My 60th Grammy Awards Picks

My picks for the top awards in 2018:

Record Of The Year:
“Redbone” — Childish Gambino
“Despacito” — Luis Fonsi & Daddy Yankee Featuring Justin Bieber
“The Story Of O.J.” — Jay-Z
“HUMBLE.” — Kendrick Lamar
“24K Magic” — Bruno Mars

Who should win: Childish Gambino

Who will win: Luis Fonsi & Daddy Yankee Featuring Justin Bieber

 Album Of The Year:
“Awaken, My Love!” — Childish Gambino
4:44 — Jay-Z
DAMN. — Kendrick Lamar
Melodrama — Lorde
24K Magic — Bruno Mars

Who should win: Kendrick Lamar

Who will win: Lorde

Continue reading

Finding Fake Apologists

I got my undergraduate degree in Religious Studies. During this time, the idea of “apologists” naturally came up quite a bit. Everywhere I looked there was a Muslim or a Christian defending the most controversial or dogmatic tenets of their religion. Yet, funnily enough, I have actually found that the notion of “apologism” comes up even more often in colloquial discussion of popular culture than it does in religious theory or scholarship.

Not having any of it

Not having any of it

Whether you defend Phantom Menace or Chinese Democracy, speaking positively about a controversial work is a sure way to be labeled an apologist; something ugly and objectionable I guess. Though I won’t argue that this is a misuse of the term “apologist” (which simply means someone who defends a controversial position), I will argue that it is an abuse of the term.

To use “apologist” as a pejorative in order to dismiss a certain viewpoint is both unfair and illogical. It represents an ad hominem attack that fails to acknowledge the content of one’s position and drives increasingly binary views of art and pop culture.

For example, let’s take a recent movie that divided both critics and consumers: Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Let me start by saying that The Hobbit is not a great film worthy of canonization. It would be quite easy to label it “abysmal” and move on. However, this offhand categorization is intellectually dishonest. Reducing “mixed” works to binary grades (fantastic or terrible) represents more of an emotional reaction than a cogent critique.

Yet, we set up these binaries all the time. I use the example of The Hobbit, because it is a film that I was forced to defend against a group of dismissive friends. Truth be told, I don’t believe it is a fabulous film. I think it has many serious faults, but I also enjoy many moments throughout the overly-long adventure. However, because I was unwilling to side with my friends who all simply dismissed the film as “shit”, “awful”, and “boring”, I was forced to be an apologist for a film that I, in fact, had strongly mixed feelings about. Essentially, a more sophisticated analysis (even one which acknowledges a works flaws) tends to turn the analyst into an “apologist” as I experienced in that instance.

We need a more nuanced and intellectual discussion about this

We need a more nuanced and intellectual discussion about this

True, this is only anecdotal, but I have often heard this kind of story from colleagues, family, and friends. Most people experience moments where their own views are misrepresented because they are forced to take one side or the other. Our discourse relies more on “us-and-them” notions of identity driven by likes and dislikes than the kind of complicated analysis that is necessary to understand any work.

This feeling of being misrepresented is a common experience and one this is fundamentally destructive to art. It means (as I have often argued) that we create a system which privileges flaws over achievements. In a binary system of perfect and shit, more works will be inherently be labeled as shit. This makes sense for several reasons. Firstly, it requires more of the consumer to appreciate an average or flawed work than it does for the consumer to disregard this work. Secondly, praise seems more valid if it is harder to earn. However, I believe that we should acknowledge both the merits and faults of any work of art rather than lumping works into extreme qualitative categories.

DUH?! Shouldn’t this be really obvious? How could anyone disagree with the idea that nuanced evaluations are better than reductive categorizations?  Simple. It is easier to think in extremes. It’s essential in many cases. Our intelligence is pattern-oriented and thinking in binaries can help us to survive (this plant good, this berry bad). But art should be an exception to this polarized way of thinking. Art (whether popular or otherwise) should be something that is examined with complexity and subtlety.

For all my experience with nutty religious apologists who defend infanticide and bigotry, it is still people making idiotic arguments about art that shocks and horrifies me the most. So remember, for my own sanity, stop reducing art to good or bad. That’s just an awful, terrible, stupid thing to do.

Top Ten Songs You Won’t Believe Didn’t Win the Oscar

Every award season there is a momentous amount of time and energy dedicated to “who won”? Yet, equally as fascinating (often more), are those albums, artists, and films that don’t manage to court their industries’ accolades.

This year, as the Oscars crept up on us once again, we found ourselves collectively aghast at the nerve of the Academy. No, not for its crippling racism, but because it denied The Lego Movie a nod! Everything was not awesome…

So, in thinking about all the snubs and losers throughout American Award Show history, I’ve compiled a list of those “Best Original Song” nominees that somehow missed the top prize.

Some of these oversights are understandable, like “Circle of Life” losing to another song from The Lion King. And the some of these are “Ghostbusters”:

Continue reading

In Defense of U2

There is perhaps no other band that is more indicative of the music industry’s destructive consumer culture than U2. Where other artists like Radiohead and Neil Young have pioneered alternative release strategies to great success, U2 has met a wall of ill-informed criticism in the wake of their own free digital release. The gist of the controversy is this, U2—a reputable and established band whatever your feelings on their music—released their current album Songs of Innocence for free through iTunes. Here’s the rub. The release automatically added the LP to any iPhone or mobile device running iOS. This “guerilla” release strategies have been compared to Skynet, The Matrix, and a million other totalitarian sci-fi monstrosities.

And there is something to  be said for the discomfort that some people felt in having something hoisted upon their mobile devices. However, what many fail to recognize here is that this kind of silent infiltration occurs every day (every hour) on our precious phones. Apple provides system updates and software patches, HTC tweaks their keyboard functionality, and Gmail brings in all those wonderful Twitter notification emails.

See?! They've even stolen Joey Ramone's identity!

See?! They’ve even stolen Joey Ramone’s identity!

Yet all of this (assuming you choose not to disable these updates) is readily accepted and even appreciated because it does not come tangled with the inherent problem of “taste” that necessarily accompanies art. What I am suggesting is fairly obvious. Few U2 fans are criticizing this release strategy, because they like U2. This is simple, of course. However, software updates and bug patches rarely have this same kind of divisive value judgment attached to them. So the issue really doesn’t concern the perceived invasion of privacy, but rather the content that did the “invading”.

So given that content is what’s really in question here, let’s look at how this hysteria surrounding the delivery of such content is both misleading and misinformed. Perhaps the most shocking revelation from U2’s failure is that this grab-bag consumer culture has become so destructive that theft is seen as more acceptable than an unsolicited gift. If you have ever illegally downloaded music then you cannot complain that U2 gave you their album for free. It is that simple.

They gave you a gift. Sure, to you it might be the musical equivalent of a pair of underwear for Christmas, but it is more reasonable than stolen briefs any day of the year. Furthermore, there was no solicitation for future action on the part of U2. It was not spam. There was no link to purchase a physical copy, or buy concert tickets, or enter a raffle. It was just an album…except free. So if you don’t want it, delete it and stop whining about invasion of privacy and violation of your rights while you simultaneously rob artists of their due revenue on Bittorrent.

For those of you who don’t regularly pirate or illegally stream media, I’ll begrudgingly admit that you are entitled to some measure of frustration with those arrogant assholes U2 who claimed valuable space on your iPhone and invaded your privacy. But I’m willing to bet that you also downloaded Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter, or Google Maps and accepted their privacy-shredding Terms & Conditions without thinking. So get over yourself.

The Danger Ahead for Arcade Fire

Arcade Fire is one of my favorite bands and it would be impossible for me to put aside my geekiness in this article. Yet, after I picked up their new album “Reflketor” last Fall, I felt a vague sense of dread, even though I admittedly enjoyed it. Here is my attempt to figure out why this latest record from the Canadian collective scared me so much:

When I was 14 my voice cracked in front of the whole school. It’s the definitive symbol of the pain of puberty, and my cool-kid tie and indoor sunglasses did little to mitigate the humiliation. The next day I bought Neon Bible by Arcade Fire. It’s funny how hindsight cuts out all the superfluous crap. These two events, the trauma of showing my youth in public and a simple album purchase, are so intimately connected in my mind.

It makes sense on some level.  Arcade Fire is one of the defining bands of my young adult life and what they have so magnificently achieved over the past decade, besides a bevy of exquisitely crafted albums, is the ability to speak for children without pandering, without misty eyed navel-gazing, and without restraint.  Their ability to expose the simultaneous liminality, beauty, and discord in youth is unparalleled. This is also what most scares me about Arcade Fire’s new direction since releasing 2013’s wildly popular Reflektor.

C:\Users\Sam\Pictures\Blog\arcade-fire-2_2712949b c telegraph co uk.jpg

The rallying cry of Arcade Fire’s sophomore album, Neon Bible, was the line: “us kids know.” In this seemingly innocuous and childishly self-assured proclamation, Win Butler and crew simultaneously captured the transcendent knowledge and fragility of youth. It was a biting insight into the ability of children to see both clearly and remotely at once. That is to say that kids experience domestic pain (whether financial, marital, personal, etc.) in both an intensely intimate and naïve manner. They understand the world in an emotionally pure, yet fundamentally immature, manner.

Keeping this duality in mind, the youth in Arcade Fire’s songs are not idealized; they viciously hurt and isolate one another. Yet, in the end these young characters that Butler invents are able to perceive the atomization and fragmentation of American culture in a way that Butler’s adult characters can never articulate. While the adults vaguely intuit the ills of society by saying, “I’m living in an age that calls darkness light,” and calling attention to the exploitation of Catholic charity organizations, it is the children that understand most clearly the root of the problem even if they can’t understand the complexities of the situation. In “Sprawl I (Flatland)” Butler speaks as a child who realizes that the expansion of suburban American has created a class of rootless children with no real sense of home. However, faced with a desolate Texas suburb, this child is only able to say: “It’s the first time I felt like something was mine.”

This kind of simple yet profound insight into the worldview of children and young adults has fallen away on Arcade Fire’s most recent record Reflektor. Indeed the only time that childhood is really addressed is when Butler confronts “little boys looking at porno” (bringing a previously absent sexuality to Arcade Fire’s lyrics). While Butler’s musings are still a provocative mix of cleverness and grandiosity, he has abandoned the childish voice which so often tempered the eschatological dreariness of the adults’ concerns.

C:\Users\Sam\Pictures\Blog\arcade-fire-snl-2013 c stereogum.jpg

You can also see this “absence of innocence” in Régine Chassagne’s diminished vocal presence. Her playful yet youthfully self-assured voice provided a glorious foil to Butler’s heavy, Bowie-esque vocals. The dynamic between the two of them, perhaps most brilliantly used in “Sprawl II (Mountains Beyond Mountains),” managed to indefinitely capture that liminal moment between childhood and maturity. Their music was stuck in a place of transition, never fixed, but open to the truths of both sides. Now with Reflektor it seems they have unfortunately lost this salient position.

Certainly Reflektor has many good songs for all its faults. The title track is a striking commentary on commercialism in “The Reflective Age,” yet the voices of the kids (such a staple of Arcade Fire’s work) are nowhere to be found. Perhaps as new parents, Win and Régine don’t feel they can speak for children anymore. But this is exactly the moment I want to hear from indie rock’s most wide-eyed songwriters. An album from new parents about experiencing parenthood while still feeling like a child would be unprecedented in the scope of rock music.

C:\Users\Sam\Pictures\Blog\ARCADE-FIRE-REFLEKTOR2 c clashmusic.jpg

Faced with the horror of voice cracks and bad haircuts, my 8th grade self desperately needed Arcade Fire to reassure me that youth has its uses; its own privileges. With Neon Bible, Arcade Fire helped me to understand that youth is full of these secret knowledges. After all, it would be tragically ironic if Butler’s most ingenious lyrics about parenthood were penned before he was even a father. But I think we have more to hear about innocence, childhood, and wonder from the man who wrote:

“…I want a daughter while I’m still young/I wanna hold her hand and show her some beauty before all this damage is done/But if it’s too much to ask, if it’s too much to ask/Then send me a son”.

You have your son now Mr. Butler. How do you feel?

Buena Vista Social Club Review

For Latin American Music class we had to write a critique of “Buena Vista Social Club”. I decided to post mine in case any one is a fan of the film or familiar with it. Enjoy:

Speaking Between the Lines: Cuban Representation and Agency in Buena Vista Social Club

Agency, representation, power; these ideas are often linked to the chatterbox and the insatiable talker. In our Western, democratic view of representation, we see the ability to talk and be heard as the cornerstones of agency. Indeed, this makes sense as in a deliberative democracy it is communication which binds and mediates power. Even superfluous talking (i.e. the filibuster) has profound ramifications on the democratic process. To our minds, the unheard voice is a powerless one indeed. Yet, power is not always so immediately recognizable or identifiable. Those who speak a great deal may have little control over how they are represented and it is sometimes non-verbal forms of communication which most radically dictate our views of a subject. These non-verbal signals are crucial when we consider the documentary Buena Vista Social Club by acclaimed filmmaker Wim Wenders.

Ostensibly, Buena Vista Social Club is a documentary which seeks to give voice to previously unheard musicians in Cuba. It is a well-meaning goal at least. We hear the musicians’ personal stories, triumphs, and sometimes idiosyncratic musings. On the surface the documentary seems to give a great deal of power to these aging and forgotten artists. Yet, underneath the veneer of agency there is a curious narrative of American colonialism which exoticizes, commoditizes, and inscribes these musicians within a musical narrative that is certainly not their own. This is not always to say that this narrative is destructive or damaging to these Cuban musicians. However, it is clear that although the words are from their mouths, the narrative is not their own.

It's not as trippy as other album films (courtesy imdb)

It’s not as trippy as other album films (courtesy imdb)

Continue reading

Please Don’t Hate Things

It’s tremendously unfortunate that in our society we value negative opinions over positive ones. Now, by this I don’t mean that we should be uncritical and naïve. Rather, I mean to say that it’s unfortunate that the opinion “that movie was crap” seems to carry more weight than the equally valid “I loved that movie”. For some reason, we give more credence to those who attack something than those who defend a work of art despite its flaws.

This is a destructive tendency both artistically and societally. This position places unrealistic expectations on artists, degrades fine pieces of flawed art, and requires less thought and skill to hold. It is simply easier to declare that a record or film is “rubbish” than it is to coherently and cogently defend an imperfect work.

To begin with, there are no perfect pieces of art. A perfect piece of art is antithetical to the notion of art, which necessarily includes some element of humanity (although the notion of post-human art is an interesting debate). However, we’ve become consumed—in part due to the rapid rate at which our culture progresses—with the groundbreaking, the monumental, and the indispensable. These are all things which are not essential components of art, especially popular art like cinema and popular music.  As art has become more and more disposable we counter intuitively have become more obsessed with permanence.

The destructive result of this is the unrealistic expectation that every offering from an artist (any artist) is going to be an earth-shattering achievement. Indeed, many examples of groundbreaking art are determined not by the quality of the art, but by the circumstances of society, politics, or the economy at the time the art is released. Nevermind by Nirvana, while being a fantastic example of songwriting, did not aim for cultural revolution. In fact Cobain was attempting to rip of The Pixies and Black Sabbath. The album succeeded because of certain circumstances which allowed the “right people” to hear it, respond to it in a positive manner, and precipitate a broader societal reaction. To be blunt: it struck the right nerve at the right time.

If we embrace only elephant art at the expense of competent art, we would lose: Favourite Worst Nightmare, Django Unchained, Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, even Let It Be by The Beatles. None of these art massive works which changed the tide, but all of them are meaningful and excellent pieces of art.

Now I’m not suggesting that there isn’t bad art. Some things are just terrible like Pirates of the Caribbean 3 and The Phantom Menace. But even in these, there are things worth preserving. John Williams’s score and Darth Maul for example.

Furthermore, valuing negative reviews over positive reviews creates an inhospitable atmosphere for both production and discussion of art. For some reason the notion of liking something that others dislike is seen as naïve. I enjoy Matrix Reloaded, Third Eye Blind, and Revenge of the Sith. Now none of these are works of genius, but they all offer something valuable (and aren’t crap either).

Now it is easy to simply say, Matrix 2 was shit and leave the discussion there. At a party you’d probably end up looking like the cool guy, and my defense of the movie would come across as “trying too hard”. However, I gain more by being able to explain my view and defend it. Even if you dislike a work, it is profoundly beneficial to seek out the good in it. The struggle to understand and appreciate a work will sharpen your critical senses for future pieces and help you to better comprehend your own biases and perception.

Nothing says you can’t dislike a movie, record, or painting. Nothing says there isn’t bad art. But I propose that we should start at the position of seeking out the positive in all art. You gain far more by this method. Besides, what if you accidentally like something despite your reservations? Wouldn’t you rather enjoy something than hate it?

Things are Too Beautiful

Music is ugly. Or rather, it should be. I am tired of the romanticization of music as an expression of beauty or harmony. This viewpoint that looks to every moment of discord and tension as a step leading inevitably towards resolution is tiresome at best. This is a philosophy that is distinctly a product of the Western musical tradition. It is a profoundly optimistic existential view. But if music is an expression of our humanity then where are the sounds of car bombs, and stocks crashing, and arteries slowly filling with plaque?

These abrasive sounds (sounds embraced by 19th Century Futurism, Philip Glass and Nine Inch Nails) have consistently been relegated to the margins. This is a ridiculous and condemnable thing. Why are the ugly but necessary truths constantly stuck under the label of “alternative” because they don’t resolve nicely in Plagal Cadences? Why is Wagner the soundtrack to Saturday morning cartoons even as he ladles beauty over his anti-Semitism with simultaneous deftness and ostentation?

We are far more accustomed to challenging rhetoric in our popular books and movies. We celebrate these things. Zero Dark Thirty and Catcher in the Rye are aggressive, uncompromising, and consistently unpleasant pieces of art that have garnered widespread acclaim. Yet we don’t accept this same level of confrontation in our auditory art. At least not in mainstream music that is. I am not arguing against beauty. Beauty is beautiful, but overvalued in American society.

For all our technological developments and musical transformations we are still very musically conservative as a society. One of the most profound musical developments of the last three hundred years is our acceptance of the tritone (a specific musical interval) as not being so ugly as to warrant a death sentence for anyone who dares performs it*. Perhaps this is a great reduction of the myriad musical styles and traditions that have emerged over the past three centuries, yet the surviving traditions have been the beautiful ones.

What I mean to say is that anything that isn’t aesthetically beautiful (as determined by the contemporary culture) tends to fall to the wayside. Even blues, an explicitly wrought and raw art form has survived in mainstream culture as a diluted and censored musical form. What we need is for pain to be mainstream. Not the contrived pain that needs to be pitch corrected or that cries pathetically into a microphone.

*See diabolus in musica. The tritone gained widespread acceptance in western music only during the middle of the Baroque Era. It was explicitly banned throughout Renaissance music and in some cases led to excommunication and/or death.

Top 100 Bands: Top 10

Previous (20-11)

Here we are…finally! Here are my top 10 bands/groups in rock ‘n roll. I’ve had a blast doing this project and I’ve really enjoyed the feedback. If I were to do a list again, I don’t think I would include the same groups. That is precisely the purpose of making a list like this. I have found certain artists fit well into this kind of format while others do not. Certainly there have been notable exclusions as well.

Through this discourse with my friends, peers, and family I have reevaluated my views about the nature of influence and what constitutes “greatness”. I know some of my choices have been controversial and that’s exactly what I intended. Thank you everyone for your phenomenal support during this project, I’ve never had more readers than these past few weeks and I am truly grateful.

Without further ado here are my Top 10. And don’t forget to check out the Top 100 Bands page at the top of the screen for a complete list.

Click on the band’s name to hear my favorite song by them:

Continue reading