Jordan Fine

OCTOBER 20 SONGS TO LISTEN TO WHILE DOING THINGS

4. BENOIT PIOULARD - LA GUERRE DE SEPT ANS

GAZING AT JMW TURNER'S "Hannibal Crossing the Alps"

Today's entry is a little more abstract, but certainly requires a more minimal effort to put together.

My M.O. with this series is not to come up with 'Music to improve activities,' because in essence that depreciates the value of the music; a song isn't meant to be the wallpaper for your life, or the the soundtrack to your activities. Actually, my M.O is to create situations where the actions enhance the music. Listening to Kavinsky while driving certainly does enhance the drive...but it also forces you to actively listen and wonder what it is about the sonic environment that affects your space and mood. Listening to the Silvestri scoring will definitely make the sporting event more interesting. Yet it also creates a new setting for the score. While we're used to seeing the hijinx of Michael J Fox and Christopher Lloyd, now we're treated to professional athletes competing. And this alters the tone of the orchestra enough that it makes the listener wonder what it is about the tempo, harmonies, melodies and form that creates that odd sense of imposing urgency.

Thus today, we have a situation where the listener is participating in an act requiring such little effort or thought, that all the focus can be put on the song. Guerre is so close a representation of most of JMW Turner's painterly style - Pioulard's layered and looped guitar picks parallel Turners brushstroked storm. The single complex chord in Guerre parallels the brownish-complexity of the colouring of Alps. There's quite a lot to listen to, and quite a lot to look at in the painting. I'm not sure which gallery houses this piece (I would hazard a guess it is at the Tate,) but odds are you aren't near it. Do yourself a favour and find a hi-res version of it.

It is unfortunate that I can't find a YouTube or iMeem clip of the song. BUT if you haven't used your free yahoo music clip of the day, you can listen to the full song right here.

OCTOBER 16

SONGS TO LISTEN TO WHILE DOING THINGS

3. KAVINSKY - 1986

DRIVING (safer: playing a driving simulator video game)

Cars and music are an obvious marriage. Behind the wheels, you feel as though you are actively participating in a movie, with the windshield as your screen but using the steering wheel to adjust the image (kind of a frightening thought as a pedestrian.) Having good driving music on a long trip is an absolute necessity, and often the subject of discussion (violent arguments.)

Meanwhile, here you have "Kavinsky," a French electro house musician whose persona is a Testarossa-driving Zombie killed in a car-wreck in the year 1986. I think the connection is pretty self-explanatory.

[l_62bfe62576ef36d3cf6802fe3dca5ebc.gif]

(Editor's note: I have been told that the Rockstar Games people already made this connection, and included a Kavinsky song in GTA IV. Good decision.)

OCTOBER 13

SONGS TO LISTEN TO WHILE DOING THINGS

2. ALAN SILVESTRI - BACK TO THE FUTURE SCORE

WATCHING ANY SPORTING EVENT ON MUTE

The first time I discovered this was purely accidental.

Firstly, I own the original Back to the Future soundtrack on cassette tape (insert token self-depricating age joke.) I used to listen to it religiously. Because it is amazing. Beyond the standard Huey Lewis opening track, Power of Love, and the Marvin Berry (and the Starlighters) version of Earth Angel, there are some other, slightly more obscure gems: Lindsey Buckingham's Time Bomb Town and Eric Clapton's lesser-known, adult-contemporary-er hit Heaven is One Step Away. Plus the dynamic John Williams score that regularly shifts between low and high gear (like a flux-fueled DeLorean.)

I had been watching a Maple Leafs game on TSN one night, and I believe after it ended I turned the BTTF tape on to take a shower. When I returned from the lavatory, I noticed that boxing had come on after the hockey game, and I was treated to John Williams as the round began. I sat down and watched it along with the music, and it was incredible. The score captured the drama and emotion of the fight so well...the rhythm of the piece was so that I found cymbal crashes matching punches...brass hits synched with blocks.

I had to try it with other sports, and it had the same effect. Try it. Trust me, try it. Fast-paced would be ideal (Baseball or Golf may be a stretch.) Do it now.

SEPTEMBER 25

SONGS TO LISTEN TO WHILE DOING THINGS

Boy oh boy it's been awhile since I've written anything. Summer happened. BUT I have an awesome new idea I'm going to implement while I get myself back in the habit of regular posting.

This new series should be self explanatory, though I'm delving into territory I never would have previously supported. I've always felt that music is slowly turning into wallpaper...it's partly the reason that so much painfully boring lyrical music exists. Because it remains in the background and few people ever really recognize that the Black Eyed Peas wrote a song about having a feeling a night might be a good night (with some Mazel Tovs thrown in for no apparent reason).

I think it's mainly due to the onset of personal listening devices as well as offices and retail stores implementing background music. We've become immune to actively listening to music, and my believe is that it is having an adverse effect on the overall intensity at which it hits us.

That said, I can't deny there are some situations where music can improve the environment. Certainly music in film has a positive effect on the images we see on the screen. Riding the subway would be a terrifying experience without the Stooges reminding me they have a TV Eye on me.

So, for as long as I can keep it up, I'm going to post a series of SONGS TO LISTEN TO WHILE DOING THINGS. The idea is to do the thing and also be actively listening to the song (or Album) as well as being actively aware of the effect it has on the moment, or the activity.

I've already foreshadowed the first:

1. THE STOOGES - TV EYE.

WHILE RIDING THE SUBWAY

There's something about the TTC (or any large metropolitan underground mass transit system for that matter) that just screams punk. Maybe the image of New York's subway conjures up memories of The Warriors and Adventures in Babysitting or the like. Seemed like every late 70s - early 80s film that included subways had to also make a reference to either gangs or punk kids.

In any case, even just riding the subway can be a jarring experience. There's a strange underlying element of paranoia I get from being underground and surrounded by strangers who are making every effort to avoid eye contact.

There's something about the juxtaposition of TV Eye to the environment down there that I find really enhances the experience. it doesn't work for buses, you gotta be underground. Check it out for yourself:

JUNE 18th

PLEASE LET JOURNEY DIE ALREADY

The interwebs were kind enough to point me to this this morning:

Okay. I get it. I get that this song has a very nice chord progression (that hundreds of other songs also use) and that the vocal melodies are nice and there's that one guitar riff that I like. Fine.

Before all the cuffuffle over this song (I think potentially starting with its adequately humourous use on the Television-related-cartoon-show Family Guy) this was really no use in popular culture. There was The Wedding Singer and a few other shows, but really, for around 20 or so years, the song was lame. Big time.

20 years later, suddenly the song slowly starts to repermeate its way into popular culture, starting with the aforemention Wedding Singer, then Family Guy. Both of these cases exemplify the songs use as a comedic device. THE SONG SUCKS and represents a time when crappy songs were really popular all over the place, and THIS song...THIS band represents that the best. So now we have this "IRONIC" use of the song (which isn't really ironic at all...as if it's unexpected we would be making fun of the song?), or I suppose I should say "SARASTIC" use of the song, all over the place. Heck I even played a cover of it for awhile, despite the few references on TV...it was fun to play, I like the changes, but most importantly: I was using it as a comedic device. I wasn't covering it to express my undying love for the song. It's a joke. The song was the joke.

I eventually retired it after a few shows and a WHOLE LOT MORE references (Sopranos, South Park) and cover after cover (including an incredible a capella version by Charlie Haden relative, Petra Haden. Really, it is the best cover, so if you've also had enough of the song as much as I have, I suggest you listen to this one and let it stand at that):

Anyways, the problem with irony, is that it doesn't let things die. It's becoming the bane of our culture: that fashion and irony are slowly merging into this odd combination of "This thing sucks, so it's beautiful because its ironic, and I can wear gigantic hideous glasses because they're stupid, but that's the point, I'm making a statement, only I'm not...really." It's a very passive way of doing things. Either you have an opinion on something or you don't. People wearing tapered jeans in the 80s were cool, but in the 90s...using hindsight, we realized they were idiotic. Tight pants that close in on our ankles look and feel terrible. And yet here we are, in the late oughts, wearing those stupid idiotic pants again. And why? Because some fashionable people did it "ironically" at first, and somehow everyone thought that was cool, so they followed the trend like a massive flock of Kifaya-scarf-wearing sheep.

Nostalgia and quality are not the same thing. Just because you remember something, doesn't make it meaningful. It just means you remember it. I remember the Smurfs, but just because I watched it doesn't make it good...it just means I remember it. Heck...I HATED the Smurfs. I remember being so angry at how stupid it seemed to think its audience was. Why the hell didn't Gargamel just eat the damn things? He always concocted these elaborate schemes, and never once had himself a tasty smurf-pie. And I might bring up the little blue gnomes in conversation, or even wax poetic about the good old days when the Smurfs were on TV during the breakfast hours, and represented my last minutes of freedom before going to kindergarten and being forced to learn non-smurf-related information. But the show was still crap. It was garbage. So if someone were to suggest making a Live-action Smurfs Movie, I would probably scoff very loudly at that thought.

Which of course brings me back to Don't Stop Believing. The song is not good. It's not terrible...but it's certainly not great. It has added value for some people who can remember it, and its not fair that we are totally ruining it for them. Let it die.

MAY the Twelventeenth

THE PROBLEM WITH MUSIC IS THAT ALBUMS SUCK

Here's an argument I hear being made countless times by idiots. The reason I say 'idiots' is because to attempt to apply a generalized statement about a package of any artistic output which we have pretty much all determined at this point can only be opined about in a subjective manner, is really very stupid.

Example, from Subnormality:

Ha ha ha, right? Funny and sooooo true, huh? Well the comic is, yes. But the attitude is not, and I've been hearing it for years: "Well, every album only has one or two good songs on it. That's why the music industry is struggling!"

No.

No no no no no no no no.

First of all, music is objective. I can't imagine anyone trying to make the argument "Well, all painting these days is garbage. There's always one or two great colours, and the rest is all just filler." It's SUBJECTIVE.

Second of all, albums don't have one or two good songs on them and ten bad ones. They have 2 SINGLES. Those singles are singles because they are catchy, and that is why you like them. The same reason you like Mozart's 9th symphony...because of the "Buh-ba-ba BUMMMM." You recognize and remember those singles because they are played ad nauseum until they become a part of your subconscious, so much so, that one day you wake up humming the theme song to AIRWOLF: the show about a helicopter, despite not seeing it in ten years.

I digress. My point is that artists have to pick singles so that people who are frightened to death of trying something out without being told exactly how to consume it have a launching pad to digesting a certain act's music. Which is fine. But if you're judging that act's complete catalogue based on the fact that the only good music they have are the songs they've selected that are easiest for you to digest, then I have to tell you: That band sucks. Hard. And why did you buy their album? Seriously. Why do you buy tickets to go to their concerts? So you can hear those two songs? And if you don't do either of those things, why are you complaining? They are not for you, but they are for someone else. So what? Is all fruit garbage because you only like Bananas?

Meanwhile, there are thousands upon thousands of amazing albums packed with great songs from start to finish. Some artists have ENTIRE CAREERS of awesome songs. Not just in the past, I can cite easily more than 50 modern acts who consistently release more than 5 good songs, minimum, per album. Not that I'm going to generalize my personal taste...I don't expect other people to share my opinion of what is good (though as a modern example, there are few people I know who listen to TV on the Radio who would argue they are a 'singles' act.)

I'm sorry that you expected more great songs on the last Nickelback album, but maybe since you were so disappointed, you should just stop buying albums altogether and leave it for people who actually enjoy music and don't just listen to it to seem cool at parties. I'm sure nobody will mind if you just go straight for the 'Cotton-Eyed Joe' single instead of the full release.

APRIL the Sixteenieth

THE PIRATE BAY VERDICT = GUILTY

The verdict is in, and The Pirate Bay has been deemed guilty "of assisting the distribution of illegal content online" by a Swedish court. They are expected to pay 3.6 million dollars and spend a year in prison. Fine.

What I find far more interesting than the verdict is the debate going on about "piracy" in general, and how people insist on either defending the fact that they have a right to steal music because it sucks anyways, or defending the major corporations responsible for the lawsuit because piracy is theft, plain and simple. Neither is correct.

First of all, piracy is a word that has been employed by the institutions that don't like file-sharing. File-sharing, copyright-infringement should not be defined as piracy in the first place, because nobody is jumping off planks and shooting canons at defenseless trawlers. It's not piracy. It is exactly what it is: copyright-infringement, and file-sharing.

The former is illegal. Copyrights exist for a reason and as a creator, I don't feel like everything should just be public domain. If I write a song, I don't think that it should be used for a tampon ad without my permission. At least not until I'm deceased.

(On the other hand, as an artist, I should WANT my art distributed as much as possible to the general public. As an entertainer, however, I want people to pay for the work I put into entertaining people...an argument for another day, but there are a lot of people lying to themselves about which they are, and a lot of people who try to be both, which is impossible. Artists are interested in making art. Entertainers are interested in doing market research, promotions, publicity, etc. If your goal is to make $ creating a product that people will enjoy, you are an entertainer. So either your recorded product is good enough to entertain people, in which case you have a right to accrue revenue from it. Or it's an advertisement for your art form, and you should be giving it away...especially since distribution and storage costs for MP3s are approaching zero.)

The latter is not illegal because as far as legislation goes, it still does not exist. I'm sure there are likely hundreds of bills out there with the intent to prevent file-sharing, but until that day comes, sending my pal an MP3 of the new whatever is perfectly legit.

So the people who download torrents (and upload them as well) are sharing music, which is not illegal. The Pirate Bay, which supplies access to sources of "Pirated" material is somewhat at fault as they are abetting criminal activities. Those who make illegal copies of material that is copyrighted are at fault, yet these are the people who are not really being prosecuted in the public forum.

In the end, everyone is at fault, the world is changing, and some people are going to lose their incomes because they are incapable of adapting to the changing public perception of what is moral and what is immoral. While I don't favour the creators, of material I happen to enjoy consuming, losing their incomes, I do happen to favour the free access to materials for everyone...not just those who earn higher wages and can afford more music/movies/books. I don't like that system. Call me a dirty commie if you like, I call it common sense. The more informed we are as a society, the more access everyone has to the output of our 'comrades' the more we will be able to understand each other. I don't see the Encyclopedia Britanica people calling foul on Wikipedia. There were times where Libraries and Radio were both seen as "Pirates" and eventually they became monetized, while still providing free services. The internet will eventually provide free music, movies and television to the public and will do so in a fashion that the creators and producers will get paid properly for their efforts. Or we'll allow the government to look into our business, find out what we're watching and consuming and making sure we're not stealing anything and that way, only people who can afford entertainment will get it, and those who can't won't. I'm pretty sure I know which model I prefer.

FAVOURITES OF 2008

DECEMBER 20

For the second year running I�ve decided to compile a short list of my Favourite albums of 2008. But, I also happened upon Pitchfork�s top 50 albums of 2008. So to avoid redundancy I suggest you go HERE to do reading, if it's snobby pretentious reading you like (which surely my write-ups would have been anyhow)

So instead of talking a whole bunch about my Favourite albums, I�ll just list them with some music below, and you can listen for yourself. However, instead of explaining why I like the things I like (A: because I like them) I�d like to throw a brief shout-out to what I think is the biggest farce of 2008. Here�s my list of:

LEAST FAVOURITE ALBUM OF 2008:

TIMES NEW VIKING

RIP IT OFF

This album sucks from front to back. And I�ve tried to like it, since such a handful of people seem to like it, but I just don�t see it myself. At first I thought it was just a bad first impression after listening through shoddy headphones. But even on the switch�the album sounds awful. I think there�s certainly a fine line between bad production on purpose, and something that hurts my ears to listen to.

Pitchfork lists them on their best-of-the-year at #38 (And I can�t imagine the rationale behind putting it ahead of the new David Byrne/Brian Eno album,) which I think is pretty thoughtless, and proof that sometimes pretension can completely mask genuine talent. Even the write-up states: �The unconverted may regard the record�s caustic EQ levels as a challenge, but plenty others can hear where they�re cribbing from and the love with which they soil the source material.�

Now don�t get me wrong, I can certainly see beyond bad-production-on-purpose (I can usually see where people are "cribbing from.") I can get behind anything that sounds honest, and uncontrived and real, and whatever other tag you throw on something that really is infantile and regressive, but still ultimately entertaining and listenable.

Rip It Off is barely any of those things, besides infantile�and painful. The songs themselves, perhaps, could be considered catchy, melody-wise. Catchy is not a relevant determining factor in listening to music. The Hamster Dance is catchy. The theme song from the Price is Right is incredibly catchy (and actually, quite an incredibly interesting composition.) The song I make up when I�m buying Yams at Loblaws that includes only the word �Yams,� and the Meow Mix jingle melody, is catchy. Catchy is the very least that a decent pop-song should be - it�s the bare minimum.

Beyond that we have mediocre lyricism, and sub-mediocre song structure, arrangement, composition and there is no display of genuine talent amongst any of the individuals in the group. Simply put, there is nothing worth listening to.

I really have a hard time believing the future of music is some shitty sounding grungy garage rock-pop played mostly through terribly-distorted mics so you can barely even make out the vocals. I�m sorry, but if it�s not progressive, and it�s not enjoyable, then it�s absolutely worthless as both an art-form, AND/OR as entertainment. Which makes it what exactly?

Especially when there is genuine talent out there. There are actual artists out there who spend hours a day woodshedding their instruments, penning symphonies, forming orchestras, and meticulously producing something they hope people will enjoy, that they hope contains something innovative, interesting, entertaining, artistic and worth your time. None of which I hear any evidence of on Rip it Off.

And now as promised, without any personal interjections, just listy goodness and music, here�s my FAVOURITE ALBUMS OF 2008

10. PORTISHEAD

THIRD