therewasnosound

G R I M E S: I don't want to have to compromise my morals in order to make a living

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:38:33 -0400

G R I M E S: I don't want to have to compromise my morals in order to make a living :

i dont want my words to be taken out of context

i dont want to be infantilized because i refuse to be sexualized

i dont want to be molested at shows or on the street by people who perceive me as an object that exists for their personal satisfaction

i dont want to live in a world where…

wow

Honest Reviews: Blog.To's "30 must-see shows at Canadian Music Week 2013"

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:24:36 -0400

Honest Reviews: Blog.To's "30 must-see shows at Canadian Music Week 2013":

slaggingoff:

Here is what the staff at Blog.To think you should check out at CANADIAN MUSIC WEEK.

1. Rhianna - love how the top choice at Canadian Music Week is American pop star Rhianna. “Like, duh.”

2. CHVRCHES - This sums up Canadian music writing nicely - number two pick is a Scottish electro-pop…

Hippie Cult: The Noise From The Southern Ontario Swamps

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:57:02 -0500

Hippie Cult: The Noise From The Southern Ontario Swamps:

hippiecult:

This was a massive year for the dark, noisy bands of Southern Ontario. The ignorant shit of Ford Nation baked in the drought of an oppressive summer to the point where they could smell it from Hamilton, and everyone seemed on edge. People craved a violent psychedelic, to make this sweaty…

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:18:00 -0400

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

- George Orwell (via nevver)

"When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down. When governments..."

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:16:39 -0400

““When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down. When governments dream up charges of ‘racketeering’ for a typical IT guy who is just operating a file-sharing service, or accuse him of mail fraud because he said he had removed files [to alleged infringing content] when he’d just removed the links to them, this is evidence of how poorly thought out the attempt to extradite him is. Prosecutors are attempting to take advantage of loopholes. Too bad for the U.S. government that DotCom lives in New Zealand, which is better on human rights.””

- Steve Wozniak

Odonis Odonis - Surf, Sound and Vision

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:03:33 -0400

Save for a passing mention of Dick Dale or the Ventures, not much is ever said about Odonis Odonis’ incorporation of surf-rock into their sound. While comparisons to shoegaze bands from The Jesus and Mary Chain to A Place to Bury Strangers are apt, on their debut record Hollandaze, there’s a significance in their use of surf-rock that goes beyond influence.

Though shoegaze and surf-rock complement one-another by referencing unique sounds from the 50s and 60s, they developed from fairly disparate origins. The shoegaze bands that are often mentioned in the same breath as Odonis Odonis are heavily indebted to Blues and Gospel traditions. Surf-rock, however, draws heavily on Middle Eastern and Mediterranean folk traditions (listen to Dick Dale’s “Misirlou,” vs. “Misirlou” played in a traditional style on a Bazouki) distinguishing Odonis Odonis from the rest of the lot in a very substantial way.

The band makes the difference quite apparent: when juxtaposed, the reverberated, tremolo-heavy, surf guitar technique easily cuts through shoegaze’s drones, as evidenced on Hollandaze by tracks like “Ledged Up.”

The song climaxes as waves of industrial-sized static abound; the result of Denholm Whale’s low-end wallop colliding with Jarod Gibson’s cymbal crashes. They repeat and intensify the cacophony until Dean Tzenos’ violent guitar-work arrives to join in on the bludgeoning and offer the final blow.

The songs on Hollandaze are all fairly violent in nature, both lyrically and musically. In fact, that theme carries itself over to the band’s videos, as well as the projections that often adorn their live shows.

“I wanted people to get at a really campy-horror-feel when they hear Hollandaze.” said Tzenos, as we spoke before the Daps Records NXNE Showcase. Indeed, Hollandaze might as well have been called Blood Feast on the Beach, as the band’s use of surf guitar to punctuate moments of sheer violence and horror is echoed by their choice of visuals.

Surf music gained much of its popularity as the soundtrack to “Beach Party” films that were popular in the early 1960s. While the premises of those films started out innocent enough, filmmakers started to dabble with science fiction and horror toward the genre’s decline in popularity.

Odonis Odonis invite and encourage comparisons to those genre films by setting their own music to similarly sinister montages. The combined elements of sound and film help Odonis Odonis achieve a very uniform kind of aesthetic, one that allows for a multitude of experiences that combine to create a singular idea or image. For Tzenos, the coupling of their music with visuals was a no-brainer:

I think the music is very visual. As soon as we added the visual element to the band I think it made the vibe we’re trying to go for a bit easier to understand. I feel like it’s easier to translate what we’re doing when you can see our projections and hear the music at the same time.

Both Tzenos and Gibson come from visual arts backgrounds, making added visual elements a natural extension of the group’s talents, though music videos and live projections weren’t always their top priority. That aspect of their aesthetic has developed slowly as Tzenos explained:

You always need to take the live aspect of your music into consideration, but when this project started, there was very little consideration beyond just getting it recorded. […] I started this as a bedroom project and really didn’t know if the songs would ever be played live. At the time, I really didn’t want it to be a live project, which is funny because […] we’ve been playing live music mostly non-stop for the past year.

Odonis Odonis didn’t go from bedroom recording project to world-touring live band overnight, though they credit that rigorous touring schedule for keeping them on their toes: “you really have to hone what you do when you hit the grind like that. Sink or swim.”

That “sink or swim” kind of attitude has encouraged the band to stay open to change, and is in a sense what has helped them develop their aesthetic along the way.

It’s refreshing to see the band’s commitment to an idea evolving and taking shape, rather than trying to go in every direction. Everything they do seems to go back and reinforce the original idea.

There’s a remarkable focus to what Odonis Odonis do that doesn’t get much attention, despite so much evidence to support that claim. The band’s growth from ideas on a tape to live wrecking-ball in the matter of a year is a huge accomplishment in itself, but in that time they’ve also seen their debut record’s concept fully realize itself in a fantastic way.

This hard-working group have already made great headway, and they’re still evolving. Odonis Odonis have essentially been on tour since the debut of their album in May 2011. Showing no signs of slowing down, the band have a new album due out in the fall of this year, and already have touring plans in the works to support it. Recent live performances have also revealed another member potentially being added to the fold: guitarist Maddy Wilde (Moon King, ex-Spiral Beach). If that wasn’t enough, Tzenos revealed that albums number three and four are also currently in the works.

It remains to be seen if the subsequent records will reinforce or depart from what was built on Hollandaze, but their commitment to creating engaging and enthralling art will certainly continue.

NXNE Hip Hop Show Cancelled photo by Richard TrapunskiMore...

Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:10:00 -0400

NXNE Hip Hop Show Cancelled

photo by Richard Trapunski

More information is slowly coming to light regarding the cancellation of the NXNE SmashMouthEntertainment event scheduled to take place last night at the Rivoli.

The event was to feature 11 Hip Hop acts hailing from around Canada and the U.S.

At the time of the cancellation, SmashMouthEntertainment issued this statement:

Due to unforeseen circumstances, and at the request of the Toronto Police and the Toronto Gang Unit, we regret to announce that our NXNE “SmashMouth Mentality” showcase scheduled for June 13 at Rivoli has been cancelled.

As of this posting, SmashMouthEntertainment, NXNE and the Toronto Police have yet to issue official statements elaborating on the cause for the cancellation, but SmashMouth Entertainment told me that the cancellation was the Rivoli’s decision, following the Toronto Police’s visit to the venue earlier in the day.

The Police had been in contact with both NXNE and SmashMouthEntertainment during this period, and had reason to believe that there was potential for gang related violence due to an artist’s gang affiliation. The Rivoli was told by Police that should the event go on as planned, it would be under tighter security measures. Ultimately, the Rivoli decided that it was in their best interest to pull out from the showcase all together.

Whether more cancellations like this will occur throughout the festival is unclear. Both the Toronto Police and NXNE have not responded to inquiries regarding whether or not the Rivoli incident was an isolated one.

Brenden Hewko of SmashMouthEntertainment had this to add:

Our showcase was the only major hip-hop showcase of this year’s NXNE festival, aside from a much smaller “hip-hop” showcase that took place tonight as scheduled. I personally feel that our event was targeted due to the hip-hop nature. Hip-hop is a culture that is widely misunderstood and one that comes with many stereotypes. I know every artist I had on the bill personally and not one has any gang affiliation or promotes violence in their music.

Strict Machine

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:41:00 -0400

Music Unlimited (MU) is a new subscription-based music-streaming service from Sony that made its way to Canada in April. After its success in the United States, Sony has been slowly rolling the service out on all its platforms, with a focus on Blu-Ray players, Playstation3s, Playstation Vitas and Android devices. Though debuting MU in Canada before competitor Spotify launches is a smart move for Sony, the program itself leaves a lot to be desired.

You can browse MU’s music database on your own, or listen to one of the many available channels (commercial-free playlists that group music by popularity, genre, mood and decade). After doing a quick browse of the “Top 100” channels, I started to add artists to my own library. You can do so through regular playback (playing MU’s stations and selections, then adding what you like to your library), by searching out content on your own and by syncing your computer’s library with your MU one. You are prompted to do the latter option immediately after starting up the MU program on your Playstation3, but don’t have to.

I was reluctant to allow a record company access to my hard drive. Maybe it’s my guilty conscience, but the thought of allowing them full view of my music collection so that the program can clone that collection in the cloud for my convenience did not set me at ease. Cloud-based computing has some serious issues when it comes to privacy, so even if this service wasn’t put together by one of the largest music companies in the business, I’d still be reluctant to give a service like MU permission to scan my music collection.

What I did, and what I recommend anyone who wants to use this service do, is set up a separate folder of music I wanted scanned to the MU library. To start, I picked about 20 albums or so that I thought were fairly representative of my tastes, and that would also test the expanses of MU’s music database. I recommend doing that not only for sake of security, but also because the program that scans your library and sends that info to MU takes a long ass time.

Speed isn’t the only issue with the program, as importing your own collection into the system has some major hiccups. MU’s ability to seek out songs or albums in your folders and then find the corresponding recordings in their collection is fairly flawed, particularly when they don’t have a specific album from your library but have something similar. The intuitive thing for a program built on mimicking your personal music library would be to prompt the user as the hard drive scan is taking place, so that when MU doesn’t have a copy of David Bowie’s Lodger on file, it doesn’t just jump to import cuts from a Bowie cover band or worse, karaoke tracks.

Not much can explain the almost disproportionate presence of cover bands and karaoke tracks to the real thing on MU. Not having the rights to an artist’s catalog is one thing, but treating covers and copies as interchangeable with the originals belies the notion that Sony are treating the music in this program as anything but capital. I suppose Sony’s people were more eager to show that the technology behind MU was working rather than do the smart thing and wait until it was ready. Anyone hoping to add their Beatles discography to their MU library will be sorely disappointed when they find “Rumba Beatles” there instead, though there’s always something to be said for making happy discoveries.

This well-intentioned but nevertheless ineffectual scanning process reminds me a lot of LastFM in their early days. They had a hell of a time with attributing song data to the correct artists or albums, and their radio “stations” were mixes of album tracks, live songs and remixes, though not always labeled as such. The missteps were forgivable because they nevertheless provided a great service, but they also proved early on that the data they were mining couldn’t be relied upon.

As I began to explore my own tastes within MU’s offered selection, the benefits of this service really shone. Users can explore an artist’s discography, which can then be added to their personalized library. Again, working much like LastFM, users can also see lists of “related” artists and listen to those. The connections MU makes between related artists seems fairly intuitive, albeit unclear, and might involve a mix of genre, period and locale.

Exploring the depths of MU’s collection will quickly reveal a few things, none of which are that flattering. The word “depths” definitely applies here, so at least there’s that; however, artists’ discographies are almost always incomplete and the albums themselves have a similar problem. I was ecstatic to find Bill Withers in the database, but less enthusiastic once I learned that Just As I Am was chopped down to five tracks. Perhaps such absences are only temporary, as music licensing is a tricky thing, but at this point in time they poke a rather large hole in the idea of MU being a successful platform in the long-term.

The convenience that MU offers in allowing users to stream music from a bevy of devices is undermined by the sense one gets while using this program that it is incomplete. Not only are there significant pieces missing from artists’ discographies and albums, but there’s also a lack of foresight in terms of the potential for this program to be a social one. There’s no opportunity for users to interact, nor is there any real communication between Sony and its subscribers.

Much of the way in which the media is organized on MU reinforces the idea that Sony sees the relationship they have with their subscribers in a top-down manner. Naturally curiosity takes over when you first start using the program and search its catalogue for your favourite artists, but once you start using MU for more than a month, there’s no way to tell what music has been added or removed since you’ve joined. When you have no idea what new music is being added, finding that new music becomes an incredibly difficult task. Even Netflix has wised-up recently and thrown a “Recently Added” category for their users to peruse.

I’d care less about the lack of information coming from Sony if there was any semblance of community-building happening on MU. Being able to share playlists with other MU users would foster the kind of community that rewards users for coming back and being active. There might not be a clear way for users to find newly added music on their own, but connecting users would ensure they’d never bore of the music available through the service. Incorporating social media into their strategy would actually situate MU in a much more secure place against their competitors. Currently, Spotify users can make and share playlists with one another, and that ability not only encourages community and therefore user-loyalty, but sharing Spotify content (like playlists) through social media is quickly making Spotify the must-have service for cloud-based music streaming.

In essence, Sony’s idea of the cloud seems far too restrictive to really offer their users the full benefit of cloud computing. Similar to Apple’s own strict control over content within their iTunes world, the content available in MU allows users to stream and build libraries, but not much else. Though the premise of the software is dependent upon users having accumulated a library on their own, it doesn’t actually directly encourage adding to that library outside of itself. Users are still encouraged to buy records, because they do not retain any ownership over the library they build within the confines of MU. If this venture is ever shelved by Sony, users will have to re-accumulate everything that they added to their library. It seems as though MU has positioned itself as a convenience, rather than an answer to the file-sharing problem.

This is a song we’ve all heard before: in a world where almost every product bears a label warning of voided warranties, consumers are continuously told that they don’t own what they’ve paid for. Apple refuses to update hacked iPhones, and Sony and Microsoft have similar philosophies when it comes to users jailbreaking their video game consoles. In terms of MU, the limitations on the user and what they can do with their music are similarly rigid, as new additions to your MU library aren’t copied back to your hard drive. You pay MU to hear the music on whatever device you prefer, but whatever new music you add in the program stays in the cloud. At this point, even the idea of exporting a list of your library is an idea foreign to MU’s developers.

The debate surrounding what consumers should and should not be able to do with music they have purchased remains ongoing, but what makes MU a disappointment is how it has chosen a side, as opposed to rewrite the rules. This is the first real foray record companies have made (on their own) into such territory, and in true record-company fashion, they’re completely missing the mark. In exchange for convenience, users sacrifice more of their personal information, and relinquish more of the basic rights they hold as consumers to do whatever they please with what they buy. The service they make these sacrifices for does a tremendous job of undervaluing the role community and transparency both play in shaping musical tastes and trends, while inflating the role of the record company as middle-man. Musicians should be compensated for the music they make, but that compensation should be voluntary, and not an absolute. Let me listen to your album first, and I’ll be much more likely to buy it. Though it’s nice to see record companies developing and working with new strategies that expand the horizons of the marketplace, it’s still the consumer that’s bearing the brunt of these changes.

"I’ll miss the physical, the tangible, but that’s been feeling like a thing of the past..."

Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:34:42 -0400

“I’ll miss the physical, the tangible, but that’s been feeling like a thing of the past anyway … I still miss liner notes, still wish digital would have more information to read while I’m listening and not sure why we haven’t all kicked up a bigger fuss about that. Streaming my collection or curating a playlist or a few dozen playlists and having knowing they’ll be there when you go to listen is an issue of trust. Right now, I feel like trusting.”

- Bob Bolden, NPR

John Peel's Record Collection

Tue, 01 May 2012 08:19:19 -0400

John Peel's Record Collection:

tomewing:

It’s being dripfed, a chunk of a letter at a time, limited to those records they can access on Spotify etc. so far - though they’re taking steps to find others. The interface is lovely. They’ll run out of funding in October, so who knows if the whole thing will go online.

Scattered thoughts:

I don’t think there’s much to be gained by treating this particular record collection as sacred: people remember Peel for his range and his approach to broadcasting, not so much his taste, and that range is more accessible than ever now. I wrote ages ago about the impossibility of Peel and all that still stands.

& would there be public funding to preserve the collections of Gilles Peterson, Dave Godin etc? People who are more specialist but go deeper into a particular area?

The stuff that made his collection unique - the genuine obscurities - and that needs exposure most is precisely the stuff that isn’t on Spotify, of course. If the collection IS an important historical artefact then the money should probably be spent on negotiating rights and ripping vinyl.

It’s taken close to a decade for this to happen - if the contents of the collection had leaked there would be multi-part torrents (continually updated and reissued with newly found material) up within a month or two. An Anonypeel Project might have digitised pretty much the whole thing by now - assuming enough people cared. Not that this wouldn’t be without massive legal and ethical issues but it’s worth throwing out since piracy culture is pretty good at ‘preserving’ and collating vast amounts of material if it wants to be.

All this makes it sound like I think the Peel Collection is a bad idea and I don’t - it’s a lovely idea, but the specific choices (some forced) in the execution do illuminate a lot of the issues around the nostalgia/sainthood of this one old gatekeeper, and the practicalities of archival projects in a crowded, pirated age.

The Dixie Cups - “Iko Iko” “Iko Iko” is...

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:11:47 -0400

The Dixie Cups - “Iko Iko”

“Iko Iko” is probably one of the most interesting instances of New Orleans culture crossing over into the mainstream. The song itself is so steeped in the musical traditions of that city that there is major contention surrounding who actually wrote it. Though the first recorded version of this song appears courtesy of The Dixie Cups, who also happen to own the rights to it, it’s been widely accepted that Sugar Boy Crawford‘s “Jock-A-Mo” predates “Iko Iko” by a decade.

The meaning of the phrase “Jock-A-Mo” is even a point of contention among musicians, linguists and other experts, and is typically used as a celebratory exclamation during Mardi Gras. Lyrically the song is tied to the New Orleans musical community and the rich folk music tradition there, detailing a scene typical during the city’s Mardi Gras celebrations: two tribes of Indians cross paths, and a confrontation ensues.

What’s most remarkable about this track is just the sheer simplicity of it. Never actually intended to be recorded by The Dixie Cups, the song was put to tape while they were just fooling around during some down time they had in the studio. Building a steady rhythm using only drumsticks on ashtrays, The Dixie Cups bring the song to the playground, placing the majority of emphasis on their voices and chanting.

It’s interesting that in this moment of spontaneity, New Orleans has such a dominant presence in their music, especially considering the band’s other works, like “Goin’ to the Chapel,” which seems to be bereft of any strong regional influence. Perhaps Phil Spector’s wall-of-sound was hermetically sealed.

As a strange aside: many people were first introduced to this song in the opening credits of the Tom Cruise film Rain Man. In a weird occurrence of synchronicity, a cover version of “Iko Iko” is also featured in the opening sequence of another Tom Cruise film, Mission Impossible 2. Maybe Ethan Hunt is a kind of autistic savant?

Kendrick Lamar feat. Dr. Dre – "The Recipe"

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:06:57 -0400

hungryipod:

Cadence Weapon: kendrick lamar ft. dr. dre, “the recipe”, aftermath/TDE, 2012no...

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:35:19 -0400

Cadence Weapon: kendrick lamar ft. dr. dre, “the recipe”, aftermath/TDE, 2012no...:

cadenceweapon:

kendrick lamar ft. dr. dre, “the recipe”, aftermath/TDE, 2012

no matter what he does or with whom he does it, kendrick lamar always manages to put his stamp on a track. he is a force of personality who can influence even the static logoified personage of old andre young, whether through vibe…

Most of my early musical education happened while in the family...

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:06:05 -0400

Most of my early musical education happened while in the family car. On long road trips, the radio dial would always be set to 1050 CHUM, an AM radio station that played all oldies. At such a young age a lot of the music just served as background sounds, and I really didn’t pay much attention. Yet, as the years drew on, certain songs became more and more familiar to me.

I can’t point to a specific moment, but I know that Dr. John’s ‘73 hit “Right Place, Wrong Time” was one of the many tracks that slowly burrowed its way into my memory. Even now, hearing the funky groove of the chorus, the oom-pah stomp of the verse, there’s an undeniable allure to it all that goes beyond familiarity.

Perhaps it’s the doctor’s own brand of the hoodoo, perhaps it’s just the funky bassline that holds the whole thing together. Either way, Dr John wasn’t alone in casting this particular spell; “Right place, Wrong Time” benefits from a rather stacked lineup of players. Backed by the Meters, produced by Allen Touissant, both New Orleans musicaly royalty in their own, respective right, this song is as much of a NOLA institution as the feathers on Dr John’s headdress.

For anyone interested, the doctor has a new record coming out today called Locked Down. It features Dan Auerbach of the Black Keys acting as producer.

My wife and I are leaving for New Orleans in 12 days for our...

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:20:29 -0400

My wife and I are leaving for New Orleans in 12 days for our honeymoon. To count down to the occasion, I’m going to try to post a song by a New Orleans artist every day, and talk a little bit about their music’s importance to me.

NOLA music permeates through a lot of popular music, and so tracing my very first exposure to it is an exercise in futility. It’s a safe bet that this song, from Disney’s The Jungle Book, was one of the earliest examples of New Orleans music I ever heard.

I think I rediscovered it about 2-3 years ago, when I was watching a special on Disney’s early films. When I was a kid, I don’t think I realized how much of A JAM this song really is. The big band, rolling shuffle, muted trumpets, and Prima’s scatting all point to New Orleans, and another NOLA-based Louis: Armstrong.

Nowadays this song is usually dismissed on the basis of its inherent (albeit dated) racism: a Creole-sounding ape singing away about how he’d much rather be like a man. Prima, an Italian American born in New Orleans, served as a way for Disney to mitigate any claims of racial stereotyping with the character of King Louie, and though Prima’s casting didn’t really help Disney accomplish their goal, he did bring some much-needed clout. As far back as his first big hit, “Sing Sing Sing,” Prima commanded the New Orleans swing style also heard in “I Wan’na Be Like You.” His work is heavily indebted to the likes of Louis Armstrong, but there’s a life and bounce here severely lacking in Armstrong’s own work.

aaronleaney: I am sad to hear of Calgary guitarist Chris...

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:02:00 -0400

aaronleaney:

I am sad to hear of Calgary guitarist Chris Reimer’s passing. We just shared a stage on the 8th of February this year where he saved my opening set that night lending me a missing power supply and cable, reassuring me that he was, “happy to help”. He performed solo electric guitar which shined with beauty; I remember feeling like I was in church or in a spiritual ritual hearing bells of cosmic light that filled my soul. Reimer will probably be best remembered as guitarist for the Calgary band Women but I think this set in particular deserves some introspection and meditation - it shines with beauty.

Recorded by Brad Hawkins, February 8th, 2012 at Weeds Cafe, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

beats, rhymes and lights

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:00:55 -0400

i made a playlist. i don’t normally share these things with such a wide group of people but i’m feeling generous. it started out as a strictly electronic music playlist, but as i added things here and there it quickly became something else, featuring a little bit of everything from rap, synth pop, house and dubstep. everything is from 2012, aside from the black atlass, azari & iii and cold cave cuts. enjoy!

1. Intro (0:18)
2. Busdriver - Utilitarian Uses of Love (4:11)
3. Cadence Weapon - 88 (1:52)
4. Grimes - Be A Body (侘寂) (4:20)
5. Black Atlass - Castles (3:24)
6. Nina Kraviz - Ghetto Kraviz (3:44)
7. John Talabot - Destiny (Featuring Pional) (4:53)
8. Azari & III - Manic (5:43)
9. AlunaGeorge - You Know You Like It (3:28)
10. Rusko - Somebody To Love (3:01)
11. Skream - Phat Head (4:37)
12. Scuba - The Hope (4:11)
13. VCMG - Windup Robot (5:24)
14. WhoMadeWho - Never Had The Time (4:41)
15. Trust - Bulbform (4:49)
16. Cold Cave - Burning Sage (4:03)

http://bit.ly/xbXbc9

The CanCon Question: III - Radio Future

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:18:00 -0500

We see successful Canadians making big ground across the border and around the world and credit a system that had little to do with those artists’ successes. The Billboard charts are witness and document to such success, but reveal another side to the story: influence on the level of the Billboard charts by Canadians is almost always the result of them leaving the country. The artists who do stay have a much more difficult time in trying to succeed because they’re not only competing with fellow artists here in the country, they’re still competing with those successful ex-pats who are just as entitled to grant money and airtime as they are. What further complicates the situation here is that while the CanCon model strongly supports an independent business framework through grants like FACTOR, the Canadian Content Development policy simultaneously encourages culture production through corporate synergy:

Canadian Content Development (CCD) consists of various funding initiatives by broadcasters to help create and promote audio content for broadcasting using Canadian resources. These initiatives provide support, promotion, training and development of Canadian musical and spoken word talent, including journalists.

Through shows like Canadian Idol and (Dis)band, media conglomerates like BCE Inc (owners of Bell, CTV, MuchMusic) have managed to manufacture their own talent for ensured CanCon adherence. Those shows act as CanCon machines, complete with built-in audiences who then support/facilitate the subsequent albums, tours, promotion and merchandise that follow; however the longevity in the careers of these artists has yet to be proven. Canadian companies like BCE Inc are creating the content themselves, therefore satisfying the base needs of the CanCon mandate, meanwhile benefiting through their very own promotional tool. This synergy monopolizes the Canadian market and does nothing to strengthen the Canadian music industry, actively crushing the competition here at home by clogging the airwaves. This model is wholly encumbering of Canadian talent, and is only supportive of Canadian artists as capital in a corporate landscape.

There is evidence that at the very least CanCon has helped to foster the infrastructure needed to have a sustainable music business here. After all, studios and labels had a much more significant place in the country following the CanCon regulations enactment, but “trickle down economics” is a very flawed idea, especially in this context. Though many new studios popped up as it became more and more economical to record here, the recording costs associated with those new studios would not necessarily have been affordable (therefore necessitating the existence of an apparatus like FACTOR). So yes, the mantra “if you build it ,they will come” remains true, but building the industry here has come with its own price tag, and not all of the bill has been distributed equally. In the same regard, BCE Inc’s involvement in the music industry through their TV programming can be seen as beneficial for promoting Canadian music, and developing our infrastructure, but it’s also a money pit. History is proving these ventures to be completely unsustainable. Idol was cancelled in 2008, and while the groups spawned by (Dis)band are still in their infancy, their careers post-show will inevitably share a similar arc with their Idol predecessors.

The most successful Canadian Idol to have participated on the show in its 6 seasons is Jacob Hoggard. His band Hedley (which existed prior to Idol, disbanded (!) and were reformed with new members after the show) are the most successful product coming from the Idol machine, despite the fact that Hoggard himself finished third place overall in his season. Hedley’s successes are an anomaly in terms of post-Idol winners; the runner-up to Hedley is Kalan Porter and he hasn’t made a record since 2007. No other Idol has managed to have a sustained or successful career, with most bottoming out in terms of sales during their second album.

Though media conglomerates are using synergy to take advantage of how the CRTC is structured, synergy is not the problem. The exploitative nature of BCE Inc seems to be their main downfall and is what’s keeping their products from being more resilient. In fact, many Canadians have switched to satellite radio over the years, and those who have likely found a very different mode of CanCon production and adherence, one that compliments the rules set forth by the CRTC, while still relying heavily on synergy.

Though XM radio and Sirius have merged in the United States, the two companies remain separate here in Canada. One of the largest stakeholders in the Sirius branch of satellite radio happens to be one of the major proponents of Canadian content in the country: the CBC. The largest difference between how the CanCon mandate is interpreted for satellite radio versus analog is the notion that Sirius itself exists as a single station, therefore significantly effecting the amount of CanCon that needs to be played for the company to fulfil its responsibility to the CRTC and the Canadian public. Obviously 35% CanCon looks and sounds much different when it’s stretched between 120 other satellite radio stations than it does on each individual AM or FM channel. In fact, Sirius mostly supports content from the United States, making CRTC adherence much more difficult if measured per station. Instead, the network easily meets CRTC requirements through one channel: CBC Radio 3.

Its critics will claim it ghettoizes Canadian music and musicians, but Radio 3’s existence is nothing to deride. Locating all of Canadian music in one convenient place has it’s obvious problems, but those problems are negligible when juxtaposed with the contributions the station has made to the advancement of Canadian music in the past ten years. Sirius is a subscription-based service, but as property of the publicly funded CBC, Radio 3’s content is freely streamable online, and archived shows are also provided in podcast form. Radio 3 actually started out as an online platform in 2000, but that all changed when the CBC put in their bid for a satellite channel. Economically, this relationship between Sirius, CBC and Radio 3 echoes the kind of relationships that FACTOR artists have with corporate radio broadcasters; however, the Radio 3 model is also responsible to the Canadian public as stakeholders. This relationship is completely unique to our situation here in Canada and should be credited for the stations’ successes in advancing the CanCon cause.

Any Canadian artist or label may upload their music to Radio 3’s website, making it available to the station’s hosts and listeners. Artists also have hands-on control over their artist pages and how they’re represented. Radio 3 seem to think of themselves as a nation-wide college radio service, as they have a strong commitment to playing new music. The Radio 3 website is a hugely influential promotional tool in this regard as directly connecting artists to their listeners is a role that seems to have been long forgotten by corporate radio. Doing so re-establishes the role of radio host as curator as opposed to the weird mix of dictator and comedic relief you often hear.

Though bonded through similar modes of synergy, the difference between what BCE Inc and CBC are doing is vast from a business standpoint. BCE Inc are motivated to move records and capital, whereas CBC are supporting artists at a base level through Radio 3, as well as the independent infrastructure by connecting artists with an audience. In the BCE scenario, BCE is the infrastructure. Artists are at the behest of the capital and no more. With Radio 3, CBC is not directly involved with culture production on the artistic level, nor do they care about moving a certain number of units to break even. Their place as curators rather than owners allows for more organic growth by artists, as opposed to shows like Idol where certain sounds and styles are sought outright for their marketability and chance at success.

In addition to Radio 3, CBC also has a hand in the Polaris Music Prize, an annual award that’s presented to the year’s best Canadian album as determined by a panel of journalists, broadcasters and others not directly or monetarily involved in the Canadian music business. They judge each album on critical value alone; there are no scorecards, there is no rubric. The winner of the Polaris is awarded $30,000, and along with those who were shortlisted, also benefit from a sizable bump in sales.

Previous winners of the award include Owen Pallet, Patrick Watson, Caribou, Fucked Up, Karkwa and Arcade Fire. Compared to top-selling Idol Kalan Porter, every album shortlisted for Polaris in 2007 has since had a follow-up, and sometimes several. Aside from the two most recent winners, every artist who has won the Polaris has gone on to make another record. They show no sign of slowing down, and the sudden surge in popularity and sales post-Polaris does not seem to inflate an artist’s career to unmanageable levels.

As great as Radio 3 is, I would argue that the CRTC could go one further. The fact that the CBC has found a modern and intelligent way to follow the CanCon mandate should not be proof-positive that the regulations are working. The best course of action that the CRTC could pursue in order to successfully promote and foster new Canadian talent would be new legislation that would have an effect at the point-of-sale level. A great deal of Canadian artists are finding success thought the online marketplace Bandcamp, which works a lot like Radio 3 in how it connects the listener directly to the artist. It’s unclear as to whether the CBC already has plans for a point-of-sale initiative on their newly-relaunched radio website; regardless, they should not have to shoulder the burden alone.

In its current form, the CanCon mandate set forth by the CRTC lacks the kind of influence necessary to claim sole responsibility for any Canadian artist’s successes here or abroad. The unfortunate truth about it is that though the CRTC ensures that there’s a place for Canadian musicians on Canadian radio, corporate radio will only ever play the 35% they need in order to meet their requirement. The influence of radio on album sales is negligible when considering just how much the market is dominated by such few modes of distribution. Other aspects of the CanCon mandate attempt to even the playing field for Canadian artists who lack the necessary funds to compete on an international stage, however, groups like FACTOR do not discriminate between artists who are receiving major label money and ones who aren’t, and therefore, do little to dismantle the status quo established by the dominating American music industry*.

“Protection” has proven to be the wrong approach when trying to ensure Canadian music has a future.The discrepancy between sales and radio play suggests the actual point-of-sale area is a space forgotten by the CRTC’s mandate. The government controls what the stations play, which, but they don’t control availability. There are grants to help artists on the various levels of their careers, but there should be more to act as incentive for people to actually buy Canadian content in the first place. We should look to Radio 3’s success as a model, and try to replicate that in as many avenues possible. Radio 3 are simultaneously exposing the problem with CanCon regulations as they currently function, while also seeking to support artists in a much more substantial way at an earlier point in their careers. What we need now is a marketplace.

*Some record labels are already beginning to anticipate the necessity for making that exact distinction, and have since asked Billboard and Neilsen to measure the size of a record company’s assets not by the scope of their distribution, but rather, ownership over the music itself, which would then consider label imprints, such as Chad Kroger’s 604 Records, to be “independent.”

The CanCon Question - II: Survival

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:13:00 -0500

The tension between Canadian musicians’ successes abroad feeding our collective ego and the “aw shucks heritage” that we perceive to be at the heart of our culture makes for a very complex situation when debating the merits of the CanCon regulations. Köhler does a wonderful job of disentangling our Canadian mythology (peace, order and good governance, you know), and does so in a way that also speaks to the mythology of our successful musicians. Here we have this government legislation that was supposedly designed to help our musicians grow and compete with acts from the United States, and along with it we have proof that it works in the form of world-praise and plenty of top-billing talent to go around. At the same time, it’s all crap. Faceless crap.

The irony is that this stuff is how we’re evidently defining our national identity, and yet anyone would be hard-pressed to say that Justin Bieber or Drake are the voices of this country. During the infancy of the CRTC and the CanCon regulations, Margaret Atwood wrote a book called Survival, a critical work that acted as an introduction to Canadian literature. The basic premise of Atwood’s text is that all of Canadian literature is bound by common themes, and those themes tell us who we are as a nation. She essentially took it upon herself to name and define Canadian literature using those themes for fear that our literature and culture lacked explicit definition, and that lack would be subject to outside influence. She “wasn’t aware that [she] lived in a country with any distinct existence of its own” (1972, 29). The idea that our national identity is mimetically linked to our culture was a pervasive influence on the CanCon regulations as well as a popular feeling at the time. In that sense, those regulations are failing to adhere to the idea that necessitated their creation in the first place; we’re not defining or exporting our culture at all, our most successful artists are adopting something else to be successful.

The same year she published Survival, Atwood also published a book of fiction called Surfacing. The protagonist in that text goes on a trip to rural Quebec with her boyfriend and another couple in order to find her father. Along the way, the group encounter a couple of Americans who are camped nearby, and the body of a heron, the death of which is inevitably blamed on that camp in the distance. Upon meeting the Americans, however, it quickly becomes apparent that they are actually Canadians, no different from the protagonist and her friends. That information has little effect on the protagonist’s feelings, as the association in her mind is damning enough. To the protagonist, being American seems to have less to do with race or creed than being not Canadian. Her idea of what Americans are and aren’t seems so assured, and yet she always describes Americans as marginal, strangers, ever encroaching: “they’re what’s in store for us, what we’re turning into” (1994, 129). Thematically, this text is in line with the protectionist attitudes that ushered in the CRTC and its regulations, but it’s more than that. Surfacing anticipates our undoing by not learning how to define our culture in ways that are simply oppositional. These regulations, forged from our very own inferiority complex, are just reifying that complex further by not being built in a way that works, and by not focusing on an actual tangible problem that Canadian musicians face.

We’re failing by our own definition, while simultaneously the most successful we’ve ever been. I’m not suggesting that selling albums is at odds with our cultural identity, but if the purpose of CanCon is to help Canadian artists gain the proper footing to have a presence both nationally and internationally, we need to focus on the ways in which we can continue to help that. Dwelling on our successes rather than questioning and learning from them will not lead anywhere. There’s proof that our most successful artists are successful because they’re leaving, not because they’re the boon of a well-oiled machine. We can circumvent this by redefining why its important for us to have a distinct culture and allow it the freedom it needs to grow organically.

Sure, the CRTC has created incentive and support for Canadian artists in various ways with the development of our culture in mind, but there is also a disparity at the point where that support comes in to play in an artist’s career, compared to where it might be needed. Nickelback, Bublé and the rest should really be credited for making it so far given the types of support systems in place. Certainly there is no lack of financial support for artists, what with grant money being offered from various arts councils, as well as FACTOR (Foundation to Assist Canadian Talent on Records), but even those miss the mark and do very little to help Canadian artists who are just starting out.

A part of the CanCon mandate is the caveat that private radio has to donate money to FACTOR each year: stations that make $625,000 in revenue annually must donate $500; stations that make above $625,000 annually must donate $1000, and oftentimes they voluntarily donate more. This initiative is supposed to help build a stronger business on the independent level, but we aren’t seeing that output reflected in sales.

Having corporate radio contribute money to funds for developing artists is a good idea on paper, but in reality it’s much messier. If radio stations see their contributions to the FACTOR fund as an investment, then it creates the expectation of a return on that money somewhere down the road. Ideally, playing FACTOR-funded artists would then serve in radio’s best interests, and could act as a criterion to be played on the radio, “money well spent.” The FACTOR application process could act as a screening process even before an artist can be played on the radio, making radio stations privilege FACTOR-approved bands over ones who aren’t, under the assumption that artists who weren’t deserving of the money would also not deserve to be played on the radio. Begging the question, what kind of criteria do artists have to meet in order to be eligible for FACTOR funding, and who gets to decide?

One look at FACTOR’s board of directors and the picture becomes much clearer. Taking very prominent roles are Rogers, Bell, CORUS, and Astral media, four companies that are not only responsible for the majority of Canadian content we’re exposed to, but also the methods of distribution.

Nothing in FACTOR’s mandate indicates where an artist has to be in their career in order to be eligible for funding. To their credit, FACTOR seem very even-handed when dishing out money to artists all over the board; however, why bother having an apparatus meant to even the playing field between Canadian and American musicians when Canadian artists supported by the American system can also benefit from the same funding? The problem with FACTOR is that for every Dan Mangan who receives money to cut a demo, go on tour or make a video, there’s also a Nickelback, who are just as eligible for FACTOR funding, even though they’re also reaping benefits from having already tapped into the American market via a major label. This poor logic just engenders the status-quo. Why should Nickelback or Neil Young still need propping up from our institutions after having sold millions-upon-millions of albums? Certainly artists are making less and less in this economy, but it’s as though FACTOR, and the government by extension, see their Canadianess, as being a handicap in the music business.

With or without FACTOR support, artists are still leaving the country to get past that little hump of selling albums. The CanCon mandate does nothing to support how they get the attention of an audience, radio station, or major label in Canada, and is a significant factor in the ability of our cultural product/commodities to thrive.

The third and final part of The CanCon Question can be read here.

The CanCon Question

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:33:00 -0500

Last week saw the passing of one of the most influential figures in the Canadian music business, Pierre Juneau. Some 40 years after his initial shaping of the Canadian cultural landscape, Juneau will be remembered for heading the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC) and creating the Canadian content (CanCon) regulations that are still followed today. In fact, Juneau’s death falls shortly after one of the most successful years for Canadian music in recent memory. During the week of December 10, 2011, 8 of the Top 10 selling records in the country were by Canadian artists. Some were quick to point out that this major success was indebted to our Government’s support for Canadian artists through the CanCon mandate. While this milestone is definitely worthy of the pride it has generated (and should be an expected norm), it begs the question: should we be attributing these chart standings to our CanCon regulations? Do those regulations really help bring Canadian artists some well-deserved attention and sales, or is something else responsible for their immense popularity? Now is a very good time to re-evaluate the contributions to our culture that Pierre Juneau spearheaded, and examine how CanCon regulations can change along with an industry that’s in a state of significant flux.

In the late 1960s and early 70s, there was an anxiety felt throughout Canada regarding our cultural identity or lackthereof. Many feared that the American influence on Canadian culture was too overpowering and that more needed to be done to ensure that Canadian culture remained vital and distinct from the United States’. In literature this anxiety manifested itself in the Thematic Criticism movement brought on by Northrop Frye and his followers like Margaret Atwood, while in radio and television it came in the form of the CRTC, and its regulations of CanCon. Those regulations were an overt effort by the government to bring Canadian-made art and culture into the homes of all Canadians. Under then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and acting chair of the CRTC, Pierre Juneau, Canadians regained control of their airwaves, and Canadian artists were given a fighting chance in a very competitive, but booming music industry.

It’s a wonder then that it’s taken so long for musicians to reclaim their rightful spot on the Canadian Billboard charts. It wasn’t until this past December that 8 of the top 10 selling albums in Canada were actually homegrown. The artists who made it that week were: Nickelback, Michael Bublé (edging out Rihanna and Adele), followed by Justin Bieber, Francois Perusse, Fred Pellerin, Mariana’s Trench, Drake, and Maxime Landry. It should be noted that in that same week, 4 of those 8 records were also in the top 5 spots on the American Billboard Top 200, while a 5th album (Marianas Trench) was also represented by significant sales in the States in the independent category (independent being a very relative term). Also, none of the 8 records were debuts, 2 of them are Christmas albums and the 3 albums not represented on American charts whatsoever happen to be Francophone.

That nearly 70% of the albums listed on the Canadian Billboard chart were also topping the American charts speaks to the inefficacy of the CanCon mandate; down South they don’t have CanCon regulations telling them to play Bublé or Bieber, and yet, they’re dominating in sales there too. If the CanCon regulations actually had some effect on sales, there would be some variance between the Canadian and American markets (barring variances brought on by the Francophone population, since Quebec alone makes up for about 23% of the Canadian market, and French-language radio stations must have 65% of their content in French). Instead what the charts show us is mimicry, suggesting that the relationship between radio play and sales is much more complex. Either radio’s influence on album sales is negligible, or, the influence of the American music business (which includes radio) is far greater on the Canadian public than that of the Canadian influence upon ourselves.

The significant influence of American media on Canadian citizens is not an issue that Juneau and CanCon have been completely successful at thwarting. Of the 5 English releases topping the Canadian Billboard chart that week in December, only one record was not distributed by Universal Music Group: Michael Bublé’s. Around the same week we were topping our own charts, Billboard released a list of the top-selling albums in Canada for 2011: 8 of those top 10 albums are affiliated with Universal Music Group, and none of those were Canadian (so much for the influence of CanCon regulations on sales). Universal currently holds 40% (when taking their recent ownership of EMI into account) of the market in terms of music sales and distribution, and it’s that kind of saturation that results in the kind of permeance we’re seeing globally by Canadian artists through the Nielsen Soundscan data provided by Billboard.

The reach and influence of corporate media is not a new topic, but what makes it relevant in relation to CanCon is just how effortlessly it subverts the government-sanctioned mandate we have in place to promote our own cultural identity/ies. Since Universal holds such sway over the music industry on a global level, it’s safe to say that the battle over Canadian content shouldn’t be waged on the radio waves. Corporate radio serves as a promotional tool, helping to close the gap between product and capital, and is subordinate to a market so heavily monopolized, that any law relating to radio play serves only to help further sales, as opposed to shifting the landscape of a chosen body of listeners. In Canada, the CRTC dictates that French music and/or content needs to be played 65% of the time on French stations in order for those musicians to be able to compete on a national level. On English language stations, music only needs to be Canadian 35% of the time, and so if radio stations are playing music by artists who are commercially viable enough to command radio play on their own in other countries, and are also Canadian, then those stations are doing nothing to further Canadian interest in Canadian music. In that sense, not only is CanCon unable to effect change in Canadian listening habits, it offers little to support new and developing artists.

There is a strong notion that part of the CanCon regulation’s successes is the fact that the they help to build a strong fan-base here at home before musicians move south; however, that idea is quickly undermined by the fact that none of the 5 English acts mentioned above made any significant ground while working at their craft here. Their success-stories are fascinatingly similar: Nickelback’s first platinum-selling album, their self-released sophomore record The State, was only able to reach that high benchmark when it had been re-released by major-label Roadrunner; Bublé’s career didn’t take off until he got the attention of David Foster, another Canadian ex-pat in the industry (although to be fair, Bublé did receive strong support from his numerous stints on the Vicki Gabereau Show); Bieber’s mom and manager parlayed the kid’s YouTube success into meetings with label-execs and most-notably, Usher; Drake got his start on the rebooted Degrassi show, an already successful franchise in the US, and was boosted further by Lil Wayne and his Young Money label. Clearly the CanCon mandate is not responsible for the successes of Canadian artists on an international level; we don’t even see their careers grow and blossom here.

No wonder Nicholas Köhler says our cultural exports are more and more resembling the notion of “The Ugly Canadian:” artists have to leave to make any kind of indent on the North American market, and then good ol’ Canada jumps in once an artist makes it big and takes all the credit. We want nothing to do with an artist when they’re starting out, but send them back a star and we suddenly become very cavalier when acknowledging who was responsible for their accomplishments. Success south-of-the-border inflates our egos and spawns countless think-pieces on how great we are, all the while distracting from the fact that the apparatus that supposedly serves to promote Canadian content is failing artists in a fundamental way: they’re successful because they’re not here.

Part Two can be found here.