Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #48

 Maestro Fresh Wes is on a stamp.

DJ Got Us Paralyzed With Decision-Fatigue

I’ve started learning to make electronic music. It’s kind of a crazy thing for me to take on because I don’t have a background in music. I was the one playing outside while you were taking piano lessons; it was fun at the time, but now I’m trying to learn music theory from scratch.

But I’m not going to whine about my lack of music fluency; I’m just pointing out something I’ve noticed about music software. I won't bore you with the details, but I'll just tell you that to be a bedroom producer, you'll need a piece of software called a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW.)

There's something weird about the DAW market. See, they can get pretty expensive, so the makers of DAWs usually let you try them for a limited time, or have a lesser, free version. So far, these are the ones I've tried out: 

• Garage Band
• Cakewalk
• Tracktion Waveform 
• Cubase 
• Studio One
• FL Studio 
• Ableton Live
• Reaper
• LMMS
• Bitwig
• Mixcraft
• Acid Pro
• QTractor

And there are many more I haven't tried. A few of the more famous ones: 

• Logic
• Pro Tools
• Ardour
• Reason
• Maschine

What I'm getting at is that there are a lot of options. And out of all those, only LMMS and QTractor are not-for-profit open source projects. The rest are by people trying to make money. 

This isn't modern capitalism! There should be only two options: the crappy one and the expensive one. Or maybe two nearly identical competitors, but people get really worked up arguing which is better. A bunch of these should have merged together. Some of them bought by big companies who lost interest and discontinued them. Statistically, if you have this large a group of tech companies, at least one would have been bought by Yahoo and mismanaged out of business. And either Google or Microsoft should have started their own competitor and run another half-dozen out of the industry. And what about changing focus? Every time there's a new buzzword in tech, one or two should have announced a pivot to the new paradigm, and now they're in cloud computing, cryptocurrencies, or A.I.

But no, somehow this is the one industry where there are dozens of options: synergies and economies of scale be damned. I'm not sure why. One explanation is that it's a labor of love. Music is a business that's very personal, and everyone wants to do it their way. 

Also, the market is at just the right size: there's a fair-sized market available when you consider both the pros and hobbyists. It's enough to keep each of the competitors going, but not enough to attract big companies that will wipe out the competition (save for Apple, which makes Garage Band and Logic, but being exclusive to the Mac, they won't push everyone else out of business.)

There's also a lot of nuances to the industry, where applications have grabbed their own little niche: Pro Tools has established itself as the standard for recording studios, while Ableton Live is the choice for Electronic Music. FL Studio has hip hop, and Logic is the choice of Apple worshippers. Reason is the best for people used to working with traditional electronic music equipment, and Reaper is beloved by the folks who think the best application is the one that can do anything, but in a really complicated way, and thus keep recommending Linux to your grandma.

It's also weird that visual art didn't work out this way. That industry is dominated by Adobe. And yet, you'd think that if any software customers would walk to the beat of their own drum, it would be visual artists. They'd be the ones to ignore the advantages of compatibility to get a product with the right intangibles, or one that's made by a little band of idealists. But no, they've given one giant company a near monopoly. The only ones walking to the beat of their own drum are the ones programming it on a drum machine. Okay, that was pretty corny, and I apologize; I wrote that thing about the artists walking to the beat of their own drum without even meaning to make a joke, and then felt like I had to do something with it, and it all went wrong.

So I don't entirely know why, but this is the one industry where things worked out the way I expected the future to look: Dozens of options, something for everyone.

Back With Another One Of Those Blog-Rockin’ Beats

I've complained more than once about the song "It's Your Thing" by the Isley Brothers being used in commercials. Specifically, that it's been used in commercials for a variety of different products, with each company seemingly oblivious to the fact that it's already been associated with a different brand.

So, imagine if I'd been asked, "What do you think will be the next song to get overused in commercials for multiple brands at the same time? Hint: it's from another group with 'Brothers' in the name."

I would have said, oh, no, not "Unchained Melody!" That's such a classic song that so many people love. It would be such a shame if it became associated with dog food and denture cleaners

But no, it's "Galvanize," by the Chemical Brothers.

It started with a series of Michelin ads, which used the song for its distinctive "dun dun dun" part. That got it recognized enough that stadium DJs started playing it at sporting events. I thought that was a weird enough path for a song to go through pop culture: being revived by a commercial almost twenty years after it was released and getting attention beyond what it originally got. So I thought about remarking on it, but never got around to it.

But then, I hear it again on a Hummer ad. They're using the "Push the button" part to advertise their four-wheel steering. That's a different part of the song, so people may not even realise it's the same song. I suppose that's a way around the problem of over-using songs in ads: each company uses a different part of the song. Maybe that will even have a positive effect on music: You’ll put more effort into the complexity of your songs if you know you can sell different parts to different companies.

Oddly, we still haven’t seen the most obvious use; the song is, after all, named after an industrial process. It just seems natural that eventually we'll hear, "Ziebart reminds you..." (start music) "The time has come to…Galvanize!" (cut music quickly, because Michelin owns the dun dun dun part.)

But I'm also thinking about the demographic implications of this. It was all fun and games when it was another generation's songs getting overused. I could feel cheapened, but I'm trying to look on the bright side: We won the demographic competition (where "we" refers to late Gen-X, early Millennials, or in my case, Mid-Xer who stayed in university too long and thinks he's a borderline Xer-Millennial.) And now our music is being used to sell expensive stuff like high-end tires and SUVs. Yes, I realize it's a fleeting title, since it's only a matter of time before the next music takes over. But we could get a bit of an extension while advertisers struggle to make ads out of emo.

Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #44

The theme music for Monday Night Football is a cover of “In The Air Tonight” performed by a country star and a rapper.

Swilce? Tayvis? Traylor?

I don’t know if you’ve heard this, but Taylor Swift is dating Travis Kelce, star tight end for the Kansas City Chiefs. You probably have heard this, because it’s created a perfect storm of American popular culture, combining the hype of football and the ubiquity of pop music. The Yin and Yang of American culture have been suddenly pushed together, and both sides are acting kind of awkward. 

As someone who watches football, but shies away from popular music, I’m only seeing part of it. But the football half is pretty embarrassing. On the one hand, a lot of people want to talk about it, but aren’t really sure how, so they just make a lot of bad puns on Swift’s songs. And that got old really fast. I don’t know if something similar is going on in the pop world. Oh God, I just realized, they must be making endless “tight end” jokes. My condolences.

It’s also embarrassing the way the football world is acting like a nerdy kid who gets a chance to sit at the cool kids’ table. That’s a bit surprising, given the grip that football seems to have on American culture. But even football has room to grow, and suddenly getting exposure with a young and female demographic has them seeing dollar signs. So now the NFL is passing notes in class asking if the cool kids have said anything about it.

But more than anything, this incident shows how we, as a society, still haven’t figured out how to handle the current culture. The celebrity industry wants to make this the story of the century, but many of us have got the message that obsessing over people we don't know is a bad idea, even when we are fans of them. The fact is, there isn’t much for any of us to say about two people dating, when we personally don’t know either one. Whether you’re a fan of one or both or neither, there’s not much of a reaction you can have, other than wishing them luck. Again, the football world is demonstrating this well, with football analysts suddenly being asked to say something about the couple, but not really having anything to add, and instead just making the umpteenth "Blank Space" joke.

Part of the problem is that we just don't have universal touchstones in society anymore. There are few things that everyone cares about, but the media keeps excitedly hoping it will find one. Even Swift on her own is a good example of it. Her fame has reached a level where the media is assuming she is a universal obsession. But we don't really have universal obsessions in a world where we're so free to choose our personal culture. The most anyone can hope for is fandom from a dedicated and large minority, like Swift has. (Or, for that matter, football has.) But that still means that most people don't have a strong connection. So although you’ll see some examples of fans crossing over into both cultural worlds — like those who famously flooded retailers with orders for Kelce’s jersey — more people are just aggravated with the expectations to suddenly care about the other side of American culture. 

At The Prime Meridian

Britain has produced a lot of world-renowned musicians over the years. That often leads people to assume that we (people outside the country) know all the famous British musicians. But no: there are some artists that make it big in the UK but not in the rest of the world.

I’ve always been amused by the fact that the British themselves are kind of oblivious about this. You might see reporters on BBC World breathlessly reporting that Robbie Williams has hinted at a Take That reunion, unaware that much of the world has no idea who that is.

In most cases, the explanation of British-only stars is that there was an American substitute. For instance, Take That were around in the glory days of boy bands, so it’s not too surprising that they couldn’t pry Americans’ attention away from Backstreet Boys and NSYNC. But there are also situations where a British artist’s work just doesn’t translate well to outside audiences.

Which brings us to Blur. Music news sites have been buzzing that they have a new album coming out.

If you’re not familiar with the story, in the Britpop era of the nineties, Blur and Oasis were the two leading bands, sort of like, well, Backstreet Boys and NSYNC. Oasis made it big world-wide — like much of the western world, I still have “Wonderwall” going faintly through my head — while Blur scored a minor hit on the North American alternative charts with. “Girls & Boys.” Then, to make the story even weirder, Blur made a tongue-in-cheek fast rock song — "Song 2," probably better known as the “Woo-Hoo” song — and scored a transcendent, world-wide hit. So now most people around the world think they’re a grunge band, even though their music was largely a reaction to grunge, and this sort of odd band who would have been named, “Seymour” if the record execs hadn’t insisted on something more marketable, will forever be played in stadiums and included on lists of the best Jock-Jams.

If you listen to their music, it’s not hard to see why it didn’t translate outside the UK. It’s rather terribly British. Not British in the commemorative-royal-family-tea-set way, but in the dryly satirizing everyday life sense.

Of course, whenever I see something like this in another country, I naturally ask myself if there is any Canadian equivalent: If there can be a band so British that only the British really “get” it, can there be a band so Canadian that only we “get” it. Of course, we do have that: The Tragically Hip. Which then leads to the shocking revelation: The Tragically Hip is Canada’s answer to Blur? (Okay, The Hip started a few years earlier, so Blur is the U.K.‘s answer to The Tragically Hip, but still, the point is that it’s a weird comparison.) Really, they're bands that take very different styles to their music, with Blur's irony and satire and The Hip's cryptic can-lit and history references. It would be interesting to see someone take Blur's playful approach to life and focus it on Canadian culture. Although, arguably, those different levels of irony are themselves a reflection of the national identities of the respective bands. Okay, now my head hurts.

This leads me to wonder how many other countries are sitting on something like this: a band they love that never made it with the outsiders. Obviously, many countries have a language barrier that keeps local musicians from making it big world-wide. But this phenomenon even keeps some English-speaking performers local, even from countries that have produced world-famous musicians.  So I googled, “Australian bands that weren’t popular outside Australia” and found a list of the best Australian bands as voted by Australian musicians. In among the usual suspects, AC/DC, INXS, Midnight Oil, and Crowded House, there was Cold Chisel, whom I had never heard of. They’re described as a "pub band" who leaned in to the wild rock lifestyle of the 70’s-early-80’s and known for wild live shows. 

Reading the comments, Australians showed a feeling of nostalgia for their music that seemed reminiscent of The Hip, that they speak to the experience of growing up and living in the country. I guess every country does have that band that couldn’t be exported, even if they vary wildly stylistically. 

Lucretia, My Election

There's a series of ads going around trying to guilt us into buying jewelry for Mothers' Day. They each feature a mother's voice talking about things they've put up with over the years. In one of them, she talks about "putting up with your goth phase." It ends with a yearbook photo of a vaguely gothy teen - fair enough. But it's accompanied by some sort of death metal. So now I'm like, great, I have to boycott a jeweller, because they don't know the difference between goth and metal. The future sure is weird.

But on the other hand, gothism has been getting some respect. Andrew Yang, candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, has said that he would be the first ex-goth president. Oh, yeah, he could be the first Asian-American major party candidate, but the important thing is, we could have a former goth in the White House, which I assume would not stay white for long.

My first reaction was to marvel at how many people are running for the Democratic nomination. Candidates always try to carve out a niche for themselves: you have the education candidate, the law-and-order candidate etc. But there have got to be a lot of people if you're stuck with being the ex-goth candidate.

To be fair, most of the bands that Yang mentions as his favourites would be more accurately classed as Dark Wave. But I'm glad to finally find a left-wing politician who shares my musical sensibilities. I had an on-and-off series of articles about right-wingers who liked the same music I did, even when the music's message hugely contradicted their own policies.

But even though I'm tickled by this development, I have to temper my feelings, because I know that this is part of what is bad about politics today. People are choosing politicians as though they are a lifestyle choice, rather than based on substantive policies. As they say, people vote for the candidate they'd rather have a beer with. That's an attitude that's led to many bad election choices, and it's not any better to ask which candidate you'd like to sip absinthe with. So remember, vote for the best candidate, even if they don't know anything about your music. Express your lifestyle through some other choice, like jewelry.

Welcome To The Satire House

I always liked the song, "Bohemian Like You" by the Dandy Warhols. Yes, I know, it may pale in comparison to the other song with Bohemian in the title, but it's still a fun and catchy song. (This is the censored, but probably still NSFW video:)



For one thing, it's great to hear hipsters playfully making fun of themselves. Though they may have a reputation for being humourously self-important, the fact is that they can (mostly) laugh at themselves just as much as anyone.

But I heard it on the radio recently, and the DJ pointed out that although it's clearly about hipsters, it doesn't use that word because the song was released in 2000, which was before hipsters were really a thing. But even if they weren't recognized by most people, here's a song written by and for hipsters, and it's making fun of them. So hipsters had identified their own culture and started ridiculing it before the general population. Or, to put it another way, they were making fun of hipsters before it was cool. So that's it, there is nothing that hipsters won't do before everyone else discovers it.

Tough (Nursery) Room

I sometimes wonder what life would have been like if I had a blog right from birth. Sure, the entries up to age fifteen would be brief because that’s when I learned to touch-type. But I had plenty of things to vent about. And I guess I owe it to my younger self to go back and belatedly complain.

Like, the jokes we tell kids. As a child, you often get exposed to jokes, particularly in riddle form, through books or other activities that are supposed to be fun. I think it’s about time that I speak up for kids and say, those jokes are crap. Well they were in the seventies anyway, maybe they’re better now.

Like, there was one joke: What do you get when you cross an owl with a goat? A hootenanny. I guess that’s funny, but the problem is that appreciating the joke requires knowing what a hootenanny is, or at the very least, knowing that it is a thing, and not just a random collection of sounds. Of course, as a four-year-old, my experience with free-form folk happenings was rather limited, so I had no idea what that word meant. So not only did I not find it funny, I misunderstood the whole idea of riddles for a while, assuming them to be some kind of bizarre random code rather than a form of humour.

Indeed, I just saw “What is a hootenanny?” Among a list of trivia questions, so it’s hardly a fair joke topic for a child.

But the ultimate bad joke for kids is, “Why did the chicken cross the road?” Potentially, it’s a funny joke, but it relies on two things from its audience:

• They’ve heard a large number of jokes in the riddle format.
• They have a good appreciation of irony.

The problem is, children are the one group of people who don’t have either of these things, so it falls flat. The teller has to explain the joke, and as everyone knows, if you have to explain a joke it won’t be funny. But in this case it’s worse, because the kids won’t even understand it after you explain it.

It’s actually pretty surprising that the joke is still around: by the time you have the necessary mental faculties to understand it, it’s so old that you can’t appreciate it. Just think, probably no one in the western world has laughed at that joke in the last fifty years, and yet somehow, it’s still with us.

But this whole walk through bad-joke memories was triggered by something I saw in a store recently. It was a toddler’s sweater that had a picture of crossed hockey sticks on it, with the words, “Ice Ice Baby.” That struck me as tremendously unfair to the child. To them, it’s just a reference to ice as a skating surface, and they have no way of knowing that they’re walking around with the title of a song on their chest — a song they may come to consider rather embarrassing, depending on their own musical direction.

Of course, the makers of the shirt are counting on appealing to the parents, many of whom today are of an age where they will recognize the joke and find the shirt funny. But that would be like if someone my age had been forced to wear a shirt with a humourous reference to a Pat Boone song. Thanks mom and dad, you’re using me as a pawn in pop-cultural struggles for your own amusement. I’ll make my own musical choices, thank you, right after I figure out this ‘irony’ thing.

All About That Bass, No Pressure

At a recent hockey game, a commentator was discussing the scoring slump of Max Pacioretty, the winger for Las Vegas who was acquired in an off-season trade. The commentator said that he had asked a local reporter if he was under any pressure because of the lack of scoring. That reporter just said, of course not, it's Vegas. After all, hockey teams don't get nearly the media exposure in the US, even in markets where the sport is popular. The subtext is that Pacioretty had previously played his whole career in Montreal, where players are constantly in the spotlight. Had he started the season this slowly there, it would have been the only thing the city was talking about for a week.

And that's a concern that comes up a lot in Canada. Our hockey teams have never been great at attracting free-agents. Sure, the Leafs signed John Tavares this summer, but generally we haven’t made big splashy signings, and we'd like a better idea of why. Some say it's higher taxes, some say it's the cold winters. But if that were true, northern blue states would have the same problem, but it doesn’t work out that way. So many wonder if it's the media fishbowl that we put our hockey players in.

It’s great if you’re a successful hockey player in Canada; you’ll be treated like a god. But there will be a lot of pressure too. The unfortunate aspect of this is that it’s a negative with little upside. In most sports, being under the media microscope comes with more money or a better chance or winning. That’s why people love to sign with Barcelona or the Yankees. But the NHL’s salary cap means that you get the same money wherever you sign. And with that, the chance of winning is no different for Canada’s hockey teams, and the evidence is that they have even less chance. It seems that all things being equal, players would rather not have the pressure than risk it to get extra fame.

I've heard a lot of people over the years discuss this price of fame outside the context of sports. Is it worth the fame and fortune if you can't go about your life in peace and privacy? I remember a DJ once hypothesizing that bassists have the best life of any musicians. They get the same share of the money, as well as the cheers and whatever happens backstage and in the hotel. But once that’s over, they can go about their lives in peace with no one recognizing them.

But being a hockey star in the US is a similar perfect balance. Mostly, you go about your life unbothered. But then every few days you get to spend a few hours surrounded by adoring fans cheering you on. Within the arena, people know who you are and care about you, but once the game is over you go back to anonymity.

I know it's sacrilege to say, but the Americans have it right, in their own way. They care just enough about hockey, but not too much. Indeed, that’s how the whole world should work: We have this big event where everyone is really excited and has a good time, but when it’s over, we put it aside and stop worrying about it, and treat the participants like normal people. Yes, we should all learn from American hockey fans. When they show up.

Paintdrop On The Wall

I recently came across a strange news release in my Facebook feed. (Warning: Gen-X age marker ahead!) Massive Attack, the British Trip-Hop group, is celebrating the twentieth anniversary of their classic album Mezzanine. No surprise: they’re issuing a re-release of the album. Big surprise: it’s on paint.

No, this isn’t an effect of my first post-pot-legalization post. They had the album encoded into DNA, then mixed that DNA into a spray paint. So it’s not just paint, it’s genetically-engineered paint. I don’t know of any technology to read the information in DNA, at least, DNA on a wall. So it could be ordinary black paint for all we know. Or perhaps it really contains “Never Gonna Give You Up” in a truly epic Rickroll.

Of course, I have plenty of reactions to this. First is a scientific amazement at the storage capacity of DNA. Then there’s the amazement at their initiative in doing something so unusual. But then that leads to the question of whether this is the best use of music-paint possibilities. It’s black paint, and Massive Attack’s music does have a darkness to it, but I’d really rather tell people that my black paint has Goth in it. Others would, I assume, prefer “Back in Black,” “Back to Black,” or either Black Album. But really, among music paints, I’m sure Purple Rain Purple would be the biggest seller. You could also have White Album White, and other colours would be mixtures of:

• Simply Red
• Orange Crush
• Coldplay Yellow
• Reverend Al Green
• Joni Mitchell Blue
• Indigo Girls
• Violet Femmes

Just remember to use Primus Primer.

But putting all this aside, there’s the subtext that Massive Attack member Robert “3D” Del Naja is rumoured to be infamous graffiti artist Banksy. So a big graffiti-related announcement from the group was greeted with snickers and knowing winks. To be fair, Del Naja is an admitted graffiti artist that Banksy has acknowledged as an influence, so Massive Attack spray paint is not necessarily an indication of nefarious culture jamming.

Of course, you could argue that once you’re using expensive gratuitous technology like this, we’ve left true rebellion and anarchism behind. And that’s something people have been asking about Banksy lately. His previous caper was the auto-shredding painting. That seemed like a great statement against the monetization of Banksy’s works that so often misses his point. But afterwards there were some questions about just how unexpected it was. For one thing, Sotheby’s usually puts paintings on an easel to auction them, which would have prevented the shredder from working, yet this one was conveniently on a wall at the side of the room.

I guess you could say that it’s subversive to talk a major auction house into risking its reputation by participating in performance art. Similarly, you could argue that conning people into buying expensive graffiti implements is a great satire of the economics of music memorabilia. Particularly if it turns out to be ordinary black paint. But even if it is real, memorializing electronic music with genetically-engineered vandalism is some quality cyberpunk.

Kanye, It Was Really Nothing

Recently, we've seen Kanye West, Shania Twain, and Morrissey surprise fans by jumping on board the right-hand side of the cultural divide.

Shania showed herself to be in over her head from the start, saying that she would have voted for Trump, then backtracking wildly once she discovered how unpopular that was. It might seem unfair that she's getting heavily criticized for something she apparently knows little of, but I have no sympathy: after all, we're all incompetent on most matters, but the rest of us know enough to sit up on things we don't understand. She's shown a kind of political Dunning-Kruger.

Kanye West has come out in support of Donald Trump. Should we really be surprised? Stats show that at least one African-American voted for him, it might be Kanye. It seems to me that they have a lot in common. For one thing, they have the world's two largest free-standing egos.

Another similarity is that when people are discussing Trump often come back to that Maya Angelou quote that when people show you who they are, believe them. Like Trump, Kanye keeps showing us who he is, and we keep not believing him. I've seen some people kinda defend Kanye by claiming that he's such an innovator and unconventional thinker that he doesn't fit into any preconceived notions of political sides. But a better explanation for West's ideas being incoherent and all over the map is that he's a lot like Trump: lacking in understanding and concentration.

Likely, Kanye's subsequent description of slavery as a "choice" will be the end of his support, at least from African-Americans.

Morrissey is another star who keeps trying to show us who he is; he's had a string of increasingly offensive statements and actions. Because he's the only one of these musicians who I've ever been a fan of, it's a bit more disappointing for me, even if his devolution has been in slow-motion. I'd like to think that he - like many in our current culture - has just become addicted to the joy of pissing people off, and has lost sight of the fact that sometimes pissing people off is the hint that you should re-evaluate your life.

But whatever the reason, I don't care anymore. I've given up, and I see that many others have too. But I'm sure that each of these suddenly hated musicians will have many more second-chances from other fans in the years to come.

These experiences have made me realize another unrealistic thing about Star Wars: when someone turns to the dark side, everyone else just accepts it. They're like, okay, he's on the dark side now. No one makes excuses for him, no one forgets it happened just because he hasn't force-choked anyone in the past week. No one looks the other way because of his other skills.

"I can't believe you hired Darth Farius to do your taxes."
"Well whatever you think of his politics, he's still a good accountant."

Radio Love Song

Recently, I heard a DJ mention that "Let's Dance To Joy Division" by The Wombats is his favourite song, and it appears on a Spotify playlist from the producers of Guardians of the Galaxy, presumably to remind everyone the franchise still exists while they wait for the next instalment in a couple of years.

I was intrigued, so when I got home, I looked the song up on YouTube (Still no streaming music for me. I listen to music the old fashioned way: files I've bought and downloaded.) The song is very good, though I wouldn't list it as my favourite. On the list of indie songs that name-check indie bands, I'd place it ahead of "Let's Make Love and Listen to Death From Above" by CSS, but behind "Daft Punk is Playing at My House" by LCD System.

But then it hit me how weird this whole experience was: A DJ mentioned a good song - but didn't play it - and I looked it up myself to hear if it was any good. That's not how the whole DJ concept is supposed to work; their job is after all to play good music. But in today's radio world, it's just accepted that outside of college radio, the music is pre-approved focus-grouped demographic pablum, and the DJ's have no say in it.

But the DJ's themselves seem reasonably free to express themselves - after all, ads for radio stations usually promote them as much or more than the music. So we have the strange situation where DJ's can express their personality by talking about edgy music, but aren't allowed to play it.

Similarly, big-budget movies are okay with using obscure music in self promotion, even if the movie itself is a safe comic book sequel. So these two media may be restrained by the need to be safe bets, but don't mind acknowledging alternative choices the consumer might make. It's like some kind of weakened dystopia where Big Brother won't show you rebellion, but is okay with everyone talking about it.

Keep Listening

Like a lot of Canadians my age, I have fond memories of Muchmusic. Not just silly, embarrassed memories, but some genuine appreciation. Although it could be juvenile and amateur, they offered a wider variety of music than any radio station, and so cultivated a more mature appreciation of music that we would otherwise have had. Also, their many genre-based shows allowed young music fans a deeper dive into their favourite music than you could get anywhere else at the time.

As a young proto-hipster, I especially enjoyed their alternative music show, The Wedge, and its predecessor, City Limits. They introduced me to musical possibilities a kid in small-town Ontario would never have had a chance to be exposed to, some of which would become life-long favorites.

But like I say, it wasn't perfect, and I think it's time for a reckoning of some of Muchmusic's crimes. For instance, they sometimes gave musicians a poor introduction. I'm still kind of ticked that I didn't get into The Smiths until years later because Much convinced me they had nothing more to offer than "Girlfriend in a Coma." Is not a bad song, but not the catchiest in their catalogue, and surely not the one you would use to introduce people to the band.

But that sort of thing tended to happen: they'd arbitrarily overplay one song in a bands ouvre, denying viewers the chance to get a better idea of their music. To be fair, they were limited by the fact that is a video channel, and have a mandate to choose good videos. But I suspected that we were also at the mercy of taste-makers behind the scenes, and if someone at the station had a thing for a particular song, then we were just kind of stuck with it.

Which brings me to fellow Mancurians, The Fall. The only song of theirs that I ever recall appearing on Muchmusic was "Eat Y'self Fitter," which I thought was one of the worst songs I'd ever heard. So for years, I had a very negative view of them.

Occasionally, I'd see The Fall mentioned alongside legends of the Manchester Scene, which would confuse me, having written them off as talentless weirdos. Eventually, though, between Internet radio and YouTube, I got to hear some of their other songs, and was surprised to find that they were much better.

After the recent death of The Fall's singer-songwriter Mark E. Smith, there were more accolades for the band, so I checked out some more of their songs on YouTube, and again, they fit into a fun, creative flavor of post-punk that I appreciated. After a few songs, I noticed that "Eat Y'self Fitter" appeared in the list of suggested videos, so I tapped on it to see if it was really as bad as I remembered.

Indeed it was. I'd describe it as the musical equivalent of one of those terrible Saturday Night Live sketches where they repeat the same joke over and over, and it's not just unfunny, you're not even sure why it was supposed to be funny. So I Googled the song to see if I was the only one that had the same reaction, and I was shocked to find that it is one of the all time favorites of British uber-DJ John Peel.

So I guess the lesson here is that not everyone's tastes line up. And never judge a musician by one song.

Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #39

You'll see Moe Berg of The Pursuit of Happiness perform "I'm an Adult Now" on TV at age 58.

Ripley, Believe It Or Not

So far, here's the reaction I've seen to Doctor Who announcing the first female Doctor:

• 25% people happy about the new casting
• 12% people saying “it’s about time”
• 5% dudebros complaining
• 30% people eagerly anticipating the dudebros complaining
• 20% progressives complaining she isn't also black, Muslim, gay, etc. 
• 5% arguing whether she is now a “Time Lord” or “Time Lady”
• 3% fans trying to correct newcomers ("You call her 'The Doctor,' not  'Doctor Who.'" “Oh,  I get it: it’s only the show that’s called 'Dr. Who’” "No! you have to spell out ‘Doctor!’”)

As you can see, I was pleasantly surprised by how little complaining there was.  Of course, social media is not a representative sample of opinion on anything.  But there are people who were perversely fascinated by especially sexist criticism, and they seemed to be having trouble coming up with particularly extreme examples.  So I’m assuming they didn’t have much to choose from.  Of course, that could be because they’ve been burnt by past campaigns against women in science fiction.

But on the other hand, I’ve been surprised by how many people are acting like this is completely unprecedented. Trekkies are off to the side, waving their arms to get our attention and point out that they did have a female captain for seven years. It’s like when Wonder Woman opened, and people were talking about how this was a new era with a female-led action franchise, there were a number of memes showing Buffy, Xena, and Katniss looking miffed at that. To be clear, I’m not denying that women have been tremendously under-represented as characters in these genres, I’m just curious as to why we keep forgetting the previous steps we’ve taken.

It reminds me of something from the music business. I remember years ago someone pointed out how, at the end of the year, when they’re writing their retrospect stories, they always seem to declare this the Year of the Woman, that this was the year women finally asserted themselves in the music industry because of the success of singer X, singer Y, and Madonna.  And yet, things never seemed to change much, and popular music continued to be male-dominated.

I’d always assumed that was because the music business has women in visible positions, but not powerful positions.  There are lots of women singing songs written by men, being produced and promoted by men, with most of the profits going to men. So we’re constantly overestimating how much real power women have in the industry.

But now I’m not so sure. Maybe we do have a problem with shifting our perspective in response to incremental progress. That’s not too surprising, really, since our ideas about the state of the world are deeply ingrained. And humans are notoriously bad at noticing slow, steady change. So I guess the lesson here is to revisit our assumptions more often.

I May Need Glastonbury

The big music festivals have posters that list all the bands playing, and they usually follow the same form:

The biggest acts are at the top, and they get the biggest print.  As you go down, the performers are harder to recognize, and their names are harder to read.  It occurred to me that this format is not unlike another famous poster:

Both posters seem harmless enough to young people. But for older people, they cause some trouble the further down the poster you go.  The eye chart reminds you that your sight isn't what it once was, and the festival poster reminds you that you aren't as cool as you once were.

But the good news is that for many people, their eyesight and coolness deteriorate at the same rate. you haven't heard of the musicians named at the bottom of the lineup, but that's okay, because you can't read that far down anyway. Who's playing Coachella this year? Radiohead, Lady Gaga, Kendrick Lamar... um, some other people, I'm sure I'm familiar with as well.

Teenage Fanclub

Harry Styles, of One Direction, recently made headlines when he came to the defense of teen girls and their choices of music. He says their tastes are unfairly maligned, and are just as legitimate as those of a thirty-something hipster.

In the general point that we shouldn't be so critical of teen girls' favourite music, I have to agree. And we definitely shouldn't (as many do but won't admit it) hate music because it's liked by teenage girls. But I can't go along with the everyone's-equally-discriminating-and-a-People's-Choice-Award-is-better-than-an-Oscar philosophy Styles and the above article supporting him are pushing.

I'll give you "we respect girls' music less than boys'." We tend to ridicule the targets of girls' fandom as talentless pretty boys, while giving a free pass to boys' idols, who are often talentless expressions of meaningless rage and rebellion. I'll also concede that there's often an ugly motivation behind the criticism of girls' idols, in which the critics attack a boy-band or sensitive singer-songwriter for seeming unmasculine. But they hide the homophobia in these attacks by wrapping them in high-minded musical notions.

But I can't go along with Styles's main thesis. The fact is, teens - of any gender - have some bad musical taste. It's not universal of course; many do have better taste than most adults. But when I look back at the history of artists propelled to the top by teen fandom, it's hard not to conclude that a big portion of teens have been listening with their hormones and little else. Yes, you can - as Styles did - point to the Beatles as an example of teens getting it right before anyone else. But for every such example, there are dozens of artists chosen by teens that turned out to have no talent behind the facade.

You can certainly point to many examples of hipsters who like something just because others do, or to try to look cool. But if we put aside the outliers on each side and just ask whose ear you trust more, the hipster or the youngster? Sorry Harry, but my money is on the hipster.

Looks Like We Made It

Wow, can you believe Barry Manilow is gay?  Oh, you can. Well, that seems to be the reaction: people aren't really surprised.  I was a bit surprised, since I would have thought that most gay celebrities are out now.  Could someone check The Closet, and let everyone else know it's safe to come out now.

But I'm a little disappointed that a lot of people have reacted to the news by saying that they always knew he was gay, or to ask why didn't he come out a long time ago, homosexuality has been accepted for decades, you know, Liberace and The Village People and them.

As for the idea that you knew it all along, I have to point out:

• There's a secretly-gay rumour for just about every male celebrity
• Have you seen the seventies? Even the really masculine guys had moustaches that would seem over-the-top at a Pride Parade today.

And for the people who think gay celebrities have always been accepted: Some of those folks are probably from that odd brand of bigotry that fervently denies that bigotry exists. But others seem to be really misremembering the past. Yes, you can point to gay artists of the 60's-80's, but a surprising number of them publicly denied their sexuality until more enlightened times. Liberace might seem like the most obviously gay man of all time, yet he claimed to be straight throughout his life.

The fact is that our society has had a strange attitude towards homosexuality for a while now, and there was a long period where we had kind of accepted that it didn't really hurt anyone, but we still held on to the general idea that it was wrong.  And that lead to a lot of celebrities who were stereotypically gay, but would never admit to it, fearing it would be career suicide.  And for a long time, they were probably right.

(Fun fact: The Village People weren't all gay.)

As if to underline our muddled views of sexuality, there's news that John Mayer has found a more masculine heart emoji. Specifically, he's using the heart from the playing card symbols, not the heart intended to symbolize love, which is more rounded. Certainly, it's not clear whether he was joking, but given the continued need people have to defend masculinity, I can't tell anymore.  It's one of the big mysteries of modern society: homosexuality is getting more and more widely accepted, yet men seem ever more fearful of appearing gay.  Just like there are fewer closeted celebrities, yet people are as quick as ever to speculate on who's secretly gay.

Ironically, by jumping to conclusions about people's sexual preference just based on their traits or interests, we're fuelling men's need to affirm their masculinity. Yes, I know, they should be accepting enough of others that they wouldn't mind being mistaken for gay.  But it's also putting a lot of pressure on them when they know that everyone will be quick to misrepresent their sexual preference the second they step outside of society's notions of heterosexual men. And it's all because people have this bizarre need to say "told you so" as soon as anyone comes out. So let's just stop the speculation and let people express their sexuality as they see fit.

Who Sells Out

I'm not really comfortable when the music business mixes with advertising. I lived through the alternative music era of the early nineties, when any musician not busking for the money to eat was considered a sell-out. Of course, the pendulum swung back the other way, and by the end of the decade, people were congratulating Moby for licensing all 18 tracks from his album Play. The pendulum hasn't swung back to anti-commercialism again, so we're still in an era when there's little consequence for musicians selling their soul to the ad biz. But even if fans and journalists don't punish artists, there are still some things to consider.

Level 1

Selling your song

This is when you let someone use your song in an ad. This seems like a harmless thing to do, and in the modern world, it's probably the best way to get your song heard. The problem is that the ad will now be by far the number one way people hear your song. So it's no longer your song, it's the song from the Nissan commercial.

This used to be considered selling out, but it's now acceptable to anyone not hanging on to their 90's flannel. The argument in favour of selling your song for commercial use is that you have the song, what harm does it do if you let someone else use it? My response is to ask, how sure are you that selling this song won't influence how you write your next song? Which brings us to...

Level 1b

Selling your next song

X Ambassadors really cashed in when they had the luck to write a song called "Renegades" just as Jeep was introducing a new SUV called the Renegade. I wonder how many struggling bands have started reading the car mags to find out what models are coming soon.

This is also the level Fitz and the Tantrums are going to for their song, "HandClap," which is quickly infecting stadium playlists everywhere. I mean, it's great that it's displacing DJ Casper's "Cha Cha Slide" who's "Everybody Clap Your Hands" soundbite has been a crutch for hack stadium DJ's for years.

Level 2

Letting them change the lyrics

At this point you're really tarnishing your song's memory, since you're making the song literally about the product. This means that people will forever hear the commercial version in their heads when they think of your song. This still happens to me for "You Are The Sunshine of My Life" (Minute Maid) and "I Can't Help Myself" (Duncan Hines) even decades after those ads were on the air. My point is, you only resort to this when you are truly done with the song, and never expect that you or anyone else will use it for its original intention ever again.

Level 3

Changing the lyrics to something completely different

A few years ago I heard them play "Your Love" at a baseball game. It's one of those songs you know you've heard, but you can't place it, so I had to look it up on to identify it. It's by The Outfield, which I discovered is a British band, even though they're named after a baseball term. That's weirdness I can appreciate.

But in the Glee aftermath you're allowed to like eighties music as long as you pretend you're only liking it ironically, so the song has a huge value to advertisers. That's how "Your Love" becomes a baseball anthem, and how advertisers get interested in putting it into a commercial, thus looking hip and appealing to old people at the same time. But by allowing an ad to re-write the song to tell the story of a loser with a wrinkled shirt to sell Bounce sheets, the song becomes a punchline.

At this point, you're not merely damaging the song, you're turning it into a joke. I can talk about "Sunshine of My Life," and you may remember it as a great song, as long as you don't try to hum along with Stevie Wonder and find yourself singing about orange juice. But once your song is a punchline, people can't even remember the existence of the song and take it seriously. To put it another way, changing the lyrics is like killing the song, this is like killing the song and then erasing all evidence it ever existed.