The Great Canadian Shit Show Thread

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Hali87

For what it's worth, Kurt himself probably would have mostly agreed with this statement.

But without Nirvana, would there have been a Nickelback? Ponder on that one for a minute

Well I have heard music critics call Nickelback the antithesis of Nirvana. If anything they seem to be more influenced and motivated by the largesse of classic rock. Chad and the gang were in it for the chicks and the money. Kurt certainly was not. Today I think he'd hate the music industry but I could see him liking the Indy movement.

[Hali87]

Yeah, I always just found Nickelback (maybe just their earlier stuff?) and the Nickelback-esque bands (Default, Staind, Theory of a Deadman, etc) to have more than a hint of grunge influences as well, although I guess Pearl Jam would probably be a more direct precursor than Nirvana, if anything.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Yeah, I always just found Nickelback (maybe just their earlier stuff?) and the Nickelback-esque bands (Default, Staind, Theory of a Deadman, etc) to have more than a hint of grunge influences as well, although I guess Pearl Jam would probably be a more direct precursor than Nirvana, if anything.

I definitely see Pearl Jam and their later deep voiced cousin Creed as more of a precursor than Nirvana.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's impossible to say what will remain and what will be forgotten from our era.

If she puts out a few more good albums, Lady Gaga is probably a safe bet.

OTOH there is lots of stuff from the 70s and 80s that was hugely popular back then but that is almost totally forgotten today.

In the hip hop genre, I like the chances of someone like Usher being still referenced in the future.

It's funny you say that, I haven't heard mention of Lady Gaga or Usher in years. Out of hip hop artists that blew up in the 2000s (so not NWA or Biggie or anyone from that era) I would bet that Eminem and Kanye will still be relevant in 20 years. Drake and Kendrick may get there too, they're still too early in their careers to tell.

[Hali87]

^Agree 100%

[Razor]

I just read a few pages from the Statistics Canada thread, which prompted me to type a quick thought on here.

The GTA needs some competition, and I'm typing this tongue firmly planted in cheek.
NYC has silicon valley, L.A and Chicagoland to keep it just a step away from totally dominating that country and down a few notches from the top of that proverbial soap box.

It's too bad that history never allowed our country to become more populous..I'm not alluding to the level of U.S , but perhaps more to the same level as some of the larger European countries.

In an alternate universe, a Montreal - QC corridor rivaling the GTA for economic out-put would of been something..Ditto for our Atlantic region..

Like London is too the U.K, Toronto, errr th GTA is just too dominant.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Well I have heard music critics call Nickelback the antithesis of Nirvana. If anything they seem to be more influenced and motivated by the largesse of classic rock. Chad and the gang were in it for the chicks and the money. Kurt certainly was not. Today I think he'd hate the music industry but I could see him liking the Indy movement.

Nickelback was originally a Metallica cover band. Their earliest recordings had a more Metallica sound than a grunge sound. When they struck it big, they softened their sound a little bit but incorporated more elements of grunge and the sort. Their first big album had songs on there that could be classified as country-rock. "How You Remind Me" being a classic example.

On the topic of the golden age of rock, it would seem to me that the golden age of rock died when new technology stopped getting grokked by guitarists and the electric guitar became more of a period instrument than a piece of cutting technology. The same thing happened with the piano in the 1950s and therefore jazz and classical music stagnated.

[ssiguy]

Even the dance music from the 70s & 80s was way better than it is today.

Of course there are some talented artists today but in general the music is lousy and generally has been so since about 1990 when rap started and songs and concerts had far less to do with the music and much more to do with the video and staged performances. You see all these new singers with the obligatory implants in all parts of the body {and light skinned blacks due to years of bleeching} and they are all perfectly in tune dance moves yet not one of them looks like they are having any fun whatsoever.

The reality is that you hear very little music from the 90s or 2000s now and that will continue because the vast majority of the music is completely forgetable.

In a few decades from now when nearly all the baby-boomers are dead and when this decade's music is also completely forgotten, the radio stations, cafes, and sports events will STILL be playing the stuff from the 60s, 70s, & 80s.

It was the best, most imaginative, diverse, and especially fun time in the history of music and it will never return. Sorry kid, you may have a lot more tech gadgets and are more "connected" but you were born 2 decades too late to enjoy the greatest music of all time.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Even the dance music from the 70s & 80s was way better than it is today.

Of course there are some talented artists today but in general the music is lousy and generally has been so since about 1990 when rap started and songs and concerts had far less to do with the music and much more to do with the video and staged performances. You see all these new singers with the obligatory implants in all parts of the body {and light skinned blacks due to years of bleeching} and they are all perfectly in tune dance moves yet not one of them looks like they are having any fun whatsoever.

The reality is that you hear very little music from the 90s or 2000s now and that will continue because the vast majority of the music is completely forgetable.

In a few decades from now when nearly all the baby-boomers are dead and when this decade's music is also completely forgotten, the radio stations, cafes, and sports events will STILL be playing the stuff from the 60s, 70s, & 80s.

It was the best, most imaginative, diverse, and especially fun time in the history of music and it will never return. Sorry kid, you may have a lot more tech gadgets and are more "connected" but you were born 2 decades too late to enjoy the greatest music of all time.

I really hope I don't talk like this in 20 years

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Even the dance music from the 70s & 80s was way better than it is today.

Of course there are some talented artists today but in general the music is lousy and generally has been so since about 1990 when rap started and songs and concerts had far less to do with the music and much more to do with the video and staged performances. You see all these new singers with the obligatory implants in all parts of the body {and light skinned blacks due to years of bleeching} and they are all perfectly in tune dance moves yet not one of them looks like they are having any fun whatsoever.

The reality is that you hear very little music from the 90s or 2000s now and that will continue because the vast majority of the music is completely forgetable.

In a few decades from now when nearly all the baby-boomers are dead and when this decade's music is also completely forgotten, the radio stations, cafes, and sports events will STILL be playing the stuff from the 60s, 70s, & 80s.

It was the best, most imaginative, diverse, and especially fun time in the history of music and it will never return. Sorry kid, you may have a lot more tech gadgets and are more "connected" but you were born 2 decades too late to enjoy the greatest music of all time.

My aunts and uncles who were 60s babies (born in the 40s) used to say that to me about 70s and 80s music when I was a kid. So I would hold off on that judgement.

And BTW rap started in the late 70s and early 80s.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Razor

I just read a few pages from the Statistics Canada thread, which prompted me to type a quick thought on here.

The GTA needs some competition, and I'm typing this tongue firmly planted in cheek.
NYC has silicon valley, L.A and Chicagoland to keep it just a step away from totally dominating that country and down a few notches from the top of that proverbial soap box.

It's too bad that history never allowed our country to become more populous..I'm not alluding to the level of U.S , but perhaps more to the same level as some of the larger European countries.

In an alternate universe, a Montreal - QC corridor rivaling the GTA for economic out-put would of been something..Ditto for our Atlantic region..

Like London is too the U.K, Toronto, errr th GTA is just too dominant.

Non tongue-in-cheek here, but Canada is likely to remain polycentric no matter what. For geographic and linguistic reasons.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It's funny you say that, I haven't heard mention of Lady Gaga or Usher in years. Out of hip hop artists that blew up in the 2000s (so not NWA or Biggie or anyone from that era) I would bet that Eminem and Kanye will still be relevant in 20 years. Drake and Kendrick may get there too, they're still too early in their careers to tell.

I think Gaga will get there. It seems the only songs that last are ones you can dance to, beloved by extremely flambuoyant gay men, or rock songs beloved by a wide segment of society but kept going by dirtstache, rural, would-be hipsters.

Classic radio stations here already play bands like Oasis, Nirvana, Foo Fighters, etc.

And remixes at gay bars keep everything from Pointer Sisters to Gaga going. She has a similar cult following as Cher, Madonna, etc. I think her music will go on.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I think Gaga will get there. It seems the only songs that last are ones you can dance to, beloved by either extremely flambuoyant gay men, or rock songs beloved by a wide segment of society but kept going by dirtstache, rural, would-be hipsters.

Classic radio stations here already play bands like Oasis, Nirvana, Foo Fighters, etc.

And remixes at gay bars keep everything from Pointer Sisters to Gaga going. She has a similar cult following as Cher, Madonna, etc. I think her music will go on.

Lady Gaga was popular with my kids and their friends as preteens and is still popular with them as they become teens. There is a good chance she will be their "Madonna".

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Non tongue-in-cheek here, but Canada is likely to remain polycentric no matter what. For geographic and linguistic reasons.

True - it's such an unusual situation. There's no question, in my opinion, that Toronto dominates everything "Canadian", completely. You can pick apart certain things other regions contribute (e.g. Newfoundland in national journalism, comedy, and broadcasting), but even most of these contributions are based on Toronto.

The issue is Toronto's reach is so limited. It too has a regional, as opposed to national influence - it's just that everything in that region is understood to be Canadian, as opposed to, more accurately, southern Ontarian. The things that make it here from Toronto are still generally received as coming from outside, same as anything from the United States - unless we're contributing. For example, I imagine q's ratings are going to skyrocket here now that Tim Powers is the host. That show wasn't on our cultural radar at all, despite being lauded as one of "Canada's" most important. That'll change now, and people will be able to say, "Well, Toronto clearly has a lot of influence on the cultural life in St. John's, they goes mad for q." when that's not really what's happening.

On top of it all, once you're out of the southern Ontario, Toronto's influence is quickly overtaken by the Americans. I don't believe it's at all inaccurate to say Toronto is less influential here than, say, New York City and Los Angeles. It's all things coming in from the outside, and the American contributions seem to have more punch.

It's an unusual structure, even limited solely to anglophones. I wonder if New Zealand has something similar, with disconnected regions united more by Australian influence than Wellington.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

True - it's such an unusual situation. There's no question, in my opinion, that Toronto dominates everything "Canadian", completely. You can pick apart certain things other regions contribute (e.g. Newfoundland in national journalism, comedy, and broadcasting), but even most of these contributions are based on Toronto.

The issue is Toronto's reach is so limited. It too has a regional, as opposed to national influence - it's just that everything in that region is understood to be Canadian, as opposed to, more accurately, southern Ontarian. The things that make it here from Toronto are still generally received as coming from outside, same as anything from the United States - unless we're contributing. For example, I imagine q's ratings are going to skyrocket here now that Tim Powers is the host. That show wasn't on our cultural radar at all, despite being lauded as one of "Canada's" most important. That'll change now, and people will be able to say, "Well, Toronto clearly has a lot of influence on the cultural life in St. John's, they goes mad for q." when that's not really what's happening.

On top of it all, once you're out of the southern Ontario, Toronto's influence is quickly overtaken by the Americans. I don't believe it's at all inaccurate to say Toronto is less influential here than, say, New York City and Los Angeles. It's all things coming in from the outside, and the American contributions seem to have more punch.

It's an unusual structure, even limited solely to anglophones. I wonder if New Zealand has something similar, with disconnected regions united more by Australian influence than Wellington.

You mean Auckland?

[SignalHillHiker]

Is Auckland the cultural capital? I have no idea. If so, then yes.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Is Auckland the cultural capital? I have no idea. If so, then yes.

Auckland is Toronto, Wellington is Ottawa.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Non tongue-in-cheek here, but Canada is likely to remain polycentric no matter what. For geographic and linguistic reasons.

Maybe tongue in cheek was the wrong wording..

I was more or less playing a game of "what if?"
Supposing, we were a country of 100 million people and the Montreal to QC was a power house competing with the GTA and having it's own version of a francophone Hamilton, and Kitchener Waterloo separating the two anchor cities?
Saint Lawrence Seaway region?..Kingston- Brockville- Ottawa, or a continuous Edmonton to Calgary corridor?
How about a mini Seaboard with having the Halifax region larger and more influencial in the country then what it is?
I'm just having a hard time imagining industries that would make up these faux economic regions.

On another note, I said it before on here..As much as it's great that our country has a lot of land mass for natural resources, etc., it's also akin to a 2 person family living in a 32 room mansion..There's lots to maintain for a small family..Think infrastructure.

[SignalHillHiker]

Here's a real shit show, mostly for you, Acajack. Recorded bits of this and pieced it together as part of our little conversation above.

It's Margaret Wente's time in the hot seat on Crosstalk, CBC's competitor to all of the radio call-in shows on VOCM. Crosstalk is the least popular of them all, but it still has a decently-sized audience.

So, I edited out most of the show. The vast majority of calls were some version of, "I forgive her, but I don't forget what she wrote 10 years ago. However, this change is welcome, and if you come back to Newfoundland again, stop in for a tea or beer." The calls I chose are definitely not that, but keep in mind the above was the overall tone.

So, starts with Wente articulating what we're always saying Really nice to have someone who was previously so ignorant about us really get it.

Then it goes to first unforgiving call.

Then... Labrador really is for us what we are for Canada. A call from a man up there talking about campaigns to get the Canadian flag raise (even guarding it at provincial buildings) during our whole conflict with Ottawa when they were all turned down. The man sums up the Labrador sentiment perfectly: we want to be part of Canada, preferably without Newfoundland.

And then another call, this one reverse prejudiced. He's rude regarding mainlanders and Toronto.

So, a real shit show, but a lovely insight into the regional divisions, within one province and Canada as a whole.

• Video Link

I always wonder if a show like this is possible in, say, Australia? Or New Zealand? I think it would be in the United States, though perhaps not to the same degree.

(An aside, the host of Crosstalk is ridiculed here for her pompous accent, sounding too fake. Meanwhile, Margaret Wente has a perfectly engaging, genuine voice. I wish she was the host).

(Also, it's not lost on me that our seeming obsession with what other people think of us is a very Canadian trait).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

True - it's such an unusual situation. There's no question, in my opinion, that Toronto dominates everything "Canadian", completely. You can pick apart certain things other regions contribute (e.g. Newfoundland in national journalism, comedy, and broadcasting), but even most of these contributions are based on Toronto.

The issue is Toronto's reach is so limited. It too has a regional, as opposed to national influence - it's just that everything in that region is understood to be Canadian, as opposed to, more accurately, southern Ontarian. The things that make it here from Toronto are still generally received as coming from outside, same as anything from the United States - unless we're contributing. For example, I imagine q's ratings are going to skyrocket here now that Tim Powers is the host. That show wasn't on our cultural radar at all, despite being lauded as one of "Canada's" most important. That'll change now, and people will be able to say, "Well, Toronto clearly has a lot of influence on the cultural life in St. John's, they goes mad for q." when that's not really what's happening.

On top of it all, once you're out of the southern Ontario, Toronto's influence is quickly overtaken by the Americans. I don't believe it's at all inaccurate to say Toronto is less influential here than, say, New York City and Los Angeles. It's all things coming in from the outside, and the American contributions seem to have more punch.

It's an unusual structure, even limited solely to anglophones. I wonder if New Zealand has something similar, with disconnected regions united more by Australian influence than Wellington.

That highlighted portion is something I've said before. The "overarching" cultural mainstream that everyone in Canada has in common, more often than not comes out of NYC-LA, not Toronto. Or at least it comes from LA-NYC *as often* as it does from Toronto.

Multiply that when it comes to francophone Canada. There is very little that is "Canada only" that comes out of Anglo-Canada that gains traction in Quebec. Think of the Tragically Hip. It's an "Anglo-Canada only" success story. Impact in Quebec: next to nil.

But had the Tragically Hip become big in the U.S. (and by extension, in Sweden, Australia and Singapore, etc.) then they would be much more known in Quebec. It would ironically as a result be a *Canadian* thing that people in Quebec and the rest of the country would have had in common. Just like Céline Dion and Shania Twain. (Though admittedly a lot of people in Quebec don't always know that Anglo-Canadians who are international stars like Jim Carrey actually have the same passport of them.)