Snackable Rants

I read a lot of political/activist blogs, and many of them start like this:

"Alexi is a mid-30s caucasian queer feminist transgendered atheist working-class anarcho-communist vegan..."


...and that shit gives me a major case of scrunchyface. 85% of the people in this world are probably unclear about what some of those words mean, and 95% would never use them (or so many) to describe them self. It's totally alienating (and I went there to read!).

Everyone comes to personal understanding in a different way, but how we individually understand our own lives, and how we publicly choose to represent them are different things. I wouldn't criticize someone's private self-image because that's their thing, but when a person's intro to the world is to lead with the term "cisgendered" I will absolutely criticize that - and I don't think that's unfair. Prince publicly identified as a made-up symbol in the 90s and everyone told him to knock it off.

Differences should be celebrated, but I don't think reveling in them is especially productive. Just as hyper-ambiguous terms like "queer" can be a barrier to understanding someone, hyper-specific terms can seem like a social pre-emptive strike. Whatever you were about to talk about, you already know how I feel.

I don't believe that. Do you eat KD in a socialist way? Do you watch Glee as a Libertarian first? Our long-held beliefs certainly inform how we interact with the world - but they should be a lens and not a filter. Wearing all your beliefs, identities and values on your sleeve tells me that you like these ideas more than you like talking to people. I'll let you eat your socialist macaroni in peace.

When I first heard someone chide 'first world problems' after a group of us had been moaning about essentially nothing, I thought it was awesome. It was definitely a funny thing to say, and I'm always in favor of people trying to achieve some humility regarding their relationship to power and privilege in the world.

Now that the joke is everywhere (at least in the circles I run with), its overuse has drawn me to what I find increasingly bothersome about the phrase. I'll be standing in Starbucks and make some complaint about not being able to decide between two drinks, and there's a decent likelihood that someone will tell me this is a first world problem. No it ain't.


There are Starbucks all over the world, even in many 'developing' countries like Chile and Guatemala. Lots of people choose between drinks every day, and lots of them probably moan about that choice. Furthermore, the root of this 'problem' isn't about Starbucks or specialty drinks - it's that I am complaining (however seriously) about having to make a decision regarding non-essential treat beverages, and this is even more universal.


'Third World' and 'First World' are problematic terms not just because they fail to reflect the sufferings and poor conditions in 'First World' nations like the United States, but also because they sell short the realities and ambitions of billions of people worldwide. There are lots of ways my life is very different from many of the people in El Salvador. Whining about the choice between drinks is not one of them. People the world over hate making tough decisions when it comes to delicious goods.

So when I hear people slinging 'first world problems' at so many situations, I can't help feeling that it's as much about dividing the world into ungrateful sweatshop-wearing yuppies and struggling impoverished have-nots and then feeling enlightened about having made that distinction, as it is about having any kind of real-world humility about the blessings we might be afforded.

I don't want to hate too much. I think the root of this joke is a pretty funny place, and this one will probably move on soon. But if the point of humility lies in reminding yourself that you're not as special as you might think, calling out 'first world problems' seems to do just the opposite in a whole lot of cases.

I kinda love Pitbull.

REVIEW

If you like church hymns and Depeche Mode, you will almost certainly love Austra. If you don't know or care about either of those, there's still a chance you will really like Austra. There's a lot of good reasons to like Austra.

The 80's seem to be strong in Canadian music this year. Miracle Fortress, Diamond Rings and now Austra have strong ties to at least the sonic palette of that decade. Fortunately, all three of these bands mine 80s Electronica in a way that feels very natural to my ears. Rather than paying homage to New Order and Pet Shop Boys, these bands - particularly Austra - sound as though they could have been contemporaries of those classic acts.

I believe the strongest weapon in Austra's arsenal is subtlety. Lead singer Katie Stelmanis comes from a classical vocal background, but spares listeners the onslaught that often accompanies dark-sounding bands with a powerful female vocalist. Nowhere on 'Feel It Break' do the vocals over-embellish the gorgeous melodies or give way to melodrama, and the rest of the band follows suit. Drums chug along in simple, but perfectly formed grooves, and synthesizers are more about sound and texture than virtuosity. Every sound on this disc is expertly chosen. At times shimmering and bright ('Hate Crime', 'Lose It'), at times dark and booming ('The Beat and the Pulse') and often a combination of both. When a distorted guitar appears on 'The Noise', it's perfect.

My choice of Church hymns as a reference point for Austra is two-fold. First, the lead vocals are frequently blended with two-part backing harmonies in often medieval-sounding combinations. Fourths, Sixths, and wonderful tone clusters are all over this album, and greatly contribute to a second church-like quality: The subject matter. 'Feel It Break' sounds positively Old Testament. Lyrics speak of beasts, demons, looming and apocalyptic futures, and dark visions thereof.

What's so exciting about Austra is that they seem to understand (on their first album no less) exactly what Depeche Mode and New Order did before them. Darkness at it's best isn't scary or off-putting. It's completely seductive. I'm sold.

Review score: 4/4

LIKELIHOOD

Austra was an early favorite of mine on this list, and they're only growing on me.

As mentioned above, Diamond Rings and Miracle Fortress (both of whom made the long-list, but not the short) are mining similar territory, and to great effect. At a time when mainstream pop music is quite synth-dominated, a handful of Canadian electronic acts are propelling a very throwback sound to exciting places. Junior Boys have been doing this for years (including this year's excellent 'It's all True'), and Owen Pallett has taken his own fantasy-pop in a more electronic direction lately.

In short, I think Canada is on board, and 'Feel It Break' is as good as any to reward with the Polaris. It's daring, intelligent, groovy as hell, and it takes terrific source material to an original place. My hopes are high, and I think chances are good for Austra. A serious contender.

Likelihood Score: 4/4

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.