There's too many bands in here.

What have we done? I can't say that I didn't know that this would happen. But it has. With this post I am going to run the risk of pretense, snobbery, hypocrisy, self-service and outright elitism. But it's time. This post has been brewing for almost a week since my friends Rob and Paul from Vacuity and I got into a real rant on the fact that there are too many shitty bands that are destroying the quality of live music.

Several years ago when I finally got serious about being a musician I saw the writing on the wall, as did many. That the proliferation of recording technology would make music worthless and ubiquitous. But I had a small glimmer of hope that the only space that would somehow be spared the wrath of the DIY musician would be in the live space. That it's one thing to take ten years to write a song and record it for the price of a MAC and Pro-Tools in a box but it takes a totally different set of stones, know-how and circumstances to get the chance to play it live. But somewhere along the way in the last decade, either in reaction too or in simple coincidence with the rise of music technologies the live space has been choked out. On any given night in Toronto the main clubs that "support" live music offer up what the owners/bookers-the by-default taste makers have decided is acceptable live music. The same scene plays itself out in major cities everywhere. You get 4 to 5 bands (cause you need that many on a bill to ensure that the bar has enough diverse traffic to make money) that in a lot of cases wouldn't be found dead together on the side of the road let alone on the same bill. But to get a chance to play "The (insert famous club name here)" and tell your friends and maybe hook-up that night, it's worth subjecting your speed metal fans with the pop sensibilities of The Juicy Fruit band opening (or vice versa). You see, at the club level the same bar that plays your shit band also plays a national touring act. So your night is the night to help keep the lights on, not turn a profit. So the booker doesn't fucking care. It's about filling the night and doing the bare minimum amount of online work (about 5 minutes) to determine that they may bring out 20 people. Not that they sound good, where their stuff was recorded, the press they have, the time put into promotional material, how long they have been together, and God forbid what their stuff sounds like in conjunction with the other bands he/she is thinking of putting together. At this level it is pure and simple economics. Short-sighted to the point of next day. So the choice is made due to economics to ram the night with unsupportive acts from different parts of the musical community that in most cases should never have even been considered. And we ask ourselves as people in bands, why more folks don't come out to live music. Why club land is teeming with THOUSANDS of people every Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Because our product sucks, it is inconsistent and has no real value anymore. Because on that same night of 5 bands there maybe one that, because of the lack of places to play, has taken to staying on the bill and they are a great hard-working live band. They care about the show, have studied and worked the craft. Understand the history of the place and are hungry. They are MUSICIANS not people with instruments. But their fans are not going to subject themselves to coming to a bar that hasn't been cleaned or updated since the Carter administration and have to sit through shit to wait.

Now the blame game. Talking to guys who did it back in the golden era of live music-the 70s and 80s it is easy to see why the money was made. Technology put a price on entry and a premium on quality. When a press kit hit the door of a club, what it took to get those materials in a booker's hands was time, expertise, years of work and a lot of money (garnered through talent and hard work). So the choice then for the booker was not about how many bands and who has been bugging me the loudest or whom I owe a favour to, it was about building a night. Now, the comparison is unrealistic because in a lot of industries so much has changed because of technology. And I am no where near a Luddite. But we are killing the industry at the level where the most money is made. We are killing the product. We are turning away the artists. The club level is what the Juniors is to hockey. What The NCAA is to basketball and what high schools are to football in America. The draft is getting shittier and shittier. Why is it that the industry has had to "manufacture" bands and acts at the pop level. Because there is no money in it for "the artists". The "Lionel Ritchie's", "The Jackson's", shit even Tina Turner and the Ikettes would be all teachers or driving buses if this was their age. No places to play, no fans ready to pay. How much stagnation has there been in music since we got lazy and careless because of technology. When you've got kids recreating records from the eighties on their MACs in between sessions on their Xbox with key strokes, downloads and built in ready made sounds and engineering capabilities that took pure genius, years of trial and error and guts to create in the first place 20 years ago-what's the point of something new? It's a game. It's not art. It's something EVERYONE can do now. It's not special or unique. It's not hard. Malcolm Gladwell says it takes 10,000 hours or 5 years to get truly great at something. Recording music is not one.

There is a real sense among our contemporaries that we need to make and promote music that doesn't suck. That the space is over-crowded and this has got to change to grow the industry so that more great bands don't have to wait for the Holy Grail of chasing the 1 or 2 booking companies in the country that can offer a steady paycheck. Music is about inclusion when it comes to ideas, community, politics, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. But it's power is being diluted. The impact of a singer or band that is at the top of it's game, has sweat it out for years, honed the craft, the aesthetic, the sound, the presentation, the look, has charisma and confidence, knows the audience, knows the unspoken rules of the trade and can blow you away in one hour of passion is irreplaceable and quickly and sadly becoming hard to find.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm misguided. I have been feeling this way for a while but have been hesitant to say anything for fear of coming across as bitter, misinformed or speaking from a place of ignorance or inexperience. I don't feel that way as much anymore after the sacrifices I have made, seen my peers fall by the wayside, seen bands that we started out with die and see an ever increasing blindness to the failures of live music.

I love what I do. I want to it with success. I want to see live music thrive. This is just an opinion. The conversation is just starting.

L.

Test post

hoorah

0.7%

Jeffery Sachs asks in his latest book Common Wealth "How generous should [we] be?" With the news yesterday that the Harper government of Canada is changing how it delivers our official development assistance (ODA) to be more focused on certain countries (and eliminating countries officially from the list) it is feared by some that the current financial crisis that is rocking the world right now is going to be a set back to the already meager efforts made by the developed world in the area of foreign aid. This is a cyclical concern that has wracked the development community: that every time we hit a recession we take two steps back away from helping the less fortunate parts of the world. The environment has also been traditionally a casualty of economic woes as commitments and spending from governments are backed away from in the face of less money and political capital. But we are in the midst of the strongest phase of the environmental movement since it's inception in the late 60s as the case has been finally made to the public that we are at a point of no return when it comes to changing our interaction with the physical world and that it is intrinsically linked to our economic security and cannot be sacrificed for short term concerns. The election of a highly progressive environmentally thoughtful President (we hope) in the US is also bolstering the idea that we won't take those two-steps back from the environment as we have in the past. But what about development?

Sachs has worked harder than any other high profile academic in the last ten years at convincing the world that turning a blind eye to African development is akin to a worldwide suicide. He has enlisted the help of celebrities and academics and some of the most powerful politicians in the world in his efforts and has written 2 books this decade making the case that ending the "poverty trap", as he calls it, in Africa is the only way to move forward collectively in peaceful environmental and economic security. The small amount of money relative to the developed world's GNP that has been spent on African assistance has been misdirected and too little. But more importantly the case has not been made to the average citizen of countries like the US, Germany, France and Canada that we face a century of wasted efforts and a rapidly increasing array of catastropohic developments in Africa due to unchecked population growth, disease, environmental degradation and little or no agriculture, health, education and infrastructure related developments. The conflicts that have arisen that threaten the continent (Darfur, Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, Eritria, Zimbabwe, Nigeria to name a few) can be traced more and more at their roots to yes, the colonial legacy, but also to the lack of life basics that are getting harder and harder to provide in the face of a degrading environment.

Dwindling quality water resources, desertification, and deforestation are all linked, especially in Africa to an exploding population that relies almost exclusively on the land to survive on mainly a subsidence level. Meaning that most of African farm life is geared toward the production of food for one's self and family, not for resale, and except for cash crops such as some legumes and coffees for instance, rarely for export. If you can't trade with other countries you can't make money. If you can't make money you can't invest in your country. If you can't invest in your country then it's people are left to fend for themselves- a perfect vicious circle. Along the way the resources you depend on are dwindling. You have to have more more children to ensure your security when you get older as their is no health care to take care of them in case they get sick. So you play the odds that if you have 6 kids at least 2 or 3- one for sure being a son- will live with you to old age to keep the family plot going. The inputs that are necessary to run a small holder farm are inefficient and rely on what you have around you. New seed varieties, nitrogen rich fertilizer and efficient irrigation are WAY out of the reach of a farmer with no money. So you turn to the land, and the land turns on you with insufficient nutrients and water and blows away in the wind. So what do you do? You move. Maybe to another area within your country, maybe outside of your tribe. And so do your neighbours into another part of the country who want nothing to do with you coming there and taking their last remaining precious resource-water and land. So you fight. The government just wants to keep power so they play one group off another. Maybe funnel weapons into the hands of the strongest and a war has begun. What started as a migration for food turns into an ethnic conflict.

Mixed in for good measure is the fact that this part of the world exists in an area that makes it harder to fight disease. There is more of it and it's more lethal. With no money for health or infrastructure, you have a scenario that equals death stalking the land and taking your youngest and brightest. Those who are left can't be educated because there are no schools and anyway you have to stay on the farm. Without intellectual capital in your country, those that are in power are left with very little internal resources to escape from the "poverty trap". They rely almost solely on the wealth and expertise of the developed world. The exceptions to this are small. Ghana, Kenya, Botswana, Nigeria and South Africa have all been able to move up the development ladder, although not very high, with a great deal of resources from within their nations. But there are exceptions within these exceptions-geography, for example.- the proximity to the ocean and trading routes, natural endowments (oil). Did you know that there is not one transcontinental railroad in Africa? If one country wants to trade with another how can it? India, through its unique colonial legacy was able to utilize the tracks laid by the British to get cotton out and to the British mills to move grain and agricultural products (see Green Revolution) within and out of it's country which helped it get on the development track that has seen it hop up the ladder in the last 30 years.

So unfortunately, and also basically, what this means is the vast majority of countries in Africa need money. They need it for investment in it's people and it's land and to get them feeding themselves in a way that is not detrimental to the environment and stops the permanent migration which would lesson the conflicts. They need it to start educating themselves-the continent has one of the highest proportion of youth within it's populations. Idle hands create tension and are always poised without an educated mind to be manipulated by the powers that be to secure their authority and power. An enormous uneducated youth is an army in waiting, and violence and death's messenger. They need it to be healthy. So they don't have to have 6 kids hoping that they survive cholera, malaria, AIDS, typhoid, influenza, fuck the common cold!! If you have less mouths to feed and the ones you do have are healthy, it's cheaper for them to go to school and cheaper for you to run the farm. They need it to get a piece of the Green Revolution pie that helped a good deal of Asia. Better seeds, bore holes, cheap irrigation, better fertilizer. This stuff is CHEAP for us, and can change their world in a heartbeat of time (see Millennium Village projects). They need it to build, rails, roads and get the Internet. Once you start making better food and more of it, you can trade it. To get that food out you need the stuff to move it. This is where the money starts to stay home, and the hat in hand starts to stop. Money starts to flow into a country that is healthier and educated, less susceptible to crooks in government and starts demanding things like of elections, transparency and social safety nets. Once investments in people began, people will invest in the country. Taxes can be collected to build the things that businesses need, factories, technology, research facilities, capital projects. People will want to INVEST in Africa. When we give more money to the continent it will start to make money for the world. Competition is the heart of democratic capitalism. If we have a healthy, secure, environmentally conscious player with the size and heart of Africa, the world will change.

So what does this cost? 0.7%. I'll say it again, .7 of our TOTAL GNP. Let's do some mathemetizing. A 0.7% commitment would be roughly $9billion Dollars. Divided by our population that's $272 each. Now the freaky part. How much is that a day each-$0.70. Yep 70 cents a day. Now this money already comes out of your taxes. People aren't going to show up at your door and ask you for this. A $272 dollar tax increased phase in over 4 years is a blip in our radar. But the cool part of the math is, that if we spend more now, we'll spend WAY less if we don't increase our ODA now. To get the motor going in Africa we have to prime the pumps. But once the engine gets going, and from what guys like Sachs are saying that could happen as early as 2015 we can start turning down the taps. From what I have read, If we continue on our current way of spending our money on foreign aid, we're looking at 2050 before we see improvements in Africa. That's too late for the environment, too late for millions of Africans, and far too much money. If you multiply our current commitment of $4.6billion a year for 40 years to 2050 that's $184billion. Now if we take the $9billion a year and only have to spend it until 2015 and then we start turning down the taps that's about $45 billion. Easy math. But this has to happen in concert with other countries. The US, France, Germany, the UK, Japan, Russia and China, all have to start getting on board for this to really work.

Of course the way the money has been spent has to be changed and their are models and countries and projects that are out there that can be used. There are amazing organizations out there that if there funding was doubled they would start to tackle these problems like gangbusters.

The 0.7% commitment is by no means new. It has been bandied about since the mid 90s. But the crazy thing is that this has already been commit ed to by all these countries time and time again. We're really good at making commitments in the West but fucking lousy on our follow-through. The politics behind this needs to stop. Out of all the visionary things that governments are thinking of doing to re-invigorate the world's economy this is a no-brainer. We can't leave Africa behind in the next great leap forward. The year 2015 is the year we said we would reach that target. It's not too late. But cutbacks cannot be on the agenda. Listening to arguments made by Sachs as to why it's in our best interest to make this commitment is non-negotiable in my books.

If you have some time to kill and want ot know more, really the best place to start is with Sachs. Just go to the Common Wealth link at the top.


This will be my mission this year as the band chugs along in our travels to try and make this case to folks.

Cheers

The Best Year Yet to Buy a Car

I saw this article on MSN and thought it would be good to share. Also, the association (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy) who put this list together is very interesting.

I remember driving to university years ago and seeing the Honda Insight for the first time. Do you remember that thing? With the half-covered back wheels? It looked like some freak solar powered bike-WAY too granola. But I had one of those "we are living in the future" moments where I realized at some point in my life our world will not move itself around on the backs of the remains of dead dinosaurs. That we will truly start using our heads and maybe get a little closer to the life of George Jetson. Ah Hanna-Barbera. You know what? Maybe that's what Obama should do, fold the department of Energy, Agriculture, Housing and Infrastructure into one and instead of a car Czar, appoint Hanna-Barbera Enterprises, and get them to story board the future and then hire Industrial Light and Magic to build it. Our new modern society will come together within budget, on time, and with trippy colours.

But I digress. I have been driving since I was 18. Ya, like everything in my life, I got a late start. My dad was a rally car driver in his youth so he knew a thing or two behind the wheel. He also felt that 16 is just too young to give the keys to a fast moving piece of metal. So he stalled and stalled and finally (after I had RENEWED my 365-something you only did if you were completely useless behind the wheel and failed multiple driving tests) he let me drive the car to Peterborough on one of his business trips to test some medical equipment. I remember those days tagging along with him lugging his equipment and hanging around empty clinic waiting rooms (you think waiting rooms for your doctor are boring in the middle of the week, try on a Sunday morning-desolate, inconsolable boredom) all for the chance to DRIVE! He taught me for the first few months, and he was pretty good, firm but good. I could tell he was nervous though. I understand the mentallity of the driving school. In most cases the driving school instructor is far better qualified at teaching than your parents, also if you fuck up and drive into a mall it's on their dime. I aced the driving test under my dad's tutelage (we did the driving school thing for a bit just so it would reduce the insurance cost-but it was a waste of time. Learning from someone who drove cars to their limit and had driven in London, Bombay, and Hong Kong...well you get the point). I have been driving pretty much non-stop since. We live in a part of the world truly and madly developed around the idea that "oh you'll just drive there". But the recent real surge in the development of alternative energy power plants for cars and the combination of stretching the internal combustion engine to it's technological limit has mitigated my true Doomer outlook. We really have been slack-ass in the last 20 years. We knew bad shit was going down. I also remember one of my first lectures in Environmental Science about the effects of climate change, and the causes behind it. Those prof's at the time were really plugged in (pardon the pun) and knew what was going down-in 1995!!! So like the magically gifted stoner procrastinating fuck-ups that we are, in 2009 we're starting to get it.

My sister has a Prius. It's pretty bad-ass in it's savingtheworldness. I've heard though that the batteries that are placed near your person in the cabin and can give you ass-cancer. Someone should look into that.

The top car on the list this year is the Civic GX, a car that runs on Natural Gas. 57mpg. Wow. But these are all transitional vehicles. Were kinda living in the era of 8-track when it comes to cars. Vinyl, as cool as it sounds wrecked the Earth, but we're still many years away from the mp3-Or are we-check out The Volt from GM. I believe that GM is going to come back with a VENGEANCE. It's like they are a great talent but also a raging drunk. They have fucked-up beyond all belief. They have been ignoring the advice of friends and family for years, now there has been an intervention from the rich uncle and they are essentially being ordered to follow a 12 step program.

But as you will see on the list given by the ACEEE they are the lone domestic contributers this year to the greenest vehicles, 2 of them being mass-produced and cheap (the Cobalt/G5). Long story short, I wish I was buying a car this year. Lot's of choice that could make you actually feel good about being an unadulterated secret car junkie.

Post Script:

Two things I forgot to mention. One, that it is important to buy new this year if you need a vehicle or have been thinking about one. We need to be spending our way out of this thing, and being an Oshawa, ON boy, this shit we're going through is real for me and my friends, some of whom have already lost their jobs, and many whose family and friends could lose theirs in the days and weeks ahead. Cars have never been cheaper and the financing and the deals that are out their are at levels we won't see again for years.

Also, this is not the time to be getting an old beater. We need to invest in new technology that is climate friendly. This is helps the sky and the folks next door.

Grammy Hangover

Ya, I know it was a couple of days ago, and there has been a lot said about the shodcast that we got fed on Sunday, but this has been bugging me. A week ago commemorated the 50th anniversary of what is known as The Day the Music Died. I'm talking about the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper. There is no modern day equivalent to these acts or this tradgedy. They were the greats of a generation that helped build the foundations for modern pop and rock into the 60s and beyond. They broke barriers and records and we are still in debt to their work. So where the hell was any mention of this on the Grammys? Zip. Zilch. Disgusting. It's more than an oversight, it's a disgrace.

Ya, We Screwed Up.

So "The Donald" gets it right. This maybe some of the smartest things he has said.

(CNN) -- Donald Trump, businessman and CEO of The Trump Organization, knows a little something about money.

Donald Trump says President Obama is trying to solve the nation's economic woes, but it's "trial and error."

Trump spoke with CNN's Larry King about whether there should be executive pay limits, if there should be a stimulus plan and when there could be an end to the economic downturn. The following is an edited portion of the interview.

Larry King: Is Obama right or wrong to go after these executives with salary caps?

Donald Trump: Well, I think he's absolutely right. Billions of dollars is being given to banks and others. You know, once you start using taxpayer money, it's a whole new game. So I absolutely think he's right.

King: What about the whole concept of bailouts?

Trump: Well, it's a little bit different. A lot of people are not in favor of bailouts. You know, we talked about all the different things going on in this country. Let's face it, Larry, we are in a depression.

If they didn't do the bailout, you would be in depression No. 2 and maybe just as big as depression No. 1, so they really had to do something. The problem is they're giving millions and billions of dollars to banks and the banks aren't loaning it.
Don't Miss

* Obama sets executive pay limits
* CNNMoney: CEO pay cuts: Not just for banks

If you are a prime customer of a bank and if you need 10 cents, you can't get it. The banks are out of business. They're not loaning. Now, billions of dollars has been given. They're supposed to be loaning out that money and they're using it for other purposes, so it is a real mess.

King: If you were in the Senate, would you vote for the stimulus plan?

Trump: Well, I'd vote for a stimulus plan. I'm not sure that all of the things in there are appropriate. Some of the little toys that they have are not really appropriate, and they're a little surprising that they seem to want it, because the publicity on it has been terrible.

I would certainly vote for a stimulus, but I would really vote for banks having to loan out the money because they're not doing that.

King: In your adult career, have you ever seen it worse?

Trump: No, this is the worst ever. This is the worst I've ever seen. 1990 was a bad period of time, but this is far worse, and this is worse on a really global basis. I'm looking at different countries. Every country is bad. Now they're blaming us because of what happened. You know, why not blame the United States? But every country is in trouble.

King: Can you put the blame anywhere?

Trump: Well, look, it's something that, to a certain extent, happens. You go up, you go down. You have recessions. If you just look at the charts over the period of 150 years, you've had good times (and) you've had bad times.

Certainly, there's been a lot of greed. There's been a lot of stupidity. You know, like I say, today the banks don't have money, they don't loan money. But if you went to a bank two years ago and you wanted a $300 million loan, they'd say 'No, we don't want to do that, but we'll give you $400 million,' so I guess, to a certain extent, that's part of the problem.

King: If you had the power, if you could wield, what would you do?

Trump: Well, the biggest problem we have is it's trial and error, Larry. I mean we've never had anything like this before. It is absolute trial and error. They're trying. The new president is trying. Bush left him with a mess -- a total mess in many different ways. I really think he's doing the best he can, but it is trial and error.

They try something, if it works, great. If it doesn't work -- and the problem is you don't really know if it's going to work for quite some time. If it's really wrong -- and it could be wrong -- we're going to really have a mess in two years.

Repatriation

This is a small country. We live in a place where family, community and national kinship are stretched over thousands of miles of land, but there are not that many of us. So when you try to have a conversation about national definitions it's hard for us to talk to each other stretched over miles and regions. I have been struggling over the last few weeks to write about what it means to live in Canada. More and more there seems to be a sense of a slipping identity. I think it started when I went to visit England and had a conversation with my brother-in-law about how the UK has lost it's way. When you travel in England now you don't see the Union Jack as much. The St. Georges cross flag is much more prevalent, a little less iconic for sure but that's just the start. People don't believe in an England as much as they did. It could be the Europization of the country, the struggles of identity are an obvious side-effect of mass immigration, which is made worse by the fear of xenophobia (especially in Europe) if the line is crossed when speaking about nationalism to strongly. This is my country right or wrong-but who's mine or yours? The economic downturn and the effects of Globalization have added to the malaise where a country once so powerful is on the verge of being a middle power at best. The military is strong for sure but the belief in it's mission and purpose is muddy. As a result of the inability to have a national conversation on identity there is an undercurrent of racism and anti-semitism that is quietly boiling over in many countries in Europe. We are in the midst of a re-definition of cultural and racial identity as the process of trying to figure out who the good guys are is infinitely more complicated than it was in our parents generation. The result being either indifference which turns at best to ignorance as it's just too overwhelming to understand how our increasingly mixed societies define themselves, or as we have witnessed in France-violence.

My thoughts have turned to multiculturalism as of late as the talks at the dinner table have been about the youth culture in our country. It exists on two distinct parallels that are increasingly on a convergent path of complete indifference and ignorance about what it is to be Canadian. The first group being what I would define myself as coming from-the picture of the Queen on wall group-predominately white and Christian, quietly respectful but with a hint of intolerance and the lack of true understanding beyond our country's borders. The other, Toronto. Integrated, with a focus on diversity, modern and urban but one with no context of a greater country beyond community borders but with a world view that is surprisingly educated. The war cry from historians over the last 2 decades has been that history in Canada is irrelevant. That there are no common lines that can join together to create a unified theory of Canadianism. We have the Two Solitudes, The Depression, WWII, post-war nostalgia and the first wave immigration and than there is a post Vietnam 1970s multiculturalism that has been going ever since with Canada being defined by what it is and what it is not: We're not America, we are more inclusive, we leave more room for cultural identity-you know the score.

To boil this down to it's relevance to the news today of the repatriation of three soldiers from Afghanistan-- if you don't know what this country really means to you how does that define your emotional response to the death of three of our nations soldiers? Do we all know why they were there? Do you think it's right or wrong? If you cheer too loudly are you supporting war or supporting the mission? What is the mission? I have taken the time to know why we are there but I'm an obsessive politico with political science education, I can't not know about this stuff! But how we have been educated on this war-if it is one- has been exceedingly difficult because we can't have a conversation as a country anymore. It's beyond language, it's about commonalities that seem to be slipping away, however much they were there in the first place. It's the failure of our government the education system and ourselves and the casualty of trying to live our daily lives. But we get up go to work come home watch TV go to sleep and sometimes NEVER think about so, ya, I'm Canadian. If there is ever a place to start to ask each other hard questions about who we are, what do we mean to each other and what our role in shaping the world is going to be than it's on one of the many bridges that cross the MacDonald-Cartier from Trenton to Toronto. Watch the TV and listen to the news and stop just for a moment what does this mean? Where are we? Where are we going? Is it right or wrong? Our parents and grandparents generations had it hard for sure, but they don't have to deal with the consequences of living in the post-modern mindf#ck that 21st century Canada.