Tuesday, January 3, 2012

2011 in Music

     I think this year I have to qualify my annual list of the year's albums. This is not a comment on the most popular music of the year. A cursory glance at Rolling Stone, Billboard or the MuchMusic Countdown tells me that I don't like popular music. Almost all of the above charts are populated with American R and B acts, rap, or pop divas and Idol castoffs singing through Autotune. (Oh and Glee, God help us all.) My own encounters with pop are usually coincidental--though I do like Lady GaGa, for what it's worth. Kanye West and Jay-Z had me giggling incessantly with their choice to name their collaboration after the place I think most of their music belongs: the toilet. Kanye, sheesh. The only dork on this planet who could make me consider listening to Taylor Swift just because I think he's a scumbag.
     Anyway, I'm mostly a rock dude. This isn't exclusively a rock list, but that's where I come from in the first place. I've heard that rock has been getting pretty mellow, and based on my list I have to agree. We're due for a revolution, though. Some kinda 1991-esque shaking off of all this Rihanna and Bieber glut. Here's hoping the Mayans were just predicting Grunge Part 2.
     For my money--thrones and Glee compilations aside--2011 was a fantastic year in music, much better than 2010 and easily as good as 2009, which I thought was one of those 1977/1994 once-in-a-generation lightning blasts. So much good music, in fact, that I'm breaking with tradition. I'm going to list the good and great albums first (and for the first time ever I'm going to tell you what I consider the best album of the year, plus some honorable mentions.) I'm also going to give you a list of other albums, the lessers I encountered, shall we say. Some were okay, some were disappointing. I'm not saying they were all bad, necessarily, but they just weren't what I thought they would be. Except for the unforgivable Black Keys and Dream Theater. Th'hell, guys, th'hell?
     Onward:

The Good and Great of 2011

The Best Album of 2011: 
Collider by the Sam Roberts Band.

This was honestly a bit of a surprise. His last album was good, but had that feel of the slow slide down after two brilliant first albums. It happens. A band knocks it out of the park once, twice, misses a step with their third, and then for the rest of their career just sort of mails them in. So, imagine my delight when this gem showed that Sammy-Boy not only still has his chops, but is also willing to use them on all new meat. (I don't understand idiomatic language well enough to know if I mixed m'metaphors there). Still firmly a folk-rock act, SRB throws some stellar work on here featuring unusual time signatures, some horn sections, and good ol' rock outs.

Choice track: Yikes this is a hard one. I hope the rest of this list doesn't take me so long to find that one song, that beautiful image. I'm gonna give the nod to the head-bobber "Let It In," but please don't lead that to cause you to ignore the opening gem "The Last Crusade."


Honorable Mention 1: Nine Types of Light by TV on the Radio

This was a trend for me this year: a band that's been around for years that I've never totally appreciated. Man, am I glad I picked this sucker up. This was my favorite wake-up album of the summer. Nice and mellow, yes, but also gets you singing along to the "Oo-oo-oos" in the confusing opener "Second Song." This was one of the most fun albums I heard this year.

Choice track: Yeah, let's go with that one. "Second Song."


Honorable Mention 2: The Social Network Soundtrack by Trent Reznor and some dude named after Scout's dad in To Kill a Mockingbird (but I file it under Nine Inch Nails)


If you've followed Trent lately, he's been a little less angry and a little more experimental with sound, even letting his supermodel wife sing on an album in a Yoko-esque move that I also file under NIN. In fact, if you've listened to Reznor's instrumental Ghosts I-IV, you've got a good sense of what this album is about. Some of the same arrangements appear on this as on Ghosts, which should have compromised Reznor's chances of winning the Oscar for Best Original Score, but it didn't. (Shh.) Certainly a case where the music is vastly better than the film it was recorded for.

Choice Track: This is an album to listen to late at night, all at once. It's not about single tracks. But if you have to get an appetizer, try out "In Motion."


Honorable Mention 3: Sigh No More by Mumford and Sons

Yes, it's two years old. However, I, like many, many North Americans, did not discover this stellar UK folk group until 2011. So sue us. Yes, you knew about them first. Congrats, you're smart or something. Sorry that I have kids and a job and so if I hear something, sometimes it's not on its release date. It's a little formulaic, yes, with nearly every song starting as a soft ballad until beating itself into a banjo-friendly folk frenzy, and yes, there's a lot of singing the unusual "har" syllable, but this is good, uplifting music. I have not tired of this at all yet. Good music, and happy.

Choice track: "The Cave" is my favorite sing-along of the year.


Honorable Mention 4: King of Limbs/Supercollider &the Butcher/ The Daily Mail &Staircase by Radiohead

When sat next to In Rainbows (and its collection of bonus tracks), King of Limbs is a little disappointing. However, it's still Radiohead doing what they do best, with simplified sounds and complex drum tracks, understated guitar work, and great lyrics. They took a lot of heat for this one, mostly because everyone but me and the missus doesn't like trees I figure, but I've got to say following up In Rainbows was a near impossible task for anybody but the band who overpowered OK, Computer with Kid A. My only real complaint is it's far too short, but this was somewhat improved by the four extras songs they released as the year wore on.

Choice track: And it's one of these non-albums I like the best. "Supercollider."


Honorable Mention 5: Songbook by Chris Cornell

This is me eating some crow. A big Soundgarden and Audioslave fan, me, the recent performances of Cornell's I'd seen on TV and online had caused me to declare that he was washed up, that his voice was not up to the nickname he'd once earned as "The Robert Plant of Grunge." Okay, I don't know if anyone besides me ever called him that. Point is, I'm sorry. Dude can still sing. This collection of live acoustic performances from his recent tour has proven that he has come through his many transitions of the past decade and is still one of the most talented post-Seattle musicians going. I lucked onto this thing, and it was one of the most pleasant surprises of my year.

Choice track: Hear what he does on the stripped-down Audioslave rocker "Doesn't Remind Me."

Let's pause for moment to consider that three of Canada's best guitarists re-formed their blues fusion bands . . .

A. The Ground Cries Out by Jeff Martin/777

In March, I saw him in a teeny auditorium in Airdrie, playing this new album with a new band that, like all of his stuff since The Tea Party, sounds just like The Tea Party. In November, I saw him at Flames Central with the reunited Tea Party, playing mostly the same set lists as ten years ago and promising a new album in 2012. Sorry Jeff and Stu, but Jeff Martin was The Tea Party, and this album (his third solo-ish venture) shows it. He's a bit of a douche, sure, but Jefft Martin plays mean-ass guitar, and is one of the more philosophical songwriters in our nation's history.

Choice track. "The Cobra." Yes, it's about sex. Whaddya expect, it's Jeff Martin.

B. Revolution Per Minute by Big Sugar

Apparently Reggae is like the red onion in the fusion-sound salad, because they've always sampled it in the past but on this disc it's all I can taste. I mean, this is BIG Sugar, the loudest band I ever saw live. Gordie Johnson could make a six-string roar and introduced a lot of us to the purity of the blues. This is a fun album, sure, and I throw it on a lot because it's got great melodies for which to make my kids breakfasts in the morning. There, you hear that? MELODIES! The guitar, the Big Sugar sound, has taken a bit of a back seat to all out Marley-channeling. It's good, it's solid, but if you like Big Sugar for the reasons you should, it'll surprise you.

Choice track: "Roads Ahead."

C. No Bad Days by Wide Mouth Mason

Yay, Saskatoon! What a year for your bands! I thought these guys broke up. What, they did? And Gordie Johnson is playing bass for them? Then they toured with Big Sugar and Gordie played the whole shows for both bands? What, was he worried Jeff Martin was showing him up, work-ethic and band-compromise wise? Hmm, maybe that's why the guitar is so toned-down on BS's own release, because Gordie was too damn tired to solo. Or maybe because Shaun Verrault is intimidating, because that young lad is the best Canadian blues guitarist this side of Colin James. This is probably the most overlooked album of the year you need to hear.

Choice track: "Only the Young Die Good"


The Rest of the Good

Bon Iver by Bon Iver

Here's another of those groups I've heard about for a long time that I finally decided to get into. It's maybe a sign that it's a touch mellow for me that the best track is the one where they rock out a little, but this is good late night music. And I mean that in the 30-something sitting in your chair reading a book at 11:30 sense, not the dorm room after the bar sense.

Choice track: "Perth"


Metals by Feist

My, I guess I'm feeling mellow. Okay, it's not The Reminder, but it doesn't fall that short of it. It is what you have come to expect from this talented former Calgarian. Clever lyrics, one of the only good whisper voices in the game, and it's something you don't get in trouble for listening to when your wife's in the room. She has some of the best song titles out there, too.

Choice track: I've only had this album a little while, but I like "The Bad in Each Other" thanks to Newsboy.


James Blake by James Blake

This is part of the Dean trilogy. Three albums (the other two were Mumford and Sons and Fleet Foxes) that were introduced to me by my pal Dean on a visit to Seattle. This is by far the weirdest, but I like it. Even much more than Radiohead, this is an acquired taste. It sounds really good on high-quality bass systems, or expensive headphones. He does some weird stuff with his voice, but it all works. In this age of minimalism (where combining the White Stripes and Black Keys all you get is ONE full keyboard), this one works.

Choice track: The improperly-conjugated "I Never Learnt to Share" will give you a proper sense of his shiver-inducing simplicity.

So Beautiful or So What by Paul Simon

Yeah, I have Graceland, but this is the first Paul Simon album I ever went out for. Yeah, forty years into his career. Yeah, I know he's talented, but this is my mom's music. But my mom has good taste. I saw him perform last spring on Saturday Night Live, and I was stunned at how unbelievably refreshing his songwriting is, and he's been doing it since the 60s! It also doesn't hurt that he surrounds himself with some of the best musicians he can find (any Paul Simon album is a lesson in bass guitar). Some of the best selection of sounds, that is the actual composition of music, all year.

Choice track: "Rewrite"


Learn and Burn by the Sheepdogs

I've already written about these guys: http://vikingpaul.blogspot.com/2011/09/this-whole-sheepdogs-thingy.html It's a cool enough album with amazing dual-harmonic soloing and these funny little transition mini-songs.

Choice track: "I Don't Know." It's the song.


21 by Adele

I do not care if you're sick of hearing about her, she's amazing. My GAWD what a voice. And what fantastic arrangements! Blues, R and B (the good kind, not the booty kind), and the kind of vocals that make you wonder why anyone listens to Kei$ha.

Choice track: "Rumour Has It." Yeah, I know how good "Rolling in the Deep" is, but "Rumour" here needs to be concentrated on to listen to. Listen to how those tracks are used. Two vocal layers "Oo"ing, the drums, the lead vocals, then the bass. Wow, what she can do with layering.

Bad As Me by Tom Waits

Again, never bought anything by him before (no, not even Mule Variations). Much more aware of his work than I was with Bon Iver or TV on the Radio, but still hadn't taken the time to actively listen. He's like scotch. You've gotta be in the mood, but, son, if you're in it, there's not much better than a dram. That voice, those thumping sounds that pass for rhythm. Pure passion.

Choice track: "Hell Broke Luce"

Love Pt. 2 by Angels & Airwaves.

I still haven't seen the movie because I'm waiting until m'boy Arjay has a free night, but the second half of this "soundtrack" is as good as the first. A&A is one of those rare bands (Audioslave was the only other one I could think of) I like better than the original. When I heard Blink-182 was back together singing its "I wish I was 19 forever" nonsense rock, I thought this stuff was gone for good. Thanks A&A, for still pumping out good tunes. Hope the movie is worth seeing.

Choice track: "Saturday Love"

How to Train Your Dragon  and Rio soundtracks by John Powell

A year ago I had no idea who this composer was, and I listen to a lot of movie scores. Why do I even have these? My kids. I watch these movies with my kids. HTTYD struck me as good enough to buy after seeing it, but Rio has to be mentioned just because it is in the van. And it was one of the first things our 1 1/2 year old could sing. "Rio, Riiiiiiooooo." Every damn time we get in the van.

Choice tracks: HTTYD: "Test Drive". Rio: "Real in Rio." Play this last one a thousand times straight and you're in my hell. Even my dad knows the words.

PJ20 Soundtrack/Live on Ten Legs/"Ole"/Fan Club Holiday Single by Pearl Jam

What a year for these boys. Yes, I'm a fanboy, but I had to make note of the amount of good music (much of it live) my boys have been churning out after twenty years. Awesome, just awesome. And if "Ole" is any indicator of the new album, things are gonna be just fine in 2012. Oh, and see the movie.

Choice track: I dig the cover of Neil Young's "Walk With Me" performed with Neil Young on PJ20.

The Meh
They don't all suck. In fact, some are okay--they just fell way short. You disappoint me, I don't put your picture. That's the rule.

Helplessness Blues by Fleet Foxes
A lot of people like these guys. I don't not. I just don't like the whole Beach Boys meets Simon and Garfunkel thing as much as I thought I would. Considering the number of mellow albums I was into this year, I can't totally tell ya why I found this less than foxy. Just doesn't have a sound to me.

Hope and Ruin by The Trews
This one hurt my feelings. These guys are by far one of my favorite Canadian bands, and they've run pretty parallel to Sam Roberts. Ask me which I thought likelier to produce a sub-par album, I wouldn't have chosen the Trews. This isn't good no matter how hard I want it to be. The strong vocals and guitars are still there, but after three straight albums of constant hooks, it's hard to believe they could release one with none. I just hope they have a better one in them for next time, because I won't give up on them.

Megalithic Symphony by AWOLNATION
When I heard "Sail," introduced to me by a kid I teach, I thought this was the next big thing. But the rest of the album couldn't sound less like that awesome track. Funny enough, this kid also introduced me to Owl City's one song. Shoulda seen it coming.

Ukulele Songs by Eddie Vedder
See, I can be biased! Well, no. It's still pretty good. I like every song on it, just not all in one sitting. A whole album of ukulele is a little hard take, even when delivered by my musical hero.

Revolutions Live at Wembley by Biffy Clyro
First rule of recording a live album: screw around. Don't play the songs exactly as they appear on your albums, or it's just a greatest hits. Maybe an okay thing for those of you who have never appreciated this great band before--a little boring for me.

Hot Sauce Committee Part 2 by the Beastie Boys
If you're my age, you can remember when a Beastie Boys release was the event of the year. What the hell is this thing? I got through it twice, before realizing it was only getting worse.

El Camino by The Black Keys
I have to admit that I may have been the only person who didn't think Brothers was the Second Coming, just a really good album. Still, this falls way short. No, what it does is expose this band for what they are: uncreative. Simple, repetitive sounds are only further exposed as mediocre when they are this overproduced. Oh, and fellas, a song that sounds like Anthony from the Red Hot Chili Peppers singing for the Who ("Little Black Submarines) is like musical gender confusion. Just sayin.'

And THE most disappointing album of 2011:

A Dramatic Turn of Events by Dream Theater
Okay, maybe this makes you go "Who?" If so, choose that Black Keys shitstorm as numero uno. If you do know these guys, though, follow along. I was once obsessed with this band. Their last album Black Clouds and Silver Linings was okay, but it showed that they were starting to spin their wheels a bit. Even though Mike Portnoy was my favorite member, when he left, leaving a gap in half their songwriting and taking one of the best drummers in the world, I thought Dream Petrucchi would take advantage of this and . . . well I hoped they wouldn't use the Dream Theater name anymore. But since they did, I hoped they would go in a bold new direction. This  . . . thing is nothing but a declaration that the new band has no idea where to go. Sounds like someone trying to sound like DT's first few albums. So bad, from now on I'm going to start spelling their name the Canadian way. Screw you, what remains of Dream Theatre.

There, 2011, you're assessed.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Booklist 2011

As always, I've kept a list of the books I read over the year:


January
The Top 100 Canadian Albums by Bob Mesereau
The Forest Laird by Jack Whyte
Comfortably Numb: The Inside Story of Pink Floyd by Mark Blake
The Top 100 Canadian Singles by Bob Mersereau

February
The Worst Thing She Ever Did by Alice Kuipers
Maus by Art Spiegelman
WE3 by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely
Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi

March
The White Raven by Robert Low
Sandman: Preludes and Nocturnes by Neil Gaiman
A Moveable Feast by Ernest Hemingway
Louis Riel by Chester Brown

April
A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen
The Village That Moved

May
The Wars by Timothy Findlay
The Book of Negroes by Lawrence Hill
Deathwatch by Robb White
100 Photos That Changed Canada by Mark Reid

June
The King’s Speech by Mark Logue and Peter Conradi
Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell

July
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard
Not Wanted on the Voyage by Timothy Findley

August
The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown
Flow Beyond the Weir by George Freeman
Beatrice & Virgil by Yann Martel

September
      26. The Rum Diary by Hunter S. Thompson
      27. The Music of Yes by Bill Martin

October
     28. Grunge is Dead by Greg Patro
     29. Of the Butterfly by Audrey Gene
     30. The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova

November
     31. Ottawa by James Hale
     32. Getting Things Done by David Allen
     33. Odd and the Frost Giants by Neil Gaiman
     34. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (started in July)
     35. Can’t Buy Me Love by Jonathon Gould

December
     36. John Lennon: The Life by Philip Norman
     37. The Prow Beast by Robert Low
     38. PJ20
     39. 5x1 by Lance Mercer
     40. The Sisters Brothers by Patrick deWitt

Thursday, December 1, 2011

The Thorny Beatles: How to Try to Like Your Parents' Band


                When I was sixteen I hated the Beatles. I didn’t know their music very well (though now I understand that there were a lot of songs I knew that I didn’t know were theirs), but I knew a lot of their story. It had been crammed into my head by overzealous Boomers.
                Here’s the truth about us Gen X-ers: while we were growing up, our Boomer parents and aunts and uncles and that guy with the long hair and the jean jacket who smelled funny (so damn many of them, y’see) decided to try and save us the bother of coming up with anything new through thinking for ourselves. Instead they just told us what was important culturally, politically, musically. They had some right to this opinion, because they’d had such an impact on the world culturally, politically, musically. A lot of the time, we reacted negatively to it because nobody enjoys being told that their own time is unimportant. Fair.
                The Beatles being the flagship of all things Boomer, they were easy to hate. Didn’t know much about them, but hated the patronizing lectures in which they always featured so prominently.
                Well, I’m all grown up now, and find myself reassessing old opinions with the help of my new “wisdom.” I just finished Jonathon Gould’s Can’t Buy Me Love, a meticulous and engrossing bio that puts the world’s most famous band in their context and assesses their impact on the time they were in, allowing their legacy to be one’s own decision. The book is a successful attempt to say “This is what it felt like when the Beatles were now.”
                I don’t love the Beatles, but I respect them. I see why they matter. I feel the same way about the Bible, professional soccer and Calculus.
                The Beatles are the epitome of 1960s music, inspired by 1950s music. I really don’t like 50s or 60s music. I hate the Stones, am tepid on the Beach Boys (yes, even Pet Sounds), don’t have much use for Dylan, and think Clapton leaving Cream was the best thing that happened to his career. I think it’s telling that the biggest band of the era broke up in 1970. They set the stage for the bands I like. That’s when I like the Beatles, when I hear them playing the stuff the 70s bands I like picked up and ran with. Zeppelin, YES, Rush, the Who and Pink Floyd (when each band got good), Neil Young’s best stuff--the 70s is where my tolerance of classic rock begins. When I like the Beatles, it’s when I hear the inspiration for the music I truly love, not what I feel obligated to listen to.
                However, I can’t help but be impressed by them. They were the first and most important of their kind, inspired by Elvis and Little Richard, then going on to cover so much distance in seven years that they set up the 70s. That was stunning, considering how far we had to come from “Tutti Frutti.” The Beatles shed a lot of water. They were making so much of it up as they went, inspiring styles and blending them, doing more parody than I think anyone realizes looking back, and sometimes making stupid, stupid mistakes (India: th’hell?).

                In recognizing their importance, I’d like to share not one but two lists with you regarding the Beatles. First:

Five Things I’ve Decided at Last About the Beatles

1. Almost everything before Sgt. Pepper is unlistenable. Oh, Rubber Soul and Revolver have some good moments, but those are when the boys were flexing their muscles and looking to shed their crappy mop-top roots. Sgt. Pepper, though not my personal favourite, deserves topping so many of the lists dedicated to the Greatest Albums of All Time (notably Rolling Stone’s). Without it, there would have been no Tommy, Dark Side of the Moon or American Idiot—no Thriller, Appetite for Destruction or Nevermind.

2. Let it Be is my favourite album. It’s their last, was released after they broke up, and was actually recorded before Abbey Road. It’s not most “true” Beatles fan’s favourite, and I think that’s telling because I like the Beatles when they sound the least like the Beatles.

3. Those vocals, my word. All four dudes sang. (Yes, that’s what Ringo’s doing. Singing.) And they did it very well, with tremendous harmonies backing each other up, and passion like no other group. To this day, I love watching Paul McCartney sing—he truly looks like he’s convincing you of what he’s saying, and that he loves every melody coming out. He and Lennon, with Harrison’s help, complimented each other very, very well. They were a pop band, and pop is about hooks. They had ‘em. And I don’t fault them for their catchiness, even when yeah-yeah-yeahing through “She Loves You.”

4. I’m a Paul McCartney fan. Harrison is second. I had thought that John Lennon was my guy, seeing as who he became in the 70s, politically, is most like myself. And “Imagine”—possibly the best song ever. But in the Beatles, Lennon was a confused acid-head with a whiney voice, some very weird songs, and infamously bad taste in women. And, yes, Barenaked Ladies, Yoko broke up the Beatles. McCartney’s songs are consistently my favourites. He also has wormed his way into my list of best bass players (not just for inspiration, his technique was and remains stellar). In the later years, it was he who was doing the lion’s share of the work, and he who was trying to hold the band together. Lennon was just doing drugs.

5. Even in the end and after, they liked each other. These guys were best friends, and they supported each other with a mad passion. They were always together, even for the first bit of the Ono-insanity. Watch clips of the rooftop performances for Let It Be: smiling, joking, howling approval at each other’s melodies. Letting Ringo sing. These guys loved each other. They told people—and call me a modern hippie, but I buy it—that all we need is love.

                Second:

The Twenty Best Beatles Songs (because I couldn’t narrow it to ten; they are the Beatles, after all)

20. “All Together Now” Awesome throw away from the Yellow Submarine Soundtrack. Go find it.
19. “Nowhere Man” A capella Beatles intro? Gets better from there.
18. “Yesterday” First of the best of the McCartney ballads.
17. “A Little Help From My Friends” Yeah, Ringo, that’s how you had a career. Decent drummer, though. Underrated.
16. “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” Dumb lyrics, but it’s one of George Harrison’s best contributions.
15. “Free as a Bird” Take a Lennon solo and have the other three work on it fifteen years after he dies, and it was where I first got intrigued. I saw the video in 1995 with my mom, her explaining all the references. It’s a great song and marks the beginning of my interest in the band.
14. “Helter Skelter” Charles Manson and U2 aside, it’s a great guitar song.
13. “Day in the Life” One of their most critically-lauded tunes. It’s a gooder.
12. “Two of Us” Let it Be’s opener sets the tone for an album that triumphs with the last track (#1 on my list).
11. “All You Need is Love” It’s that good an anthem, and foreshadowed Lennon’s later greats like “Imagine” and “Give Peace a Chance.” Simple is good sometimes (see #2).
10. “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” No, it’s not about LSD.
9. “Come Together” Rhythm section’s dream. Paul and Ringo, bravo.
8. “Let it Be” I’ve cried listening to this.
7. “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away” So good Eddie Vedder covered it.
6. “Yellow Submarine” Ringo’s best. Inane, brilliantly so.
5. “I’ve Just Seen a Face” Manic pace for a love song.
4. “We Can Work it Out” Chorus is among their best.
3. “Day Tripper” The first of their great guitar riffs. I’d like their early stuff more if it was all like this.
2. “Hey Jude” A song with five minutes of na-na-na can still make me smile whenever I hear it. This is my kids’ favourite Beatles tune.
1. “Get Back” The Beatles sounding less Beatle-y, and a sign that I like them best for what they inspired.  

A band so good, they could be forgiven for “The Long and Winding Road.” Utter garbage. 

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Drinking and Driving: A Tradition of Albertan Stupid


            I have to say, I kinda like this new premier. Maybe not the “red Tory” I supported the most in the PC leadership race, but I approve of Alison Redford. She sure has her work cut out for her, though. She’s a woman with power in one of the most conservative (read: redneck) parts of the country. She believes in funding and supporting education and health care—two issues her predecessors couldn’t see around the front side of Big Oil’s hips to have a look at. She made election promises and has already kept a few (just like the feds, only without the horror).
            The one that has grabbed my full-on support, as well as made me think about how I live my own life, is Bill 26, which looks to “give teeth” to Alberta’s laws fighting drinking and (as opposed to strictly “drunk”) driving. This won’t just see people punished for blowing over the legal limit. If passed, the bill we see penalties for blowing between .05 and .08, including vehicle seizures of up to a month.
            Rage, outcry. I imagined a bunch of stumbly, flannel-clad redeyes standing in Edmonton with “Occ-hicc-uppy the Legishlatshure” scrolled on the inside of beer cases.
            This feels like me swimming upstream again, but I’m all for Bill 26. I don’t see the logic in opposing something that’s designed to make us more responsible and as a result save lives.
            You shouldn’t drink AT ALL and then operate a motor vehicle, you just shouldn’t.
            First thing that comes up is the issue of how inebriated a person can be after one, or two, or if they’ve eaten, or over a few hours. I’ll admit to being prone to this type of thinking myself in the past. Recently, I’ve been educating myself on how little alcohol we need to dramatically affect our inhibitions, reaction times and judgment. It’s frightening what I thought I knew. Too many social drinkers base whether they can drive on how they feel, in a state of mind where the first thing to go is their ability to competently judge how they feel. That is some scary stuff.
            Bill 26 would be a good change. As transportation minister Ray Danyluk has said, “It is designed to change behavior,” and we need it, fundamentally.
            Impaired driving is such a masochistic, macho-istic matter of pride that those who choose to do it in a serious state of drunkenness should lose the right to both, driving AND drinking. Can you imagine, a punishment that doesn’t just take away repeat offenders’ right to drive, but their right to drink? “Sorry, sir, we can’t serve you here. You’ve nearly killed people.” Treat ‘em like sex offenders, watch ‘em smarten up.
            Those who oppose Bill 26—much like those who oppose the Long Gun Registry—grasp at straws of tradition and police bias and a cluttered judicial system or the old chestnut of “personal freedom.” I think what always offends my libertarian friends is my belief that if your behavior puts others at risk, the government should have the right and the power to control your behavior. Opponents of the bill moan and wail and basically ignore the common sense of this: if you drink—at all—you should not drive.
            The argument coming from restaurant and pub owners is that this will hurt their business—which makes them look like pariahs, I must say. Your bottom line is worth more than people’s lives? How Albertan.
            The sensible thing would be for proprietors to EMBRACE a designated driver program. Saskatchewan has (or once had) a program where the DD would wear a green wristband and get free Coke or coffee. (I am NOT saying SK has a better approach to drinking and driving. It’s much worse there, and Alison Redford is showing she’s far more progressive than Brad Wall). Kick it up a notch, Albertan-providers-of-spirits: offer DDs a 15% discount on appetizers, or give them a coupon for a free drink on their next visit when they’re not the DD. Get the drivers to support you, to bring their drinking friends, to encourage everyone to pit in and spend money so they can enjoy their hot wings. You will NOT operate at a loss in these conditions.
            The issue of alternative forms of transportation is a valid argument, sadly. In Calgary especially, the sprawl has outstripped a pathetic public transportation system, and even a short cab ride is over $20. Here as well, I think the watering holes should get on at the ground floor. Purchase taxi vouchers that give a 30% discount on a ride to tables spending over $50 (call the taxi yourself, of course). At $8 a pint in Calgary, you can be sure no one will be at serious risk of alcohol poisoning with those numbers.
            This bill is logical. If you’re gonna drive, don’t drink. Any argument to the contrary is a hair-splitting attempt made to avoid doing the right thing. I applaud the Redford Government for Bill 26, and I sincerely hope it passes. Regardless, I intend to modify my own behavior to suit it.
           
           

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

The Mock-uppation Movement


                You’re standing in line for a coffee. The guy at the front of the line is told that one cup will run $8.
                “What?” he says. “Why so much?”
                The clerk just shrugs and smiles a little.
                “What about people who can’t afford $8. They just can’t have any?”
                The clerk just shrugs again.
                “Is there a reason you’re charging so much?”
                The clerk indicates the long line behind the man.
                The complainant turns and looks at the people behind him. “Don’t you all feel this is a little much? $8 for a coffee.”
                Another person further down the line starts yelling and shaking his fist. He agrees with the man at the front. He knocks over a magazine stand and utters a few profanities.
                Most of the rest of those in line roll their eyes, study their shoes, mutter something about “whackos and whiners.” A few insist on getting the line moving because they can afford an $8 coffee, and to hell with anyone who can’t—that’s their problem.
                The guy at the front tries to talk to some of the others, to tell them they should be asking why it’s so much, to refuse to buy it until prices lower, but mostly, they shift past him, pay the full price, and take pride in the fact that they’re on their way to work and not wasting time complaining.
                “There was this nutcase at the cafe,” one says to his coworkers in the cubicle jungle. He means the guy who knocked over the magazine stand, not the guy who was at the front of the line.
               
                I’ve been very glad to see how much press the Occupy Movement has received, because at least it’s getting out there. Sure, it took mainstream media a long time to get on board, and the vast amount of what reporting I have heard has not been able to hide its bias—or outright criticism—but at least the critical thinker can make a decision on the messages he or she hears.
                Sadly, I’ve seen far too many people treating the Movement with apathy or open hostility. I’ve found it that much more frustrating because many of those criticising it claim to support many of its messages. Obviously the Movement has come to be about the individuals in it rather than the group intent—too bad.
                Everyone has a right to free speech, which is okay when you’re spouting your opinions about hockey teams or sexy superstars on online media, but not if it’s addressing an issue that might make you squirm when you think about how you live your life. Good messages make us uncomfortable, but the immature person avoids the message and focuses on the little criticism he has for the behaviour of a select few. Concentrating all of his focus on this, he can say things like, “I get what they’re trying to say, but this one guy downtown was [insert criticism of distracting behaviour here] so I’ve found a reason to say the whole Movement is flawed.”
                The Right (especially its media) gets openly hostile, calling the protesters lazy, spoiled Arts students who just don’t have the gumption to get a real job and make real money. These people are the most forgivable, really, because they live in that sad, sad existence I’ve spoken of before where the pursuit of money for its own sake is considered a reasonable existence. Pity them. Their minds aren’t going to be changed.
                The 1% is of course muddying the issue by focusing on “demands.”
                “What do you people want? What is the result of this you’d like to see?” The 1%, used to dealing with labour unions, want to know what cheque they can write to end this little dilemma, or what single idea they can ridicule. They don’t get that the Occupiers are seeking to educate, to gather the strength of the remaining voices that want to be heard and make one last push against greed.
                The remaining media always view protests that don’t involve striking workers as quaint. “Oh look, they’re singing.” There’s always some panel that discusses the matter and at some point, someone asks why they’re protesting if things are good.
                Things are not good, and they’re at risk of getting very, very bad. These folks are attempting to highlight that which you are trying to ignore: we can’t go on like this, politically, economically, ecologically. You need to stop trusting the people who are getting rich off of your failure to care.
                Those who mock the protesters—or who find the little examples they can criticize so they needn’t listen to the overall messages—are doing so to deal with their 9-5 “go to work, buy stuff, go home, watch stuff” lifestyle. By criticizing those who care—the people, not the message—they can justify not caring. Fighting for the need to remain lazy and uncaring is starting to make you look like sheep.
                 I like hockey—I don’t write it off altogether because I think Don Cherry should be taken off the air. I like movies—I don’t write off Hollywood because they make sequels to bad flicks. I like coffee—I don’t write off the drink just because I don’t like Starbucks’ business model. We can choose what aspects of the message apply to us. I have friends in the camps and friends in the towers and I can see things I disagree with in both. I have chosen what I want to think based on what I’ve heard. I have not decided the whole group—either group—is a wash because of one representative.  
                It appears that those who claim to care are so very desperate to find a way to hate the Movement, you’ve got to question if they DO care. Basing your whole understanding of a movement on the actions of one person is like judging the whole of literature by Danielle Steele.
                Capitalism is and always has been a faulty system. The desperation of those in the 1% to get us to keep buying and to keep ignoring the facts and to keep thinking we haven’t got any sort of power to threaten their spot at the top of the pyramid is sad. You do not have to take part, you do not have to care. But you sure as hell should think for a second about the greater objectives at hand when you don’t like the look of the kid who got in the way of your latte purchase.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The Gun Registry: Such a Big Deal?


                Say what I will about the Harper Government, it’s fulfilling election promises. The Wheat Board is getting axed, arts and culture funding will dry to a dribble, the CBC could be on the outs, a brutal crime bill has been slapped down—why, the only thing Stephen and his acolytes won’t address is abortion, and a lot of folks voted for he and some of his formerReformers on that and that alone. He’s doing every nasty thing he said he would. Can’t fault the guy for honesty, at least. I just wonder if his ultra-right supporters will be happy with the next 4.5 years seeing as he’s blown his political wad in the first sitting. Of course, one of Harper’s biggest annoyances has been the Long Gun Registry, and now that he’s got his majority, it’s finally on the way out.
                Only a matter of time, I guess. What’s more, now that old Stevie can ram whatever he wants through the house, well sir, he’s not stopping at eliminating the Registry—despite the pleas of law enforcement officers—he’s going to delete all existing data on those registered already—despite same. The more vocal gun owners are saying he should relax restrictions on hand guns, submachine guns, bazookas, thermal detonators (depending on the hue of the neck).
                My question: Was it really such a big deal, registering guns?
                Let me say that I see the criticism of the Long Gun Registry. Yes, it’s been expensive registering what were mostly law-abiding citizens. Yes, that cash could have been better spent on enforcement chasing down the baddies who don’t register their guns anyway. But why the great outcry against it? Harper’s wasted more money beating protestors and buying shiny jets than was wasted on the Gun Registry.               
                What was the hubbub? Was it all just a Charleton Heston “cold dead hands” sort of thing? “The government ain’t got no rights in our bedrooms or near our gun racks.” Was that all? I’ve never heard a better argument than that.
                My Dad has a few guns. He registered them. I helped. It was in 1996 or so. Didn’t seem like a big deal, and we were ventilating our weight in gophers later that day. Responsible gun owner followed the law, life went on. Far as I know, no satellite was trained on our house after that.
                My feeling has always been that you can own a tiger, you can cage a tiger, and you can keep diligent surveillance on the tiger. But it’s still a tiger. If every failsafe you have in place somehow falls, it’s a loose tiger, and a loose tiger is a scary thing—always.
                You could be safe, your guns could be safe (ish), your guns could only be used for sport (I struggle with that concept), and they could safely be locked away. They’re still guns, though. They still have only one purpose. I think where I’ve always differed from law-abiding gun owners who decried the Registry is that I’ve thought, even if these aren’t the guns killing people, there’s nothing wrong with limiting guns. They’re for killing. Fewer of them, and more control of them always felt like the right thing to do to me.
                In the US, gun crime is common. I’ve discussed this before. http://vikingpaul.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html
                More guns means the potential—potential—for more violence. Nobody would be comfortable with a dozen caged tigers on their block. I’d rather they were gone. Limiting the potential of violence is a no-brainer.
                You need to register your car. It’s dangerous even if you’re the most responsible driver in the world, and a car has more than one purpose. A gun does not.
                Regardless, I think the LGR was an expensive failure. I do think the basic intent (this is not praise for the Chretien Government) was sound. However, we should limit crime through prevention and education, not through brutalizing petty criminals and allowing the populace to arm itself with all the ease of a Texas wedding. I’ve never understood the rabid opposition to it, though, despite the cost, when law enforcement officials—the people who are the experts on firearms usage—say it has helped them.
                Has it really only been about making someone sign a piece of paper saying they own a shotgun?

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Top Ten Reasons Pearl Jam's Greatness Ensures Some Folks Will Remain Haters

My favorite band turned twenty this month, and it was celebrated through a tour, a documentary film, and the announcement of a new album. Yet, there are some that feel the need to hate, and to always hate, what anyone else likes. Sometimes valid points are made, but sometimes good journalists sound like that jerk in the back of Chem class who just targeted what the rest of us dug and hated it:
http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/music/music-previews/backspacing-alt-rocks-deletion-8069/

It may be true that you should never write about someone you love or someone you hate, but then most opinions would be tepid and dull. Here, then, is a top ten list with a ridiculously long title.

10. Ten. It must suck to be permanently judged for something you did in your early twenties. But never mind the new Conservative crime bill. Ten was and remains a great album, one of the best and most important of the 1990s. The grunge faction (whoever the hell they were) felt it was too commercial. Because playing solos and having more than simple chord progressions is considered "commercial"? 'Scuse me, Mr. Cobain? Did you actually watch the video to "Heart Shaped Box?" I don't feel this is the best album of the band's career, but it is the decider. If you define them by Ten, no matter that it sold a gazillion copies, then you don't know much about them as a band.

9. They've stayed together and no one has died. If Kurt Cobain and Layne Stayley were alive today, their bands would likely not be together anymore. Nirvana and Alice in Chains were built around too simple a formula, and even some of the greater ones like Soundgarden eventually toppled. Yes, AiC has a new singer and Soundgarden is sort of back together (when Pearl Jam will loan Matt Cameron on drums), but these are reunions. The original magic is over.
     Bands built around young men's angst don't have anywhere to go when young men become older men with their own kids. Pearl Jam was built to last from step "Once." As with the other greats, they evolved, they played what suited them--and still do--in the period of life they were living.
     Aside from Andy Wood, the original singer of Mother Love Bone (the ur-Pearl Jam), they have been exceptional among the bands of their time and place for the lack of stupid death surrounding them. And further to that . . .

8. None of them has been in rehab. That's not entirely true. They've had their issues. Mike McCready  apparently got addicted to painkillers (when he was in actual pain), and Eddie smokes and also consumes gallons of wine on stage every night. They've got their addictions, but at no point in their twenty years have they had that Aerosmith stage that they barely survived. Jeff Ament was straight-edged for a while, and in the Crowe documentary, Jeff says that he wishes he could show anyone starting heroin a picture of Andy Wood as he died. Heroin use defined the Seattle movement, as acid defined the 60s, and cocaine the 80s, but these guys haven't got that particular monkey. There's no scary "I kicked it" story. Lack of drugs is boring in music, I guess.

7. Music videos? They famously quit doing them after "Jeremy." Then in '98 they released the animated "Do the Evolution." In the last years of the era where music videos still actually mattered, they steered clear of the medium. Then, they started releasing a whole bunch of basic band-playing-in-front-of-camera-or-crowd videos after 2002's Riot Act, after the music video ship had long since sailed. They are much more like their 1970s idols than their peers, for their success has come from steady albums, strong support from and of their fan base, constant touring, and radio circulation, rather than singles and videos.

6. Their philanthropy. I'll never be a big U2 fan, but I love what they do outside of music. I once was a Metallica fan, but I hate who they are offstage. Being a good citizen doesn't make your music better, but if I love your music, it's sweeter to know that you work endlessly for charities and constantly thumb your nose at conservatives and capitalists.

5. Your mom doesn't hate them. They rock, but they also have ballads. They drink and curse, and they play charity concerts. Their average set list sees covers of CCR, Neil Young, The Who and Iggy and the Stooges. Even at my age, far too many people I know base the value of what they listen to by whom it pisses off. (That's somewhat hypocritical. If Stephen Harper declared ire for any band I'd buy their catalogue tomorrow.) They're a nice band. They love their fans, do everything they can at live shows to make it live up to our expectations. My mom thinks they're pretty swell for it.

4. Their music isn't all that woeful. Oh sure, in their youth they had reams of songs about dead dads and abusive childhoods, but their most meaningfully negative vibes like "Betterman," "Bu$hleaguer" and "Even Flow" tend to be more ethically and politically motivated than mopey. They want us to be better people.
     Most music reviewers and many music fans have issues with happy bands. YES has always struggled with credibility because their lyrics are as positive as their moniker. There's no room for positivity in rock music! Pearl Jam are nice guys who love their fans, they're proactive and they write songs like "The Fixer," "Down" and "Wishlist" that are about all things good, and most rock critics just hate goodness.

3. They weren't really all that grunge. I've been skirting this one, but I hate the term "grunge." I hate the Seattle Underground myth. I hate that--for many fans of the sound of that time--the bands were only good before they hit, and Pearl Jam was a corporate (?!) creation no better than a hair band and terribly inferior to its predecessors Green River and Mother Love Bone. I hate that there was a feud between Cobain and Vedder because Cobain criticized them for not being grunge enough. Apparently, "grunge enough" ends with a shotgun blast, so who needs it?
     Grunge is a New York Times name for a rock movement. Pearl Jam was and is a rock band that once wore flannel and Doc Martins. They got big. Success is negatively correlated to popularity in the underground, to being truly grunge-y. Nirvana's survival as a grunge band came, ironically, through suicide.
     Pearl Jam wasn't all that grunge because grunge is impossible to define and remains a stupid term to use to try to encapsulate a musical culture. Pearl Jam was successful, rock, from Seattle (basically), and not willing to be a part of the corporate music machine. Take whatever grunge you will from that.

2. They haven't had a hit single in years, but they still sell. "World Wide Suicide" hit Number 1 on the US Modern Rock charts in 2006, and they've had a lot of #1s and #2s on those hair-split charts (Post Modern Easy Listening Rock Chart), but I think it's fair to say that their last big hit was the 1999, tongue-in-cheek cover of "Last Kiss." Yet they still play to packed stadiums. This is tied to my ultimate point, in that they have a staying power that few bands do. They are a slow-burning fire. They write albums and they tour non-stop. They aren't heavily concerned with singles, but they receive a lot of radio play, even of the recent entries to their catalogue.

1. Greatest Band Ever. Oh, sit down. It's a discussion, not a declaration. It's the stupidest argument in the universe. Want to keep it short? Fine: the Beatles, with Zeppelin a close second.
     Of the bands still going, it's still a long and pointless debate. U2, the Beastie Boys, Neil Young, Aerosmith, Metallica, the Who, Radiohead, the Eagles, CSN--the "old reliables" list goes on and on, and music is far too subjective and personal for a winner to ever be crowned. Pearl Jam, though, is on the list of considerables. They're steady, have never gone away, and many of those who don't love them admit a grudging respect.
     Let's just say, in a very tepid and nice way, that Pearl Jam is one of  the greatest bands ever.