Green Christmas For Me

The Christmas Season. The time where families get together, drink too much, make fun of each other for our weight problems and inability to maintain meaningful relationships. At least it's only once a year.

It's also the time where you buy gifts for people you care about. This seems extremely commercial and meaningless, but I'm definitely of the school of thought that you shouldn't buy people things that they want. At least in my family, if you want something, you buy it, unless you can't afford it, and if someone in my family can't afford something, I know that I can't either. Instead, I buy people things that emphasize our common interests. So, for example, if I'm going to buy my little brother a CD for Christmas, I don't buy him the Al Green CD he asked for, I got him the Dan Deacon CD that's so crazy and fun I knew he'd love it.

Speaking of CDs and Christmas, I think that Barenaked For The Holidays, the Barenaked Ladies' Christmas CD, could be my all-time favourite Christmas CD. This coming from a guy who usually passionately dislikes Christmas music (starting in November, my mom plays nothing but Christmas 24-7, regardless of if it's good, some of it really can't even be considered music). But this CD has some really good songs, and it really has that cheery fun you want out of a Christmas CD, without being cheesy.

Great endeavors

I'm not in the habit of making habits.
The thought of almost instinctively performing tasks seems much beyond me.
Because this is something so difficult for me it makes the band No Little Kindness's current undertaking all the more impressive to me. They have set out to create a new song every week. I don't know how long they've been at it or how long they will be going for, but after hearing this weeks release I hope the keep it up until I'm struck deaf and possibly even after.

Self-Reference

Self-reference will drive you crazy. The only way you can check if you're crazy is to psychoanalyze yourself (you could get someone else to do it, but if they tell you you're crazy, how do you know that you're not just crazy and imagining them saying that? If they tell you you're not crazy, same thing). But, invariably, over-analyzing one's sanity is the only certain way to drive yourself insane. So sanity is impossible to determine in a sane way.

This is why I am hesitant to start criticizing and analyzing the things I love. Because really, aren't the people and things we love a reflection of ourselves? If you're ask to describe yourself, you always start by listing your passions, your loves, you dreams, your likes and dislikes. And yet, while we all loathe to reflect on our own lives, we couldn't be quicker to criticize these things we love (the very things that define us!). Perhaps it is the way in which we love things that defines us, not so much what we like. If I say "I like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", does that describe me in the same way that "Adams' style makes my whole body smile; his jokes, although seemingly silly and simple, are in fact delicate and elaborate in a way that makes me forget, for a minute, that the rest of the world exists, and laugh shamelessly as if I were in a group of my closest friends" does?

Then why is it that I feel like I'm being personally attacked when someone says, "I don't like [Wayne's] voice, it bug's me", or "robots do math, it doesn't require creativity"? That's just someone else's opinion, their way of discribing themselves. It has nothing at all to do with me! I think the problem lies in the fact that there are only a certain number of interesting things in the world for us to comment on, and so we all have to share the same things, and so to describe ourselves we have to say why we love/hate these same things. The question I pose is this: Is there a way to fully describe oneself using wholly internal characteristics? Is there a way I can define myself without referring to things I like or don't like? Can I create Me from Me?

If you're curious what got me started thinking on this (which I'm sure you aren't, but I'll tell you anyway), I was just learning today one of the most beautiful facts in mathematics, Gauss' Theorema Egregium. It basically says that you can decide what kind of surface your on just by making measurements on that surface. Ever hear some science-guy say that 'space (or space-time) is curved'? "Curved around what?!", you might ask. I mean, it's all of space and time that's being curved, what other direction is there for this thing to be curved around? Don't we need to go out into this crazy 5-D space to see that? Well, the answer is no. You can see that space is curved just by making measurements in space. So why can't the same be true about people? I mean we obviously interact with this 'other-dimension' (the world), but why should it be that we need to look into this other world to see ourselves?

THIS THURSDAY!!



They are Sprial Beach of Toronto. They'll be playing in Guelph this Thursday (E bar 10pm $6 with food item $8 otherwise) which is called a double CD release show for some reason (Their album was released Oct. 16th). So go see them and buy their stuff.
More exciting news about this band is their show on December 1st at the The Centre of Gravity Theatre in Toronto. I can't seem to find any information about this performance anywhere but their own site but the band is calling it an all night performance with several of Toronto's finest bands. Tickets are supposed to be on sale At Rotate This but nothing is up yet.
I'll keep checking until I find out though!

Please Confuse My Every Decision

I was going to post more about math, but I feel like this blog isn't about music enough. Mostly because stupid Keane isn't posting. Stupid Keane.

Speaking of Keane! He's an awesome guy. He just sent me Of Montreal's new album Hissing Fauna, Are You The Destroyer? And it's quite good. That's not all I have to say. It's really weird and at some points unapproachable, like Labyrinthian Pomp. It's just weird. I think it's trying to be funky, but just misses the mark, for me. However, I can't get enough of Gronlandic Edit. I think the bass line is incredibly funky, and when grating high note singing is immediately soothed by the neat harmonies. But I know that this song is too weird for a lot of people, so I guess I can't criticize them for being weird.

For the most part this album comes across as odd and funky and so it's what I want my music to be. (Holy shit, how can you not like A Sentence of Sorts? It's so groovy!). I guess the moral of the story is you can still make a great album that has a few bad apple songs on it. But bands, please don't. I like albums where I like all the songs! So next time, leave out the creepy shitty songs, and give me more funk.

On another note, we're going to see Born Ruffians and Caribou on Saturday. I've seen Born Ruffians before, and if you haven't, I recommend them. It's like if one of Frank Black and Issac Brock was lucky enough to be born a lady, and they had a funky love child. Plus Caribou! I've never seen him before, but apparently he has his Ph. D. in math! A fellow algebraic number theorist / musician, I never thought I'd see the day. Plus, he studied under a guy, who studied under a guy, who studied under a guy, who studied under Sir Andrew Wiles! Does that mean that by seeing him play, I helped solve Fermat's Last Theorem? Probably.

Science Vs. Religion, Who Will Win?

There was recently a debate at my school as to whether science and religion are mutually exclusive; can a scientist believe in God? I have heard of similar debates about the age of the universe: millions of years old, like scientists 'know', or about 5000 years old, like Christians 'know'. It always surprises me to hear a scientist infer that people of faith are buffoons for believing this kind of thing. The argument usually going something like, "I can't believe people still believe that! Science has already proven that!" This is, of course, circular logic. It's similar to saying, "science is correct because science says so", or "if science is correct, then science is correct." These are scientists! They are supposed to have a basic understanding of mathematics. Apparently they don't teach logic in science class.

The point is that science is no more correct than religion is. If I assume that religion is true, then I can prove that the universe is 5000 years old. In any system of thought, one must start with a set of things that are assumed to be true, called axioms. Most of science is based on an axiom of induction, which says that if you do something many times and get the same result, you know that the same result will all ways happen. For example, if every day of your life, you get out of bed and the floor supports your weight, you know that this morning it will. This is usually a good assumption, but can run into trouble sometimes. Imagine you roll a die 109 times and every time it comes up 6, 4 or 2. Does this mean that the die can only roll even numbers? Probably not. It's a question of how many times you do it, and there's probability axioms about that, but I won't get into it.

The crux of the issue is really that you can't ever know whether your axioms are correct. You can't even know whether your axioms are consistent with each other (this was first proved by Kurt Godel [pronounced like good-el] in 1931). It all comes down to what you believe is true. So if you're religious, and the Bible seems more correct than the axioms of science, then it's perfectly logical for you to conclude that the universe is 5000 years old.

For myself, I know that I exist. I know that any proposition is either true or false but not both. I think that other people exist, but I know that I can't prove it.

Tunnel Vision

C:/run/rant.exe

This is going to sound really preachy and give the impression that I have a superiority complex in some respect, but this message is going out to all you kids out there who are stuck in a musical genre just to fit into your group of friends.

I grew up like most of you listening to the music that my friends listen to. After all, that's just the way society works; you are attracted to people that have similar interests to you. But when it gets to the point where you're listening music just for the sake of going along with some arbitrary status quo that your group of friends have set for themselves, it just doesn't make any sense.

For example, if your group of friends enjoy the hardcore scene and are into bands such as Cannibal Corpse, Opeth, and Kill All Squirrels (okay I made that last one up), all power to you if you actually enjoy it. I am asking you to actually think about it though: do you actually enjoy this kind of music, or are you listening to it so you can fit in with your friends?

Admittedly, I caught myself doing something similar to this in high school. In order for me to fit in more with my group of friends, I found myself listening to a lot of alternative punk rock bands (if that's even the correct label for the genre) that I didn't necessarily like at the time (and have subsequently deleted from my library). Now, I'm finding that I am basing my musical tastes on what I actually like, rather than what I think other people will think of me if I listen to them. That's why I can get away with a play-list that includes Natalie Cole, The Blood Brothers, Public Enemy, and Pete Murray. This is the part where I was worried about sounding like an elitist; by no means am I saying you should listen to these bands because I like them, I am just saying that I've diversified my musical tastes because I've opened up somewhat.

Obviously, if you don't like a kind of music, no one is forcing you to listen to it. Just don't judge a book by its cover, or in this case, an album by its CD jacket sleeve. I guess my whole point of this is to just try and be open minded about music and not let yourself get into a sort of tunnel vision where you'll only listen to one kind of music and look down on other music that might not be in your group (seriously, give Justin a chance, you might actually find yourself dancing to his stuff).

/end rant.exe

Politics in Music

Is it just me, or does anyone else annoyed by bands who put their 'message' before there music?

I listen to music because I want to be entertained, and feel a connection that helps to better understand myself. This may seem like an ambitious thing for music to do, but I think it has an advantage over any other art form in this department. Have you ever tried to rationally defend a very passionate feeling that you have? You will always fall short of explaining the real thing. This is what is so irksome about musicians that try transform artwork into rational argument! It just doesn't work.

I think truly great art should be universal. Sure, if Bush is pissing you off, write a song about it.
But don't explain to me why you dislike him. If you want to do that, put down the guitar, grab a pen, and write an essay. Don't pollute my ears with your emotionless sound. Write about your rage and your passion! Everyone has felt passion and anger before, that is something we can understand. If you make me feel that passion, then I might consider your rational argument to mean something.

But anger at the government is NOT the only important thing! Frankly, to me, it seems trivial when compared to real human compassion and understanding. Tell me something that I can relate to. Anyone who has felt like an outcast at some point in their lives can relate to Daniel Johnston's "Like A Monkey In A Zoo", anyone who fears their morality understands Neil's "Sugar Mountain" (it's my 20th birthday soon... oh God), anyone who's tried to accept their morality finds solace in "Do You Realize?" by the Lips. To me, these are real beautiful songs. This is music.

I think what it comes down to is this question: Do you think that the value of something is based on it's applications? For me, the answer to this is no*, and the * reads, 'Of course not! Are you fucking kidding me?!' If this were true, the value of love is procreating the human race. The value of art is absolutely nothing. The value of mathematics is just engineering and building shit. The value of living is to not die! Perhaps you answered this question 'yes', and so you think that music is only valuable if it tells you how much of an idiot Bush is. I respectfully disagree.

The Obscure Song Fun Game!

Next time you go to a concert, I suggest playing this game. Here's the idea:

1. Choose a song that you really want to hear the band play, tell the people that you're going with to do the same.

2. Decide amongst your selves the order of the obscurity of the songs. Meaning: which ones are most likely to be played. Basically it goes new singles, hit singles, new other songs, old other songs, bad songs, etc. (For example, at Daft Punk, Harder Better Faster Stronger is more likely than Emotion is more likely than Rock 'n Roll. Something like that. Comment if you disagree.)

3. If you're song is the most obscure one to be played, you win! You can spice things up by making wagers to this effect.

Of course there are many strategies. You can pick a sure think, and hope that no one else is lucky. Or, conversely, pick a weird song, and hope to get lucky. I always does pick a song that I doubt they'll play, but really want to hear. This also makes the concert more interesting, because if they play your song, it's an added bonus! For example, at a concert for Coheed and Cambria's Good Apollo I tour, I picked Delirium Trigger. This is an old song, and not even a single, so there was virtually no chance of them playing it. But it's an excellent live tune, and it totally builds up to a precipice of awesomeness. And they played it! It totally pumped me up for the whole show. Same thing for NP (see last post), I picked Jackie, at which point my girlfriend figured that there's no way they'll play it, so she went for the safety play with Mass Romantic. I was getting worried that they wouldn't play it since it wasn't in their main set (it's not their most popular song), but they did it as the opening song for their first encore! How awesome is that?

All over

Well, It's sort of hard for me to Follow up Pré's post. I'm not nearly as articulate. So until they invent some way for me to project feeling onto this blog in a non ...words... way you're going to have to put up with me.

Does anyone recall a "the 80's were cool" fad that happened a while ago? It may have only lasted a month and it may have just been confined to leg warmers but I could have sworn it was there. Anyways, I had just thought that the 80's would stay dead...or mostly dead. The French have different plans however, caaaaaaauuse they're back.
With acts like Kavinsky , Yelle , College and others much beyond my musical knowledge I'm expecting the club scene to completely embrace this for at least a year and possibly another after it gets old.

It's not that I dislike this music. I really enjoy it. I'm just getting increasingly worried that my generation will claim no new and revolutionary grounds musically. I don't want to be known as the generation that had interesting takes on styles of music already created. I think at that I'm left to suggest where to take things and Honestly I have no clue. I think I'll just try and sleep comfortably on the thought that there is some underground revolution happening right now that I'm just too uncool to know about.
Until that comes around here's some reheated 80's!



lot's of love,

Keane

New AND Improved

For my first music music review/rant, I thought I'd talk about a good ol' Canadian band that we all know and love, The New Pornographers. Specifically, their live concert at the Phoenix in Toronto last Sunday.

That they are a 8-person Canadian power-pop super group is interesting, but not fascinating. In fact, I hadn't really heard them until about 2 months ago, when my girlfriend told me they were touring and that she wanted me to take her. If she hadn't, I probably would never have listened to them, which would be a shame because I really love them!

When you hear “8-person power-pop band”, you think, “what the hell do they all do? Take turns?” (And actually, in the case of Dan Bejar, this is true). But really, one of the great things about the NP is the layering to their songs. Their songs are filled with tension build-up and breakdown, caused by the addition of subtraction of the different instruments, or, (my favourite), different vocals. It's beautiful to listen to an album and hear a variety of moods to songs, and different voices singing them. There's 3 main lead singers in the band, 2 male and one female. But there's lots of background vocals with “ahh ahh's”, and “wee oo's”, and “lalas”. I fucking love that shit.

But I digress, this was supposed to be about the live show. This was really a lesson in how an excellent, high-energy band with a huge catalog of songs should perform. Even though this was basically a tour to support Challengers, they played a ton of old stuff too. And not just singles, older obscure songs that are clearly crowd favourites. They really know how to pick a song line-up too, they build you up with the high-energy songs, and slow it down with some of the softer ones, all with little-to-no breaks in between the songs. They are all clearly into the music, really intense. The drummer does some pretty neat tricks twirling his drumsticks (at least he seemed impressed with them), and the singer does this funny thing where he shakes his right knee while he's playing guitar, and there's a neat light-up NEW PORNOGRAPHERS sign in the background.

I don't know how they all fit on the stage, but they they do it without seeming awkward. The only funny thing was Dan Bejat. He's the other male lead singer, who, as far as I can tell, writes and sings lead in about ¼ of the songs. He would only come on stage for the songs that he sings, and then slinks off backstage. Still, it was exciting to see him stumble back on stage in his pink shirt, swigging a Stella, since his songs are my favourites really (Testament To Youth In Verse, Jackie, Myriad Harbour, etc! So weird and wonderful).

There were a few awkward moments in between some songs, since no one in the band really talked to the crowd. There was one time when people were shouting out requests for songs, and Carl said, “we'll play your requests as long as you don't all yell out at once. Ok, go.” And of course everyone yelled out at once. Dan was on the stage at the time, and said, “It's ok, this is a really good song.” And then went right into Testament. Awesome! They ended up playing all the requests anyways, since they played for about 2.5 hours, and then a 4 song encore, and an unprecedented 2 song second encore!

All in all, an incredible show.

New Blog

So this is the first post to our new blog. Keane and I wanted to start a radio show/audio blog about music, comics, math, stuff that pisses us off, etc. This is a normal blog, but it's a start.