I’ve just put up free full versions of my two albums. It will be a little while before there’s anything new, and it’s been nine years (!) since the last new stuff! You can find them on the Music page. Enjoy!

This, of course, is a pretty valuable discussion to have, and one with at least a twenty year-old history. Indeed, why should patriotism only be associated with sons and not daughters? While we’re at it though, we ought to take it further and ask important questions about the music that is supposed to represent the people of this country. Let’s look at the French version, and begin the process of eliminating its gender specificity (“nos aieux” = “our forefathers”). Moreover, let’s ask ourselves whether a country whose indigenous population was largely polytheistic, and whose contemporary population is a grand mixture of people of many religious and non-religious backgrounds, needs an anthem that so prominently features the Christian deity, in both languages—they are, after all “His” sons. One step further.  Let’s acknowledge the troubled history of national anthems themselves as emerging out of a violent, colonial, oppressive nationalism, a violence that is reflected in “Car ton bras sait porter l’épée” (“As in thy arm ready to wield the sword”). And finally, we might just take this opportunity to re-examine the term “patriot” itself, and acknowledge its Latin and Greek roots: pater =  father. [1] I’d say that this is one way to harness the debate and hold the Harperites to the letter on this move. Then we can have a proper discussion about the notion of national political and cultural representation.

In a move sure to cause a vivid debate, I certainly don’t take this as a signal that the Harper government has all of sudden put gender issues on the table as part of its message. No. This is the same party and leader who have objected to same sex marriage and benefits for same-sex couples, who advocated disallowing women to appeal for pay equity, oppose national childcare, cut funding to Status of Women Canada, who wage a vicious war on the poor that disproportionately affects women, and who generally espouse conservative “family values”…the list goes on. Changing a word is unlikely to have material effects on the lives of Canadian women or anyone else.

But what is perhaps most subtly disturbing about this is that it comes at the very same time as a federal budget. As politicos are fond of calling it, this is an example of “deflective” or “deflection” politics. DeBord called it spectacle. The idea is to seed a story so perfectly well-suited for “person on the street,” populist “analysis” that members of the mainstream media simply cannot help themselves; they simply HAVE to cover it, it’s news. It’s also much easier to get a reporter out on the street with a microphone to ask people if they think nouns or pronouns [2] ought to be replaced in the national anthem than it is to ask people what they think about, say, a $3.25 a week increase in Child Tax Benefits ($3.25!?), continued promotion of “corporate welfare,” increased efforts in securitisation (which is, interestingly, also included in a chapter about “Supporting Families and Communities”)…and this list goes on. Especially after the Olympics, this is the perfect topic to deflect attention away from the budget; it is downright entertaining to see people speak passionately about “owning the podium” and how much it meant to “us” to have the national anthem played more times than any other host country had theirs played. It’s significantly less entertaining to have dry economists point out the failings (or successes) of a budget.

By nature a deflective tactic is also presumed to be less important than the issue from which it is supposed to divert attention; one wouldn’t deflect with something more crucial, that would draw unwanted attention. There is rarely any intention to move forward on the actual substance of the deflection. In this case, I think it would be fair to say that there will be a 50/50 split amongst those people polled who care about the issue, it will gain no real political traction, and it will thus have served its purpose as an entertaining piece of theatre.

But I don’t mean to suggest that the issue is not actually important, in fact, I argue the opposite. Using gender as a deflection is further evidence of this government’s contempt for progressive social issues. They have cravenly manipulated the intense feeling of pride held by many who live in this country over the great successes of hard-working, talented athletes; they have instrumentalised the supposed sanctity of the national anthem; and they have trivialised gender issues as a means to deflect attention from a budget that appears at first to be business as usual, but which I am sure, upon further inspection, will yield further damages for people, and further gains for corporate Canada. For me, this shows ultimate disrespect for each of these important issues. In addition to playing classic divisive politics (they are ignoring people affected by the many other problematic issues in the anthem’s lyrics), it seems to me a typically chauvinistic approach to suggest that issues affecting women could be addressed by paying attention to “aesthetics” rather than to material concerns.

So, what do people think about this?

Links:

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/plan/toc-tdm-eng.html
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2008-stephen-harper-vs-feminism
http://www.newstalk650.com/story/20100304/30241
http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/732997
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/04/the-government-delivers-an-empty-almost-flippant-budget/
http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2010/03/stakeholder-reaction-to-the-2010-budget/
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/anthem-eng.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Canada#Proposed_changes_to_lyrics

[2] Interestingly, this is probably one of the only times we’ll see debate over grammar occupy a front and centre position in the mainstream media!

turned out en masse for a public town hall meeting in Toronto late last month, resulting in multiple interventions from record label executives (four from Warner Music alone).  Packing the room ensured that there was virtually nothing heard from education and consumer groups, many of whom could not even attend the town hall since all the tickets were scooped up in less than five days.

See the full post here.

The reviewer is referring to a BitTorrent where someone has altered the original songs. The reviewer explains exactly where one should go in order to download the file that totally infringes on a copyright. It’s not only an illegal file, but an altered file. The reviewer also writes that this is how the album should have sounded. File-sharing of music is illegal. Period. There’s nothing to discuss.

The best part here is that the label is clearly more upset about the “downloading” part than they are about the “music” part.  I think it clearly demonstrates where the priorities of major labels lie.  The lesser of the evils is clearly the fan’s alteration of the music.  I can see how this might annoy an artist, especially when the review is ostensibly of their work, and not the work of the person who remixed it.  However, it’s also cool that people are out there reconfiguring music, as they have always done.  The real offense is that the reviewer used a downloaded copy and not the “official” (read: paid for) release, and then pointed to a site where anyone else could download it.  There is, in fact, something to discuss: a really interesting debate could have been had if Universal’s beef was with the aesthetics of the remix. It would be interesting to know if the band has heard it too, especially given the grief that they’ve been getting over what appears to be a pretty poor mastering job. No, instead Universal kicks up a stink over how  the album was obtained rather than addressing what appears to be the more important issue, how the music sounds.  Because the fan’s motivation to remix was rotted in a dislike for certain parts of the recording, not only in a desire to reconfigure and make something new out of it.  The comment accompanying the torrent says it all: “an awesome re-cut of the new album – all of the dumb parts have been taken out. all of the thrash has been left in.”

I’ve heard the album, and I quite like it.  I agree it’s a “return to form” of sorts – at least there’s more guitar solos!

For a while I was thinking that I wouldn’t bother posting my MA online. Really, after the defense, and what with the evolution of my thought since I started the PhD, I figured it old news.  But, I’ve decided to let it out of the dusty confines of my hard drive and give it some air.  After all, what’s this whole academic thing about if it isn’t about sharing ideas, even if doing so risks criticism?  It’s in the criticism that we can alter and adjust our thinking.  So, while I stand by what I’ve written in this document, I’m not promoting it as my final position on these matters and I’m eagerly anticipating changes in my thought, even to the point of disagreeing with myself (which happens more often that not anyway, so what the hell)! Enjoy!

Online Music Communities:
Challenging Sexism, Capitalism, and Authority in Popular Music (PDF, 650kb)

Abstract
With its almost exclusive focus on the economics of the music industry, the early-21st century debate over digital music piracy has obscured other vital areas of study in the relationship between popular music and the Internet. This thesis addresses some of these neglected areas, specifically issues of agency, representation, discipline, and authority; it examines each of these in relationship to the formation and maintenance different online music communities. I argue that contemporary online trends related to music promotion, consumption, and criticism are, in fact, part of a much larger socio-cultural re-envisioning of the relationships between artists and audiences, artists and the music industry, and among audience members themselves. The relationship between music and the Internet is not only subversive on the level of economics.

I examine these issues in three key areas. Independent women’s music communities challenge patriarchal authority in the music industry as they use online discussion forums and websites to advance their own careers. The tension that exists between the traditional for-profit music industry and the developing ethic of sharing in the filesharing community creates the conditions whereby we can imagine alternative ways that music can circulate in culture. “Citizen media,” such as blogs and “open source” encyclopædias, allows for those who otherwise had no avenue for presenting their thoughts and ideas to engage in public discourse. Traditional understandings of authority and expertise are subject to revision as new ways of assessing authority develop for online sources. This is also evident in the struggles of “old-media” groups in reconciling their established publishing and editorial practices with emergent online practices.

This thesis foregrounds the work of individuals by drawing extensively from interviews, personal blogs, and online discussion forums. In this way, the monolithic “grand narratives” of the Internet, such as the filesharing “battle” or the democratic potential of online discourse, are shown to be the product of many individual subjectivities, each of whom contribute to authoring the online environment.

EDIT: Holy Crap! For those of you wondering what “Captialism” is, I have no answer. I only just noticed the misspelling on the cover today as I posted the picture! My parents sent me these pictures the day the bound copy arrived in the mail back in Novvember! I guess I never really looked close enough at them!

In doing so, I find that I come back, time and time again, to Trey Anastasio’s incredible guitar work on Phish’s quirky but epic “Reba” from 1990’s Lawnboy. I have always held the guitar solo from the studio version as an example of a “perfect” guitar solo, if there can be such a thing. I saw Phish a few times live (Concert Hall-Masonic Temple, Toronto 04/06/1994, The Great Went, Limestone, ME 08/16/1997, 08/17/1997 and Van Andel Arena, Grand Rapids, MI 11/11/1998) but I never once saw a live “Reba”. I have been on a bit of a Phish binge recently, and have been focussing on a lot of the Live Phish series, a great many of which come with “Reba’s”, to my delight. After hearing a few, I went on a search for “the best ‘Reba’ ever” and have since been compiling, when time permits, as many as I can get my hands on. I have also spent some time paring them down so I can listen to endless “Reba” “jam sections” (the guitar solo has evolved in the live setting to be oh so much more!) over and over, in a row, without being interrupted by the rest of the tune. These days I find myself returning over and over again to the classic New Year’s eve performance at Madison Square Garden (12/31/1995), this “Reba” solo has all but displaced the studio version as my new idea of what “perfect” might sound like.

Take a listen to both for yourself (or right-click on the titles to download)!

Reba (Lawnboy, 1990) (MP3, 7mb)

Reba (Madison Square Garden, NYC, NY 1995) (MP3, 15.5mb)

You can also see this being performed here (solo begins around 5’50″).

Some highlights from the Madison Square Garden solo (time indicators are for the above edited MP3):

• It begins ever so quietly with Trey’s simple phrase, based on an alternation between two notes, which bassist Mike Gordon picks up on (0’34”) and is given some space to play around with as Trey eases back a bit.

• A trademark staccato high note to begin Trey’s next phrase (0’43”) which picks up on the descending line established by Mike moments earlier.

• Trey just milks the arpeggio at 1’12”, using it, in the same way as Coltrane would often do, almost as a pedal point, returning to it several times while embellishing it as the solo progresses.

• The tone at 1’32” just “pops” out at you, as my friend Alex would say!

• There is a rapturous pedal-point section at 2’11” and at this point I’m just in awe of the way that these four men could communicate onstage. This precedes a return to a two note pattern that echoes the opening phrase (2’30”).

• 3’03”-3’09” Trey picks up on keyboardist Paige McConnell’s descending line, and Paige responds in kind.

• The phrase that just gets me every time is the little golden nugget we get 3’38”-3’41” where you can here that Trey has switched to the bridge pick-up and has (likely) engaged the first of two Ibanez Tube Screamer overdrive pedals. We’re preparing for lift off here babies!

• 3’49”-4’06” another arpeggio to milk, singing high note “poppin’” out atcha!

• 5’06”, that’s the second Tube Screamer, and anticipates the beautiful legato line from 5’10”-5’15”.

• Classic Trey 05’25”-5’40” (not that the rest of the solo isn’t, mind).

• Triumphant is the only word I’ve ever been able to think of that describes the kind of phrasing he uses between 6’04-6’12”.

• 6’23”-6’27”: How in the hell do you make that crazy bend on a guitar with no whammy bar? It’s so…seamless.

• The phrase that begins at 7’22” is superb, listen to the way he plays the line several times and then speeds up the rhythm, playing the same notes, towards the end (7’26”).

• The upper register face-melting that brings us home from 7’53” onwards is just gold.

I mean really, the whole damn thing is fantastic. The sensitivity of Paige’s piano playing is great to listen to after you’ve got past a few listens to Trey’s solo. Mike and drummer Jon Fishman aren’t slouches either. This performance is a great example of how what in another band would be “just a guitar solo” can turn into a serious bit of group improvisation where the guitar is really just another voice, albeit a prominent one.

Now, if you play, go play.

I agree mostly with these statements, preferring Stefani’s music to Twain’s. But damn if this past Sunday’s performance by Prince wasn’t the most refreshing halftime show I’ve ever seen!

[EDIT] I had links to the videos on youtube here for a couple of weeks, with the warning to “get ‘em soon”, suspecting that they would be pulled for whatever idiotic copyright reason.  Well, it turns out they were!  I’m sure you can find them if you go here.  

It was almost disconcerting watch Prince rock out, doing something so loose, when in recent years Superbowl halftimes have been as boring as the games they were interrupting.  CCR, a Foo Fighters cover, All Along the Watchtower, and some killer guitar playing…Now that’s sexy!