In recent discussions with my close personal friend @GaryEdgar, we both agreed that an entire generation of Canadian bands just missed out on the Internet ubiquity of the 2000s onwards. This made us sad as many of these outfits entertained us for good portions of our 10s and 20s.
It’s not as if having a strong web presence is some sign of righteousness for our local recording artists. However, there is a risk of (partially) losing these acts to history if fresh online content is not created pronto to preserve their legacies/”legacies”.
We’re doing our part via this carefully-constructed PDF document. It contains a transcript of a Gmail chat between Gary and myself on our individual CanCon memories from Burlington, Thornhill and beyond.
Much has been made of Black Panties, the lewd new album title from R. Kelly. Come to think of it, much has been made of R. Kelly in general, the lewd not-new guy.
Many feel that R. is mentally unstable or wildly creative or both. His benchmark Trapped in the Closethip-hopera is largely to credit/blame for this opinion. However, it is my belief that this effort should be filed into history under the “widely talked about but seldom heard” category. Not unlike the Stooges’ poorly-received 2007 comeback record The Weirdness or non-traditional output from mega-stars such as the Flaming Lips, Beck or Rick Ross.
I don’t think anybody actually listened to the entirety of Trapped in the Closet, much less understood it. Upon learning about it, most would assign the “you so crazy” tag and then move on, maybe to joke or rant about it later.
There is a tendency to review this kind of art largely based on what’s been said about it rather than, I dunno, actually listening to the songs. It’s an inherent laziness that many music fans (and people, in general) have. A more recent example: hot young buzz band HAIM are similar to the Bangles since it’s a bunch of cute girls playing guitars. When (obviously) in reality, the true equivalent is the Pretenders in sound and Hanson in hair and face. I repeat: obviously.
Anyway, I digress. R. has made some “interesting” choices in his lifetime, no doubt. Namely this and also this. However, purely as a recording artist, his output has been fairly linear and exceedingly sane for somebody who has been affixed with the problematic label by far too many observers. Trapped in the Closet took some choices and fell flat/weird but in the broader context, it’s a relatively small part of the R. Kelly experience.
For fans of mainstream R&B or Top 40 or 1990s music, R. is just a superstar who made some bad decisions. Not unlike Michael Jackson or Snoop Dogg or whoever. However, R. seems to also be regarded by a totally different segment as something of a punch line-cum-savant who releases his post-Trapped output somewhere between a “come-on” and a “Come on!?!”. Note: there’s a third entendre I could probably throw in here but I won’t for the sake of good taste and SEO. Example.
His guest appearance at the 2013 edition of the Coachella Festival didn’t help diminish this image issue that exists between legit R. Kelly fans and thousands of R. Kelly observers. Taking the stage alongside headliners Phoenix, R. plowed his way through a mashed-up version of his smash “Ignition” as a sea of music fans and corporate guests looked on. Blog coverage was predictably unoriginal in its description of the #amazingness with plenty of implications that his appearance was some kind of grand self-aware gesture by R. himself.
R. was taking the stage on THEIR turf so thusly, he must be adhering to the same class of groupthink that most Coachella attendees subscribe to.
Right? No. Not right.
It would be narrow minded to think R. would think in these terms or possibly even be aware that this kind of contemplation exists at all. He’s sold 50-million albums. Why would his perspective align with a bunch of bloggers looking for bragging rights and few Instagram shots?
Personally, I doubt he gave it much thought beyond the notoriety and the pay cheque.
Smash cut to a few months later and R. was brought in to c0-headline the 2013 Pitchfork Music Festival in his hometown of Chicago. The move seemed to be a bit of a hedge for the Pitchfork folks and perhaps a sign of concern that a traditional “indie” headliner might not draw (fellow headliners Björk and Belle and Sebastian were the counterweights). Various accusations were lobbed at Pitchfork, from the increasingly-popular charge of “cultural appropriation” to the never-ending (and boring) debate about what constitutes irony. Note: we all need to recognize that irony died after 9/11, stupid.
The logic of festival organizers was somewhat sound: #1. If R. completely flopped, Pitchfork concert goers would get to witness a “stunning” train wreck that they could later tell their fellow micro-brew fans about. #2. If R. nailed it, they could, again, revel in the #amazingness and have a little social media fodder for flaunting both their exquisite taste in music festivals and their heightened (and superior) degree of cultural sensitivity.
All told, it was a complete win/lose-win/lose scenario!
#2 occurred and yadda yadda yadda, we’re now a week away (!!!) from Black Panties dropping. It’s an amusing album title but really , is it any more or less provocative than Isaac Hayes releasing an album called Black Moses or Prince releasing something (in the nude) called Lovesexy? It’s not that notable in an LOL sense and it shouldn’t be seen as the latest chapter in that fake “you so crazy” narrative.
Somehow vis-à-vis Trapped in the Closet, his legal issues and the aforementioned live appearances, R. has become positioned in part as an insane-but-lovable rascal for hipsters to feign mini-outrage over but ultimately forgive and embrace in a skewed sense of self-importance and “open-mindedness”. A small bolt to his broader, less-notable public persona and one that should cease to be interesting to anybody aside from that small circle talking amongst themselves.
MBV frontman Kevin Shields looked completely disengaged during the performance. Fellow cooer/guitarist Bilinda Butcher looked even bored-er. Speakers blared. Visuals were set to “seizure“. But reactions, energy, pulse? Nope. Just another day at the office for these two.
That’s OK.
Why do we necessarily need our musicians to look “into it”? IMHO, effort is a nice-to-have in a live setting but it’s perhaps even more impressive to see somebody create epic art with a degree of nonchalance. As was the case with MBV in Toronto. And the entire history of J Mascis playing guitar.
Aside: seeing a band look awesomely bored on-stage while making an incredible racket is another example of how contrast is an underappreciated aspect in music. For more on this genius theory, read this.
Many outfits get tagged with the “they’re awesome live” label. This can help in terms of selling tickets and moving merchandise. However, it can also act as a distraction from the actual music (i.e. art) being created. Thusly, there are some “awesome live” acts who may not get the full artistic credit they deserve based on their on-stage antics (Fucked Up, the Jesus Lizard). The end game is they may get pigeonholed by some observers alongside other acts who exist primarily as a “spectacle” rather than “recording artist” (Gwar, Monotonix) in the traditional sense.
Google nets 18,000+ results for the expression “they’re boring live” so clearly, boredom is a concern for many, many music fans. But really, it should come down to a question of expectations. It’s not really fair to the artist to expect any random concert to provide the same brand of entertainment across the board (bored?). In the case of a band like My Bloody Valentine who took a two decade break between albums, I’d be really surprised if they did appear into it. Why would anybody think otherwise? If they really wanted to play these concerts, they wouldn’t have sat out 1993-2007.
I’d argue that the only problematically “boring” concerts are when a young-ish band get massive in a hurry (i.e. the Strokes, MGMT), focus on the substances or other distractions and start mailing in performances while they’re still in the ascension phase. This seriously is the worst but these outfits are pretty easy to spot via YouTube or Reddit or countless other outlets. Do your research and buyer beware, I guess.
So My Bloody Valentine looked half asleep. I thought the concert was beyond fantastic. Fucked Up insight CONSIDERABLE moshing while their singer strangles himself with the mic cord. It’s delightful; I’ve seen them maybe 4-5 times. Again, it’s all a matter of expectations and with a slew of online resources available to give your concert going experience an anticipatory litmus test, it’s now easier that ever to vet your “entertainment” options in advance. If you have concerns…
Bonus! 10 photos of artists who are/were really good at looking bored and being awesome.
1. Bernard Sumner, New Order
2. Charlie Watts, Rolling Stones
3. Doug Martsch, Built to Spill
4. Jamie xx, the xx
5. John Entwistle, the Who
6. John Hassall, the Libertines
7. Mark Smith, Explosions in the Sky (accepting on behalf of his band’s unjust “they’re boring live” stigma)
8. Nas
9. Nate Dogg
10. Neil Tennant, Pet Shot Boys (mildly related, the track “Being Boring” is completely underrated)
This is the first thing I’ve written about it/him aside from a pair of text messages and a pair of message board comments. In short, I’ll try not to make this about me. However, I feel the need to repent since I took a bit of a dig at him mere hours before the news came down.
Sorry Lou. I still mean it but that’s not to say I wasn’t a fan.
Back story: I was chatting music with a friend over coffee last Saturday, playing the “overrated/underrated/properly rated” game. After doing a customary 10 minutes on Kraftwerk (for more details, click here), I turned my attention to Lou Reed. I don’t recall the exact context but I suggested that I didn’t think Reed belonged in the same category of songwriters as Neil Young, Leonard Cohen and Van Morrison. It’s a bit of a sloppy grouping that could be best defined as “talented and prolific songwriters who have had long careers, written tons of awesome songs and tons of other songs that are probably more ‘interesting’ than ‘good’ in the traditional sense”.
I like Lou Reed. Sincerely. Maybe even really like. However, I always got the sense that Lou Reed spent parts of his career conflicted between playing a version of “Lou Reed” as demanded by fans and critics (I think “David Bowie”, “Iggy Pop” and “Tom Waits” were, at times, similarly vexed) and just going out, playing the music and not focusing on the judgements or reactions.
In my estimation, Young, Cohen and Morrison were arguably better keeping things linear for what it’s worth… which isn’t much.
Reed’s 1989 full-length New Yorkseemed like an album, in retrospect, crafted specifically to reintroduce listeners to the critics’ “Lou Reed” after a decade of curiosities and WTF moments (case in point: “The Original Wrapper”). Even without listening to the album, the aesthetics alone beared this out. It was called simply New York. The album cover showed 2x Reeds (one smoking a cigarette and one about to kick your ass) against a wall covered with graffiti(!!!) while being flanked by street toughs(!!!) This “surly street poet” version of the REAL Lou Reed was the favourite of most listeners and New York may well have recalibrated his career and his image into eternity. I don’t think tough “Lou Reed” was REAL Lou Reed but it was the preferred version for many if nothing else.
And in general, critics gave him every benefit of the doubt. And rightfully so.
Reed would never admit it but I do think he had some heavy populist leanings and struggled with this partial desire to be a traditional rock star and celebrity. The best examples of this want may be his 1973 single “Sally Can’t Dance” (essentially the “Shiny Happy People” of Reed’s discography) and perhaps 1984’s New Sensations, an album that leading music magazine Wikipedia describes as “upbeat and fun”. Also, the effort features some weak album art.
This art-versus-art? conflict helped define Reed’s career and part of his strength was that he could normally play both sides while being beloved by most or all. Reed could swing in and out of being completely accessible and entirely dense. He was conflicted. His listeners were conflicted. But on the whole, it was always unpredictable and at times, really amazing.
So yeah, not a dig, ghost Lou.
Here are five video memories I have of Lou Reed, all of which helped shape my impression of the fella.
1. Cowboy Junkies sing “Sweet Jane”
I’m sensing I wasn’t the only suburban GTA kid who was first exposed to Reed’s music via this stellar cover. The Cowboy Junkies came crawling out of the gate and kinda owned 1988 and parts of 1989 with this stillborn take on the Velvet Underground classic. Reed himself paid homage and the Junkies ruled MuchMusic, which is incredible given un-kid-friendly this effort is. A different time, clearly. The next few years saw added Reed exposure for mainstream youth via reworkings of “Walk on the Wild Side” by A Tribe Called Quest and (uh) Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch.
2. Lou Reed sings “Dirty Blvd.”
OK, THIS was my first real exposure to tough “Lou Reed” proper as I recall “Dirty Blvd.” being in semi-heavy rotation on MuchMusic when I was 11. Initially, I thought this was Bruce Cockburn (the video was dark, it was hard to tell) and then later, I thought it was Robbie Robertson. It was very confusing. Also, this video is notable as it was shot at the peak of Reed’s worst hair phase.
3. Lou Reed sings “Vicious” (live)
It was either the solid PBS American Masters documentary or some other time capsule that showed footage of Reed during his brief early 1970s “blonde bombshell” period. Clearly influenced by the antics of his dear, dear friends Iggy Pop and David Bowie, Reed tried his hand at dancing and taking an edge of his best-known solo and group material. I dunno. I saw footage of this years ago when I was still getting a grip on his career arch and remember being really confused (and a bit uncomfortable). There was little resemblance to the stoic force who led the Velvets and to my earlier point, this is footage of a man trying something. I’m not sure what… but it’s something.
4. Chicken suit
This track from 2000’s Ecstasty is great and the video shows some rare moments of Lou levity caught on film. He ends up getting plucked a few time, perhaps symbolizing how the record industry effectively plucked his artestry? Yeah, probably not.
5. Gorillaz headline Glastonbury 2010
Reed joining the Gorillaz on-stage at Glastonbury 2010 is probably more notable for the fact it happened at all rather than for the fact it was amazing (which it wasn’t really). Reed looks tired and the song (“Some Kind of Nature”) is pretty forgettable. That being said, it’s Reed playing alongside members of Blur and the Clash for thousands of people so it’s significant purely as an “whoa” moment. Also, it is notable for the noisy distortion that opens the track and the chance to see Reed as a gorilla, which is fairly cool.
“How Soon is Now” was the song and no doubt, it left a mark. This was due in large part to Johnny Marr’s distinctively-wobbly guitar chord that basically oscillated into eternity and sounded like nothing else in popular music. Truly unforgettable.
Strangely, the song is a total island in the Smiths’ discography soundwise. It’s not jangly. It’s not snarky or glib. It is bleak. It’s confused. It’s a little bit scary. It drones in all the right ways. The video is kinda sorta perfect and in short, it’s a delight and a total classic in many respects.
Anyway: Ministry, Labatt Maxium, the Smiths… what’s the connection?
So yeah, much like the bizarre three-way dance Ministry “NWO”, Labatt Maximum and Michael Ironside, the brew crew pulled this same trick a few years earlier with our favourite troupe of Manchester mopes soundtracking.
The combination seems even more unusual in 2013 than it must’ve in 1990.
Perhaps there was a fan of Club 102 working in the Labatt marketing department during this era. Choosing tracks by Ministry and the Smiths (and the Cult) would seem to indicate as much. Whatever the case, I’m 95 per cent sure that seeing this TV commercial was the first time I had ever consciously heard the Smiths’ music. It was resonant even though I was neither a beer drinker (I was but a wee tween, after all) nor an Alexander Godunov completest. Unrelated, a Google image search of A-God shows that he had a ton of range in terms of acting, dancing and other sexy exploits and he resembled a young version of former WWE Heavyweight champion Triple H.
This commercial is ridiculous on a few levels.
Firstly, what kind of building is this? It’s either the world’s most unpopular lakeside lounge or (more likely) somewhere at Ontario Place. A-God is carrying around a crystal, which is I guess pretty cool. But the glass this establish (and I use this term loosely) provides doesn’t seem appropriate for beer consumption. A nice frosted tumbler would have been a better fit.
By the time A-God snarls, “Eeetz not ayes beeeeer” to close things out, the viewer is left with nothing but the pasty aftertaste of cliché futuristic “visions” and bad hair. Come to think of it, all three of the commercials mentioned basically took place in dark, seemingly post-apocalyptic environments. All the more reason to drink fortified beer, I suppose.
Whatever. The upshot is a variation of this product (Labatt Maximum Ice) has endured and “it does the job” if you catch my drift. Last I checked, the fantastic Imperial Library pub in downtown Toronto was still serving it in the hefty 1,183 ml. size. In general, ice beer was kind of a gimmick but I’m going to assume (hope?) it also introduced a few other Canadians to the suptuous wonders of the Smiths.
A pair of other Morrissey/Smiths’ video oddities…
Soho and their 1990 club smash “Hippychick” anyone? I could totally have my dates wrong as THIS may have been my first exposure to the Smiths. The whack Smiths/Soul II Soul mash-up (as played by members of Bow Wow Wow and the Bluetones) sounds like a terrible idea but this song is actually fairly decent and the video is a really fun time capsule of the era. This track was definitely not cool enough to be aesthetically lumped with the whole Stone Roses/Madchester thing but it was also just weird enough that it can’t justifiably be discarded to the Eurotrash compost pile (which is full of mulch and disintegrated Whigfield CDs BTW). From what I recall, this was actually a decent-sized hit in North America and was a cousin of sorts to the stuff the Timelords/KLF were doing.
One of those things I thought I imagined but apparently not. PBS seems like an odd spot for a Morrissey parody but whatever. There’s a strong message about velocity or something burried in the lyrics.
Completely Ignored 
.jpg/1024px-Bilinda_Butcher_(2008).jpg){kind=link}
