of fans, but that he doesn't make music to keep everybody happy. While this is just speculation on my part, it takes some pretty big balls to sell out a 20,000 seat venue and then intentionally piss off 70% of those people.

Looking back on it, I think if I had of been sober enough to see the concert, I probably would have tried to defend Neil for what he was doing, presenting his most recent artistic vision, as he saw it in it's entirety and is it was meant to be experienced. I respect that position enough, though a little more when your doing it on an album and a little less when you do it to people who spent $100-$400 on a ticket to your show. All things considered, I don't think artists owe their audiences much more than a good show. While many people think that means a greatest hits collection, I would argue that if you really want to enjoy live music, the artist has to believe in what they are doing. The Stones were a phenomenal show, one of the best in terms of production, quality of sound etc.. but in the back of my mind, it was a little hollow seeing Mick, Keith and the Boys play "Jumping Jack Flash" for probably the 103,372 time. Seeing an artist truly embody their art is why people should go to a concert. On Friday, Neil did that for me, he rocked and rolled, made loud, abrasive noise, and soft, subtle sounds. He played songs I love, and songs I don't really care for. But ultimately, he played for himself, and that I can respect. That, and seeing "Powderfinger" live. Goddamn that is a good song.

So I guess this wont be a short post. What do you think of concerts, dear readers? I have tried to spark debate before, but you guys just wont budge. Of all the readers I know personally, I know you have been disappointed by a concert, hell I've been at a few of them with you. So what does an artist owe his or her audience? What are your thoughts on the matter?

Krazy Koncept Album #2 - The Kinks "Are the Village Green Preservation Society"

I'll be god damned if I couldn't write a whole months worth of posts on the Kinks and their late sixties to, oh I don't know, early eighties slew of Koncept albums. Seriously, Ray Davies was like some sort of Koncept vampire that fed on the shit at night, returning to his studio to kraft relatively brilliant albums about simpler times, the record industry, a transplanted hillbilly culture in England, and God knows what else. Ray Davies and the Kinks could be accused of a lot of things. Sacrificing artistic integrity for the sake of album sales will definitely never be one of them. So why Village Green? The Kinks made a kornicopia of koncept albums, each a little krazier than the next (I will stop this soon, I promise), so why Village? Because it was their first, and arguably best koncept album, and that is what December is going to be all about. That, and the birth of Jesus.



So, why is the Kinks "Are the Village Green Preservation Society" such a great concept album? Because it has all the elements of a good concept album - the experimentation, the loosely related songs that you really have to listen to get the, you know, concept, and the artistic vision that allows it to more or less transcend the era in which it was made. What sets it apart then? Well, it is almost pathologically designed to be a complete and utter commercial failure. Lets see, its 1968 and the kids are out buying records. Whats new on the shelves? Jimi Hendrix "Are you Experienced?" The Rolling Stones "Beggars Banquet" and a debut album by some band called Led Zepplin. Oh, and an album by the Kinks that's an homage to a rapidly disappearing (if it ever existed at all) pastoral way of life in the rural towns of north and midlands of England. What is surprising when you look at the context of the album is not that it failed, but that some record company executive (not known for their desire to nourish deeply personal, difficult projects) listened to it and didn't say "Are you fucking kidding me?"



Which brings us back to my original point. What is so good about this album? Well, asides from, you know, the album itself, I will confess here and now that as a music fan, I have a large tear in my heart for artists who take their artistic vision so seriously, so personally, that they almost seem dead set on sabotaging their careers in order to see the birth of that vision. Ray Davies wanted to make an album of nostalgic music for an era that was really memory before he was born, but one whose simplicity appealed so much to him, he basically bankrupted his band to get across how much he missed the Village Green. Seriously, that is artistic dedication. How deep does this respect for artistic self sabotage run? I will say this once, and only once to prove my point. Regardless of how big a piece of poop it is (and it is a large, over-produced, corn-rowed turd clogging the musical bowl) I have a pretty big respect for Axl Rose's quixotic drive to take 17 fucking years to make Chinese Democracy. So there you go, I definitely just said I respect self destructive artistic tendencies so much, I even respect Axl. But not that album, it is terrible.



So much like a smaller, quieter, and far less shitty Chinese Democracy, "The Village Green Preservation Society" is a true test of artistic vision being executed, regardless of consequence. And it only took two years to make. What of the songs on this album? At this point, does it really even matter what I say about them at this point? If you haven't heard this album, nothing I can say about the music can top what I have written about the idea of the album itself (at least in my humble opinion), and either you immediately want to hear it, or you are thinking "this guy is an idiot." But either way, what can I say about the songs? I guess only that they are awesome!



The opening track might be the perfect open to a concept album, setting the idea that the album will thread its way through for the remaining 15 songs. It is about an organization dedicated to all preserving all the things that the unnamed narrator or narrators find truly wonderful about their pastoral lives. And then the album sets about drawing the picture of that life in all its magnificence, dullness, hope, despair, love and tragedy. Seriously, I am not being disingenuous here, the album is really about that. The third song, "Picture Book" has the lyric: "picture book/pictures of each other/taken by another/ proof we loved each other/ a long time ago." That is Davies whole concept in a few lines right there. The constant reminder of how much better things were in the past, though these memories might not be as perfect as we always think of them. Song after song touches this theme in subtle, endearing ways. A true lyrical masterpiece if one was ever written.



So how does this album stack up over time? Well, it is now rightfully considered a masterpiece, a work of genius that was sunk under the weight of the 60's because it wasn't angry, or boastful or bombastic. Instead, its a subtle, thoughtful album about things past, and how things past really aren't as we would like to remember them. A pretty solid concept if you ask me.

Triumphant Return - Neutral Milk Hotel "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" and the start of Concept Album month (?)

On February 10th, 1998, Yngwie Malmsteen released "Facing the Animal," Ricky Martin released "Vuelve" and Neutral Milk Hotel released "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea." Reverting to a childhood of Sesame Street, I will now play "One of these things doesn't belong here" with these three albums. Two of them suck (though I haven't heard them, I will just assume based on the artists) while one is brilliant. Two of them are by artists who basically embody everything I hate about music (pretension, over production, ludicrousness, and having anything to do with Yngwie Malmsteen and Rickie Martin) while the other has just about everything I love. Finally, one is now regarded as a masterpiece, a defining album of the nineties, and a truly great work of art, while the other two are probably absolute balls. I guess what I'm trying to say is Neutral Milk Hotel's "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" is a damned fine album. A DAMNED FINE ALBUM. But why?
Neutral Milk Hotel are/were (they are on an indefinite hiatus - ha vent you people ever heard of Wikipedia? Do I have to research everything?) a band centered around Jeff Mangum, a singer, songwriter and all around intense dude who put the band on hiatus due to an inability to be able to perform his songs, because of the intensely personal nature. I mentioned he seems like an intense dude, right?
So because this is the possible beginning of a little something I will call "Concept Album Month," so that I might better document my love of those oh so pretentious, personal, and generally commercially unsuccessful albums that any musician worth his salt nearly destroys his career making, I felt that I should start with a concept album whose concept is so out there, there was absolutely no way it could work. And yet it works. Sweet King of Carrot Flowers does it work!
What is the concept then? Nothing too special, just an album based loosely around the ability to find beauty in the life and death of Anne Frank, and a Jewish family during WWII he had vivid, life altering dreams about. Pretty easy going stuff, eh? Well, in the hands of Jeff Mangum, it actually is. It is actually a lush, visually stirring album with complex arrangements and instrumentation, and just works in a way that it's difficult concept would suggest it couldn't.
Starting off with the "The King of Carrot Flowers prts. 1&2" (see what I did up there?), all the songs flow into each other to deliver a fairly unified narrative. While not every single song is immediately about Anne Frank, or the family in Mangum's dreams, listening to each one you realize that they in fact are. There are elements of "The Diary of Anne Frank" all throughout, but never in an overtly depressing, or preachy way. Mangum somehow managed to craft lyrics that tell her brief story in a way that is equally moving and entertaining. To me, the whole album is a masterpiece, but to really put it in perspective, you need to listen to the three song cycle of "Two Headed Boy pt.1" the instrumental "The Fool" and the incredible "Holland, 1945." Listening to these three songs, you realize the scope and ambition of Mangum's artistic vision, and more importantly you hear him reach it, even surpass it.
The album is full of interesting music, with horns punctuating most of the songs, a fuzz-bow bass, Wurlitzer's, you name it. It's pretty much unlike any album you'll listen to in terms of both lyrical concept and musicianship. A true masterpiece.
Which begs the question: so, why is it considered an indie masterpiece, and not a mainstream, universally recognized work of genius like the far less superior "OK Computer" released a year earlier? (ok Radiohead fans, bring it, I fucking dare you). My answer: I don't have one. But it ties into my theory of concept albums, all of which tend to be intensely personal to a degree that the average person, who listens to music for an upbeat sound and a catchy chorus doesn't really want to deal with. Open the best song, and only single on your album with the lyrics "the only girl I've ever loved/was born with roses in her eyes/but then they buried her alive.one evening, 1945/with just her sister at her side," you might lose the crucial pre-teen market that'll make that record a hit baby. But that is what I love about the concept album, the fact that it is essentially an artist so dedicated to making a deep, intensely personal piece of art they are literally willing to sabotage all commercial potential, how can you not respect that? And when it sounds like "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea?" Perfection.

And Now For Something Completely Differenter.

Hello Loyal reader(s)? So i havent posted in almost a month, which is because of both my work, and the fact that I have no idea how to approach the Beatles. Cannot do it for the life of me. Oh well, life goes on. So this point is to say - hey y'all, I will be back, but I'm changing my approach again, and now, I'm just going to write about whichever album I feel like writing about. So there you go. See you in a few.

And now for something completely differen't:

Not a review post at all, but more of a problem that I figure I'll work out here instead of in my head, where it probably belongs. After in alphabetical order in my collection, after The Band, (and sure enough, they weren't separated in my most recent move), lies my collection of Beatles albums. There are 9 of them, 10 if you include "Love" the remastered, re-imagined album that came out last year, and which is actually quite good. But they are all solid because they are, well, the Beatles. You'd be hard pressed to find "bad" Beatles music, with the few exceptions of obvious filler and songs to spite the other members of the band that speckle the otherwise legendary "White" album. So my conundrum is thus: how to approach an artist whose work I own so much of? In the B section of my list alone I have two such artists (Billy Bragg will also be a tough nut to crack in a few posts) and I am not sure whether or not I should cover each album individually, or approach the catalog as a whole and come at in terms of themes and ideas that their music inspires. My friend Matt, an avid reader of this here blog, suggested I cover each album in a small-ish write up, basically just straight forward reviews that cover the music, then finish off with a bigger post about the Beatles as a whole, their influence, their impact on my taste etc.., and I think this is probably the approach I will take. But I will have to be forgiven if I end up going off on long winded posts about "Help!" or "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band." We are dealing with the Beatles after all. So I guess I settled my own problem, didn't I? Starting with my next post, which will be on "Help!" I will work my way through the Beatles. And that should send shivers of excitement down the spines of all three of my loyal readers.

One other thing: if anyone reading this has a blog of their own, or knows people with blogs, feel free to link to this, and I will return the favour in kind. I'm starting to get a little twinge of pride about my posts and wouldn't mind expanding my readership to more than my three buddies who have told me they enjoy. And again, feel free to post comments with requests, or thoughts of your own on the bands covered. Hopefully some bands I'm not familiar with are brought to my attention, and I hope that I can do the same as this little catalog expands. I've got some interesting stuff waiting in the wings, let me tell you.

(5) "The Band" - The Band

And so we come to the first album that I can confidently say, without a shadow of a doubt, is in my Top 5. What the other five are, we will have to wait and see, because I am not sure. I bet "Blood on the Tracks" will be in there, but other than that, I'll probably be as pleasantly surprised as the next fellow (or whatever the term for a female fellow is, if I have any female readers). But to get back on track, The Band's self titled second album is pretty much as close to a perfect piece of music as you can get. That is how good it is. If the only people reading this blog are my friends, that you probably know this album pretty well, and you probably agree. For those of you who are not familiar with this album, I recommend you buy it. I have only met one person who didn't like it when I played it, and she was an idiot who thought Disturbed where the best band of all time. Clearly we were not dealing with someone with a brain. So other than less than clever ex girlfriends, I think it's safe to say that this CD is on a lot of people's top 5. Or at least 10. But why? Well, lets find out together, shall we?



The album starts out strong with a rag-time feeling tune "Across the Great Divide" which is, as I said, very old timey. But here is where I depart with some people when they talk about this album. Like "Music from Big Pink" before it, "The Band" is an album that went against musical currents when it was released, abstaining from all the pomp and bombast of psychedelia etc etc, and if you want to read about this, see my last post about The Band. What they did on this record to an even greater extent was hearken back to old timey music, bringing that Appalachian, back-woods pure American music feeling to what is still, in essence, a rock record. And this is that company parting I was talking about earlier. While most people are content to call it an "old-timey" record, I think of "The Band" as more of a "timeless" record. It isn't pure bluegrass or hillbilly music, or Appalachian gospel or traditional folk record. It's all of those things, and because of this, it becomes it's own thing. A record made at the end of the '60's, shortly after Martin Luther King was assassinated, the ant-Vietnam protests were in full swing, student radicalism and all that other '60's bullshit that my generation has had to hear about endlessly (did you know that until the '60's, nothing ever actually happened? The baby boomers are the first generation that did anything other than eat, work, poop and die, dontcha know) and the most political it gets is in a song that paints a sympathetic portrait of a Confederate soldier putting his life back together after losing the civil war. This was not a band caught up in the fads of the day, but a band that really and truly could capture the essence of good music, plain and simple. The fact that it's got an "old timey" sound could be incidental. If The Band existed today, they probably would sound much different, but i think that they could still create music as powerful as the music they created.



To get specific for a moment, why not break down a few songs? The above mentioned "The Night they Drove Old Dixie Down" may be one of the best songs ever put to tape. It is pretty much a gut wrenching study of how well a group of musicians, firring on all cylinders, can make a piece of music as moving as any movie or book or painting, and just as real. No wonder there have been rumors of a movie based on the life of Virgil Cane (god I hope they never make this, it will be bad) since the song came out. Then of course there is "Up On Cripple Creek," which may be the funkiest song a group of entirely white people ever created. Actually, it definitely is the funkiest song white people ever wrote. Period. I could probably talk about every song on this album. "Unfaithful Servant" has possibly one of the best guitar solos ever, one that if you are listening, you can actually hear Robbie Robertson exhale after he is finished. Its such a well played, delicate solo that he had to hold his breath to execute it. Obviously, I could go on and may even be putting some people off with my endless praise, but is that good of an album. If for some reason you don't own, or haven't heard it, do so. I realize that much of my musical taste does not suite everyone, but The Band's self titled album is easily one of the most accessible albums I own. And the reason for this accessibility is the point of the second part of this little write up, which I know is running on. But bear with me.

The second point I wanted to make about The Band is the danger of flattery. The Band are easily one of the most influential groups of all time, a group whose influence far outstripped their actual record sales (though they were still a pretty marquis rock group in their day). And the problem with this is thus: you can't control who you influence, and music has the ability to take on Frankenstein levels of uncontrolability. For every decent act your influence brings into being, you will probably get ten more who take your musical philosophy and re-interpret it without any knowledge of what you are actually doing. So for every Uncle Tupelo, or Ryan Adams (to name two modern day artists with huge debts to The Band) you get, oh, I don't know, The Eagles. The fucking Eagles. To this day, every band with some sort of country pretense, or throw back to an "old time" sound, owes some of it to The Band. For better or worse. (And for the record, I definitely think the Eagles and all new country are for the worse. That's just where I stand.)

So that in a long winded nutshell is "The Band" to me. One of my all time favorites, a band whose influence for better or worse can be heard in almost all forms of rock and roll and country music to this day. So go out and buy "The Band" and listen to it straight through, without any interruptions, or without doing anything but listening. I guarantee you wont be disappointed.


(Note: I realize that in my desire to capture my thoughts on the Band, I probably used the expression "old-timey" far too many times, but fuck me if you can find a better way to describe such a sound. Also, I do in fact realize that I am prone to making up words. Lets just consider it one of my many charms and not a reflection of my lack of vocabulary. Sound good? Excellent, now lets all listen to "Rag Momma, Rag.")

4) "Music From Big Pink" - The Band

It hasn't taken long for me to hit one of the bands/artists that are in my collection that I hold in the highest esteem. Everyone has those few artists in their collection, or maybe just opinion, that are above and beyond their regular appreciation for music. I may like the Arcade Fire a lot, possibly even love them, but The Band? The Band is one of those artists that transcend music for me. Their albums, and i only own two full albums, and the live soundtrack for the Last Waltz, are to me two of the most perfectly crafted pieces of music made. And that's saying a lot. The Band is one of those artists who rarely inspire casual fans, almost all of the people I know who are "real" fans and not just casually aware of them, would rank them in their top 5-10 favorite artists. It can easily be said, then, that The Band makes some pretty fuckin' good music.

And it all started with "Music from Big Pink," their debut album. I've read just about everything I can about The Band. If you want any recommendations, the beginning and end would be "Across the Great Divide" a masterpiece portrait of the Band, from their start to finish. The story of The Band is as compelling as their music- a group of young, cocky musicians from Canada (and a good ol' boy from Arkansas) start backing up a rock-a-billy nut named Hawkins, tour on their own as the Hawks, manage to back up a small, relatively unknown folky named Dylan (a little sarcasm), and then retreat to the mountains, grow beards, pick up a bunch of non-traditional rock and roll instruments, and start recording music that basically offers a big "Fuck You!" to the over blown psychedelia that was all the rage at the time. More or less. As I've said, their story is almost as good as the music. I've always felt that if I could be or be in any of the bands/artists I listen to, I would want to have been in The Band.

So what about "Music From Big Pink"? It starts off slow, and then flows in waves for the rest of the album. At a time when epic jams and other assorted psychedelia were the rave, opening their debut album with "Tears of Rage," a slow burning lament, showed a profound disinterest in music that wasn't what they felt like creating. For all the hype of the 60's, "Music From Big Pink" and "The Band" are probably two of the best, and least 60's-ish, albums from the decade. there is no obnoxious hippie undertones, or the naive "love everybody, man" vibe that define the most overrated decade. Instead, there are songs about love and death, religion, history, and a feeling that "America" or more specifically "North America" given that these fellows were predominantly Canadian, wasn't some evil empire, but a complicated place, full of all the themes i mentioned above and then some. "The Weight," probably their best known song, sums this idea up. if you listen carefully. Set in Nazareth, and with cameo's from the Devil and an elusive Miss. Fanny, its a song about hope and redemption, and the real consequences of decisions. "The Weight" is everything that is great and possible in rock music in every way that a song like, say...."In a Gadda da Vidda" is pretty much the worst thing ever. Two songs from the same era, two very different outcomes. And this example is the best i can come up with to demonstrate all that is good about The Band- they are subtle and nuanced where others are aggressive and overt, loud and in your face. The Band is a deep, textured painting, while most of their contemporaries are simply at best prints, and at worst doodles, not serious, but self important. The Band easily rises above being a "60's band" or "protest music" or any other easy label, and become, quite simply, music. There is really no other way to describe The Band.

So while I was short on specifics for "Music From Big Pink," I think I got my point across about how The Band sounds, and just as importantly, feels, to me. My next review will be 'The Band," the self titled magnum opus of The Band, and I'll probably focus on the album more specifically, though I think I'll definitely talk a little bit about the influence of The Band, and "influencers" in general, and how it isn't necessarily always the best label to receive.