Snackable Rants

REVIEW

I love this record. I loved the bits and pieces of it I listened to for a couple of months, and I loved digging into the entire beast, and then re-listening for this review. 'The Suburbs' is a concept album that documents life in suburbia almost as a fiction anthology, sharing different perspectives on a central theme. It's all there - Depression and anxiety, hope and early wonder, concern about the future, love and death - and all set against the backdrop of a half-told (metaphorical?) police-state suburban conflict.

This is a dark record. It's not bleak or unrelenting, but the positives and possibilities are all set within the context of...unease. Arcade Fire co-founder Win Butler described 'The Suburbs' as a cross between Neil Young and Depeche mode, but I hear the paranoia of NIN's 'Year Zero' in many of the songs as well.

I'm hard-pressed to think of a recent album that better sets a tone. The jaunty, damaged-sounding title track builds to a haunting head in 'Ready to Start', and the following off-putting 4/4 to 5/4 groove of 'Modern Man' backs off the energy without losing an inch of feel. From there, track after track of wonderful, powerful music blend into a single, incredible package. The net result is an appropriately cinematic affair that has left a lasting impact on me.

Review score: 4/4

LIKELIHOOD

Here's where it gets dicey. The Polaris Mission Statement reads:

"Polaris recognizes and markets albums of the highest artistic integrity, without regard to musical genre, professional affiliation, or sales history."

Under this statement, it would make perfect sense for 'The Suburbs' to take top prize, but doing so would be totally foolish - and I think no one would agree more than Arcade Fire. The two biggest things an artist receives upon winning the Polaris are $20,000* and lots of (particularly Canadian) exposure. For some bands, both of these are a big deal. In a post-win interview, Karkwa stated that they would use their money to finally hire a tour manager (!). It was also big publicity for a Francophone band to be recognized all across Canada as having an awesome album.

In the case of Arcade Fire though, they really do not need either of the prizes. Everyone likes $20,000 - but Arcade Fire is a large, commercially successful act with an established reputation. They certainly aren't household names the world over, but if the top 2010 Grammy win didn't increase awareness of them, the Polaris Prize certainly will not.

As such, giving the prize to Arcade Fire might affirm the credibility of the Polaris Mission Statement, but it would strike me as a failure for Canadian music overall. Historically, Polaris Jury members would seem to agree with me on this one, passing over major artists like Broken Social Scene and Metric for smaller, less established acts. This logical, but weird setup perhaps makes The Suburbs simultaneously the most deserving (artistically), and least likely album on this list.

Likelihood Score: 1/4


Next up - Austra!


*Apparently, the prize was upped to $30,000 this year, but I think my argument still holds.

In joint celebration of a good friend's 'Canadian Music Month', and the recently announced Polaris Prize Shortlist, I'm going to be counting-down each of the ten albums over the coming week-or-two.

For each release, I'm going to be listening or re-listening to the album in its entirety. I will give my thoughts on the music, and also assign ratings for both how much I liked it, and how likely I think it is to win the 2011 Polaris. My Review score will go: 1 = disliked 2 = indifferent 3 = liked 4 = loved; my Likelihood score will be: 1 = very unlikely 2 = long shot 3 = likely 4 = front-runner.

I'm starting with Arcade Fire, and will be working my way down the list in the order of the website (alphabetical). To kick things off, here's a couple random thoughts about the prize in general:

1) Previous winners (Patrick Watson, Owen Pallett, Fucked-Up, Caribou, Karkwa) tend not to be unknowns, but definitely underdogs or under-the-radars. This however can change following a win (although not necessarily because of it. I think TV and The Cinematic Orchestra did much more for Patrick Watson than the Polaris)

2) Indie rock is thus-far favoured (both in nominees and winners), but there is good variety in the selection, and this year is no exception.

3) This year is the first time a non-physical release (The Weeknd) has made the shortlist

4) Albums I'm most bummed did NOT make the short list are: The Luyas, Miracle Fortress, Daniel Romano, Shotgun Jimmie, and Sloan.

Watch for the first post real soon.

Fuck you.

And your wife. Fuck you too, Demi.

Your shitty, pandering, belligerent, nonsensical, anger-over-facts campaign against child trafficking is a shameful example of the way new media can be abused in favor of dubious causes.

Make no mistake, I am in no way diminishing the harm or wrong of child prostitution. But this is bullshit.

1) These ads are idiotic. So the guy ISN'T a real man, because he doesn't do laundry? Does that mean he 'buys girls'? What's with the cutesy attempt at bro-humor, and then the tacked on serious message? Is this supposed to be funny?

2) When the Village Voice critiques you really, really well - and your response is to try to shame advertisers to pull from their paper via twitter, without addressing those critiques - you are abusing new media

3) Your blanket attacks on sex-related classifieds ads advance a culture of sex-negativity and punish, shame, and diminish (NSFW) tonnes of great people making a living off of sex. You know. That thing most people enjoy.

4) As was aptly pointed out by a Youtube commenter (not everyone is all about the dislikes!), the package of socks opened by Kutcher in the 'Laundry' ad is equally (or more) likely to have been tainted by exploitation than the adult classifieds section of a local alt newspaper. Before you say moronic things like "One girl sold for slavery is too many!", you had better have an equally strong stance on EVERY PRODUCT YOU ENCOUNTER.

Apple factory workers face abuse, electronic waste offshoring is still rampant, and Amnesty International reports that conflict diamonds still have access to legitimate marketplaces in the United States.

I don't think that people should have solutions to every problem before trying to help one. Nor do I think that causes should necessarily be paralyzed by what they don't do, rather than what they can accomplish.

But using incorrect data to bully, harass and shame legitimate media outlets and honest citizens is reprehensible - as is wielding Twitter like a sword to rope uninformed supporters into pushing your bullshit tactics.

Stop trying to be celebrity Tony Starks. You are both acting like fucking assholes.

Youtube comment trends fascinate and intrigue me. There is a very organic nature to the way that memes, jokes, and ideas evolve within the response format - but I am also frequently surprised by the strange things that separate to the surface of this subset of the pop conciousness.

Today, I'm going to focus on one trend in particular: The entirely shocking amount of time and energy people dedicate to being irritated that other faceless human beings do not like the things that they do.


"If you don't like this, you are wrong."

"who ever disliked this is deaf"

"199 people have no soul"


I can definitely understand the initial sting of witnessing a hair-raising moment (be it music, a touching story, an amazing near-miss) and having someone else dismiss it entirely. I have had times in my life where I stand in total awe of what I am priveledged enough to experience, and turn to share that feeling - only to see the person next to me totally unengaged. This is a bummer, no doubt.

But in the case of Youtube, I'm am baffled. Even baring in mind the many countries without widespread internet access (to say nothing of safe drinking water), there are dozens of cultures, languages, religions and lifestyles represented amongst Youtube members. People talk about the 'Youtube Community', but aside from the ability to watch, make and rate videos, there is no common thread or culture to the website.

In the most basic terms, Youtube is a video player, a feedback section, and a whole pile of server space. That's it. Someone watching the same video as you may not be old enough, speak the language in question, or understand the culture necessary to respond to the video in remotely the same way.

In an effort to understand the 'intolerance of dislike' phenomenon, here's one theory to get the ball rolling:

YOUTUBE FEELS VERY SMALL

Despite the staggeringly vast number of videos on Youtube, certain features (notably the frontpage) make the site feels artificially small. This is definitely on purpose. Most super-websites like Facebook and Youtube offer tools specifically designed to make the online realm feel a reasonable size. Facebook simply starts everyone off tiny, and allows them to slowly increase in size. Youube on the other hand uses Subscriptions, Recommendations, and the Frontpage to show you things that are similar to things you respond to, or things that are generally popular and well-liked. This has an innocuous-seeming, but powerful effect:

Frequent Youtube users tend to see more things that are related to them, than things that are unrelated

This seems like a no-brainer, but the end result is that it becomes easy to forget the simple fact that Youtube is made up of people with nothing in common but an internet connection and a desire to watch moving pictures. If we watch video upon video of related things, it starts to feel (at least for me) like a real community, and with that comes the desire to reinforce the norms and behaviors of that community. What I think is important to remember - and what is lost in this latest flavor of 'shun-the-non-believer' - is that an overarching 'community' on Youtube isn't a reality, but rather an feeling aided by sorting algorithms and directed website navigation.

Anyone who disagrees tripped and fell on the dislike button.