Living In Rhythm

Let's take a moment to talk about why I hate Drake's new record.

I've tried, okay? I really enjoy Drake. I do. I think he's awesome. It's not like Canada's overflowing with great rappers who've had a ton of international success. He's pretty much the only one, actually. (Okay, Kardi, but it's not even the same level.) It's part of that weird Canadian pride thing when someone makes it big elsewhere and we're all like, "HE'S CANADIAN!" any time someone mentions his name. Just in case they didn't know, or whatever.

(Except for Nickelback. With them we're all, "Well, yeah, but they're from Vancouver, which is practically Seattle. And everyone hates Nickelback here, too, so don't blame that shit on us.")

But honestly, Drake is good. So Far Gone was ridiculous (in a good way) and Thank Me Later was, as a true first record, excellent. I honestly thought it was a good and bad thing that his first album was as good as it was, because I figured it would be hard to follow, and I was right. I mean, if we're really going to say that Take Care is his sophomore album. Can it be considered as such if the guy has a bunch of mixtapes? I don't know.

What I do know is that it's disappointing. For a few reasons.

One? I don't buy rap albums for lullabies.

What the hell? It's like it takes seven songs on this album to even get a fucking beat. The tracks are laid back and smooth and not bad, really, but like, it's boring. If I wanted something to fall asleep to, or to have something playing that's unobtrusive, I'd go for some Joni Mitchell, you know?

Why isn't he even rapping? Know how other rappers have 'ft. Chris Brown or Trey Songz or John Legend or whateverothersingerwhocanactuallysing'? Drake should do that. (Rihanna doesn't count, so don't even try to tell me that.) He's not a bad singer, I guess? I just don't want to listen to him. I don't buy a Drake record so I can hear his vocal stylings, let's put it that way. While we're on the topic, why the hell isn't Drake spitting? We know he can. He's done it before.

So there's that. Disappointing.

My other problem is that when he does actually get around to rapping, he's talking about how awesome he is. Over and over again. On just about every song. Which, okay, is part of being a rapper, I guess? I get it. Having an ego helps you sell records and/or not go crazy. Cool.

But dude, this is your second album.

You are not Jay-Z. You are not Kanye. You are not Lil Wayne.

Step back and take a look at who you're saying you're better than. Because no.

I would go into great detail about how hypocritical his lyrics are, too, but it'd just annoy me to point them all out.

Basically, I wish this album was half the length. If he'd cut at least half the slower songs and made this an EP or a mixtape, I'd get it. But as it is a full length record, I just don't. I don't understand what he was going for. Usually when I don't like an album, I can at least say I understand the thing they were trying to create, and whether or not it missed the mark completely, or just missed the mark for me.

I honestly don't have a clue what Drake's trying to do here, but if this is who he's going to continue to be as an artist on all his future projects, we might have to have a little chat.

This post is archived under drake, music

I was asked what my top five must-listen R&B/Hip Hop records are. I figured I'd cross-post here because this blog is predominantly about music and lists.

1. Voodoo - D'Angelo. Okay, look. D'Lo is arguably the best neosoul singer of our time. His musicianship is incredible, and Voodoo, as an album, is one of the best examples of when an album feels like it sounds. The music fills your head when you listen to it. And the album came out in 2001 and still feels current; you could put any of those songs on the radio today and people would go nuts.

2. Aaliyah - Aaliyah. Baby Girl. I mean, I think most people who follow me understand how much I love her, but in case there's any doubt, it's a fucking lot, okay? Aaliyah was working with Timbaland before working with Timbaland was cool. Her songs are catchy and empowering. They're provocative in a subtle way (kind of like she was) and sexy as hell without trying. There's not a thing I'd change about this album, other than the fact that it was her last.

3. Food and Liquor - Lupe Fiasco. I have always been a rap fan, and I've always gravitated more towards rappers who have things to say, rather than ones who are boasting about...okay, anything. The first song I heard off this album was Kick, Push, and I was basically like, 'Wait, this guy has an entire song about skateboarding? I must hear more'. The lyrical content on this record is a little staggering (same for all Lupe's records). I single this one out just because it's the one that made me fall in love with him. But you should probably listen to Lasers, too.

4. Mama's Gun - Erykah Badu. The first time I heard E.Badu I was at a dinner party in college (what even?) and ...& On was playing and I basically camped out by the stereo all night and wouldn't let anyone change the CD. I feel like Erykah has this vision in her head of what she wants her music to look like (yes, look like) and she gives you just enough, then keeps the rest for herself. It's like she doesn't really want you to see it all. That probably makes no sense to anyone but me. Mama's Gun is her best record (in my opinion) and one I still listen to often, even though it came out over 10 years ago.

5. The Evolution of Robin Thicke - Robin Thicke. When people talk about blue eyed soul, this is what they're referring to, just FYI. Robin Thicke makes good fucking music and I feel like he doesn't get enough credit for it. All his albums are amazing, but this one is kind of overwhelming, actually. Vocally staggering, but the musicality and the writing are incredible, as well. There is not a song on this album that I don't enjoy, and there are so many lovely lyrics. This is the record that gave us Lost Without U, which is arguably one of the sexiest songs ever. People need to listen to more Robin Thicke.

Honourable Mentions (generally because they're popular enough that you've already heard them...)

The College Dropout - Kanye West
The Diary of Alicia Keys - Alicia Keys
Confessions - Usher
The Black Album - Jay-Z
II - Boyz II Men
Be - Common
Get Lifted - John Legend
Now - Maxwell

This post is archived under aaliyah, alicia keys, Boyz II Men, common, d angelo, erykah badu, jay z, john legend, kanye west, lupe fiasco, maxwell, robin thicke, usher

Fun fact about me: I hate Cosmopolitan magazine. If you ask me, it's just about the most silly, useless magazine title on the stands these days. Of course, there are a ton of magazines whose pages are filled with trite, recycled articles which hold no actual information or stimulating content. My hatred (not an understatement) of this magazine started in high school when my friends would read Cosmo on our free period and I wondered why the hell I should care about '52 Ways to Please My Man' rather than, say, doing my damn homework, which is what free periods are for. Not only that, but why is the biggest coverline on the front of Cosmo almost always something to do with men? Isn't this a womens' magazine?

As I get older (and remain single), I start to notice more and more of these 'articles' that are obviously geared towards women of my age group, and they're all about getting men to notice you. There are so many reasons why this is wrong. Not the least of which is that it feels like every time an editor slips one of these stories into print or online, we're setting feminism (which is not a dirty word and I hate that some people still think it is) back by years. Women are not here solely to be noticed or recognized by men, nor should we give too much of a damn what they think of what we're wearing or how we've done our makeup.

And this is coming from someone who likes the idea of taking care of another person and being in a healthy relationship. A healthy relationship, to me, will never include a guy who thinks he has any say whatsoever in what clothes I put on my own body. (Taking care of my partner will never include being his maid, catering to his every need or whim, either.)

I frequently (several times a day) check Yahoo.com for news, sports scores, articles, breaking news, etc. Often times there are decent things on there that keep people abreast of what's going on in the world. At this point I'm mostly convinced that if sites like this one didn't exist, a lot of people would know a lot less about current events.

But still, Yahoo always seems to have these ridiculous articles that might as well be titled 'How To Snag A Man, Because You're A Woman And That Is All You Should Want'.

For instance (this is just from today): 10 Beauty Tricks That Make Guys Melt, The 5 Outfits Guys Secretly Hope You'll Wear. Then from there you can click such handy links as: 10 Things He's Thinking When You're Naked, Help! It's Been 6 Months and My Boyfriend Hasn't Changed His Status On Facebook to 'In A Relationship'!, Sex Tip From a Guy: Tickle Him Hello!. In fact, there's a whole section titled 'More About What Men Want'.

If a man is thinking anything other than, "Wow, I'm lucky this beautiful woman chose me," when you're naked, here's a hint: Put your clothes back on and leave. (There are obvious exceptions; I mean, you're naked, so he's bound to have some other thoughts.)

You'll note that a lot of the content here comes from Glamour.com. Apparently it's glamourous to be so self-conscious that instead of doing your makeup how you want, you should check that article and consider what he wants to see.

I'm clearly not against a woman putting effort into her appearance and perhaps taking into consideration what her partner might enjoy, but there's a line between that and dressing for someone.

It really irritates me most of all what these articles make women think. 'Should I care more about how I dress around him?' 'Should I make him change his status on Facebook after x amount of weeks?' (The insinuation that the measure of how serious a relationship is, is whether or not it's on Facebook is just mind-boggling to me. Two words: Grow up. If you're worried about him not being serious enough, suck it up and have a conversation.)

So, great. Magazines and media that make like they're 'empowering' women and encouraging them to be fearless are publishing articles which just create doubt and portray women as being paranoid and/or neurotic when it comes to relationships. Be a fearless woman, except make sure it's okay with your boyfriend, first.

Maybe I'm taking it too seriously, but you know what? It is serious.

Another thing that bothers me about these articles is that they completely disregard the LGBT community. All these articles are about women and men, no substitutions, and I can guarantee these media outlets are missing out on a lot of readership by ignoring such a large group of people. (I remember working for a magazine and one of the feature articles we published was a profile of the home of a lesbian couple. Our editor considered pulling the article before print, worrying about alienating our 'traditional readers'. Things got heated in the boardroom that day.)

I believe that if these magazines want to say they're for women, they should include all women. That includes ones who don't give a shit what any man (or any person) thinks of them. It should include women who like other women; women who don't want babies; women who do want babies; women who want babies but not husbands; women who are married to their work; women of every colour, shape and size; women who don't want to exercise and ones who do; women who love food and drink; women who play and watch sports; women from every economic bracket.

See what I'm getting at here?

Too many magazines and websites are all about 'how to look pretty and get a boyfriend', and I honestly can't think of one example of how that's getting us anywhere.

This post is archived under feminism

I honestly wasn't going to. This election has been infuriating me for weeks leading up to today and I honestly don't believe any of the candidates are worthy of my support.

But I went and voted anyway.

Because I am a firm believer that those who do not exercise their right to vote should not get to complain about the way the government runs. Why should they? If one does not care enough to go to a polling station, one’s level of ‘care’ should not increase when something affects them.

I am not a fan of the way things in this province have been going. The status quo is not acceptable to me, or to many (I’d almost dare to say most) people my age, in my position. I am not optimistic, even if a new party is elected. I know that every vote counts, but I also know a great deal about the mindset and priorities of the people in the area where I live, and areas like it. If someone new is elected (that is a very, very big if) I’m afraid a lot of the policies of the party for which I’m voting will not be made a priority, with the intention of not rocking the boat.

But you know what? Why not rock the boat? People my age are interested in politics. We’re interested in politics that make sense for us, just like middle-aged people are interested in politics that make sense for them, and lower-class people are interested in the politics that make sense for them. A 25 year old buried beneath student loans is not going to give much of a damn about (more) policies which benefit baby boomers.

What is on the docket for us?

Politics as a ‘thing’ are not all that accessible to people our age. Sure, the party lines are that young people are the future, are the change, and that we matter. This does not often come through in party policies. That doesn’t mean it’s not true.

So if everyone my age who is not completely thrilled with the candidates running or even the parties as a whole chose not to vote, we’re completely giving up on politics all together. We're giving the impression that we don't care, even if that's not necessarily the case. Hopelessness and not caring are two very different things. Unfortunately, they're often confused for one another.

Change is gradual, but we should at least be trying to accelerate it. We can’t do that if we don’t take the opportunities given to us.

I'm not one of those people who lives by the adage 'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it'.

I think it's more like 'Those who constantly focus on how things have been in the past will never understand what's important or realistic for the future'.

We've been told from the time we were children that we could have it all, and maybe that's true, or maybe it's not, but as a generation, we are smart, educated, and we care, deeply, about issues older generations haven't or do not. It is a powerful thing, we just have to do something with it.

I'm not one of those people who believes that my vote is going to change the world - I'm far, far too cynical (and realistic) for that - but if young people grab onto politics and force the government to see that we are here and we are interested and we are not okay with being ignored? That's where the change is going to happen.

I'm sorry. Sometimes I have political feelings and things like this happen.

This post is archived under politics

Let's have a little chat about words, shall we?

It seems every few months the tides change in the world of internet insanity and a new word becomes the 'it' thing. It's just the way it goes - one person likely starts it and 100 more follow and 100 more follow each of those 100, and so on and so forth. The internet is like a giant spider web or vortex or something else things get trapped in. We're all guilty of it. (See: Epic.)

Right. Epic. There's one that was around for a while, as 'the' thing to say/type. And most people did not use it the way it was meant. 

ep·ic  (pk)

n.

1. An extended narrative poem in elevated or dignified language, celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero.

2. A literary or dramatic composition that resembles an extended narrative poem celebrating heroic feats.

3. A series of events considered appropriate to an epic: the epic of the Old West.

Okay, so a series of events considered appropriate to an epic. Not exactly applicable to that episode of whatever show, or that party you went to on the weekend. Just pointing that out.

Then we have awkward. This one is my favourite. And by that, I mean my favourite thing that I hate and makes me want to smack people in the face with a dictionary.

awk·ward  (ôkwrd)

adj.

1. Not graceful; ungainly.

2. a. Not dexterous; clumsy.

    b. Clumsily or unskillfully performed: The opera was marred by an awkward aria.

3. a. Difficult to handle or manage: an awkward bundle to carry.

    b. Difficult to effect; uncomfortable: an awkward pose.

4. a. Marked by or causing embarrassment or discomfort: an awkward remark; an awkward silence.

    b. Requiring great tact, ingenuity, skill, and discretion: An awkward situation arose during the peace talks.

 So no. 'That awkward moment when your alarm clock goes off' is not correct and will incite rage in anyone with half a brain.

Then of course we have things like literally ('I literally died!' Right. Explains how you're still typing, then.), legitimately (okay, I use this one too, but I use it correctly, which is the key difference), and the most vulgar and disgusting response to photos of attractive people, 'I came'. Right up there with that is 'I'm pregnant'. I know these are meant to be jokes, but, well, it's kind of gross. There are other ways to express your enjoyment of something, or say how attractive you find someone.

The new one I'm seeing all the time is probably the one which bothers me the most.

Flawless. See, as a word, it's pretty, right? It flows rather nicely and it's meaning is pleasant.

The thing is? It's also complete bullshit.

flaw·less  (flôls)
adj.
Being entirely without flaw or imperfection.

So, um, why is this a word? Because nothing is without flaw or imperfection. Nothing at all. I'm sure people have other opinions on this, and they are more than welcome to, but I think perfection or 'flawlessness' is a complete and utter impossibility.

It bothers me when I see people using the word 'flawless' to describe an actress, actor or musician. Sure, they're attractive, talented and popular, but that doesn't mean they're perfect and I'm sure they'd be the first to admit as much. (And if they don't, they are not flawless. See how that works?). I think the media does a good enough job of creating a whole culture of hero-worship as it is. We should not take to our own blogs and perpetuate the belief that celebrities are more perfect than they are.

I know, I know. 'Flawless' is just a word and a way of expressing one's opinion. I will always encourage people to say how they feel, especially (well, really only) when it's not to tear someone else down or bully. However, I don't think there's a reason to go to such extremes as to call someone 'flawless', or 'perfect'. Frankly, if someone called me perfect I'd likely accuse them of blowing smoke. Or ask if they were blind. Because no one is perfect! I'd much rather hear someone say I'm talented, or lovely, or kind. Why not call that actress beautiful when she wears a pretty dress on the red carpet? At least you're being accurate.

Part of me is afraid this generation is turning into the one who'll use any word they can to incite a reaction. Sure, people use words like 'flawless' or 'perfect' or even 'epic' to express positive opinions which they are serious about, but there lies the problem. If you are serious about your opinion, why not search for the appropriate word with which to explain it? Maybe I'm just an old cynic, but if someone comes to me and says something is 'flawless', I'm just going to assume hyperbole and probably not take this person - or whatever they're talking about - all that seriously.

I know the internet can be (or at least feel like) an entirely different life, separate from 'reality', and speaking of taking things seriously, I probably am putting far too much thought into this. It's simply a word people have clutched onto so they may pay compliments to beautiful, talented people. That is a gorgeous thing, at the heart of it.

But you know what else is gorgeous? Words themselves, and they're infinitely more intriguing when they're used properly.

This post is archived under pop culture, words

I went to an auction today for the first time. I've been to dumb auctions where they were selling off five pieces of farm equipment in a crowd of 20 people, but this was different. This was an estate sale in an auction house with a crowd of about 100. There was everything from dishes, china, antiques, furniture and linens, to lawn and garden tools, a snowblower, a lawn mower, etc.

It was interesting to see which items went for what. Let me tell you, a Saturday morning bidding war over a leaf blower is actually really exciting. People take these things seriously. Complete sets of china went for $12 (my mom got one) and a really ugly serving platter went for $120. Insane.

I didn't care about most of this stuff. I spent a good portion of the first hour in awe of the auctioneer, though, thinking about the direct relation between rhythm and the art of being an auctioneer. It was almost musical, listening to this guy. He had a very specific tone and timbre. When the bidding went up, so did his pitch. When the bidding was low the rhythm of his words almost hypnotized you into action. It was amazing to watch, for someone like myself who's a nerd and notes those types of things.

Anyway, I bought things. Books. Really old books. All of them for $20 total.

Here's the list:

• Tennyson's Poetical Works (pub. 1899)
• Scott's Poetical Works (pub. 1913)
• The Complete Works of Shakespeare (pub. 1911)
• Early Tudor Poetry (pub. 1920)
• Pemaquid Point and Other Poems by Melville Arthur Shafer (pub. 1941)
• Tennyson's The Princess (pub. 1904)
• Caesar's Gallic War (pub. 1897)
• Freytag's Soll und Haben (pub. 1902 and printed completely in German)

Plus a few random pamphlets, such as a booklet on the statues of Boston from 1946, an illustrated book of Bible stories from 1937, and some other little booklets on Maine commercial and lobster fisheries, and a guide to the soils of Eastern Ontario from 1955.

I'd like to go to more auctions, but I know it'd just mean bad things for my bank account and good things for my book collection.

This post is archived under books, literature

I live in a small town. Actually, I live in a rural area outside of a small town. There are two liquor stores in my area (see, here in this part of Canada you can only buy liquor at a designated store and not at like, the gas station). One of these stores is closer to the other, so that is the one I always go to. Note the always there.

I am 27 years old. Legal drinking age in my province is 19. The sign on the door says that if you look under 25, you can expect to be carded. I understand this policy and have no problem with it, and frankly, it bothers me when people get all annoyed over being ID'd when they're buying alcohol. It takes two seconds to take your license out of your wallet. Not a big deal.

However.

I know I look younger than I am, and hell yes, I am okay with that. My problem is that every time I go to the same liquor store I always go to, they ask for my ID. Small town, remember? The woman who works there most frequently remembers where I bought my wallet (she asked one time and has since told me she went to the store and got one for herself) but can't remember that she's asked me for my ID 10 times before?

And since turning 27, they go ahead and ask for a second piece of ID, since they don't believe the date on my license and figure it's a fake. This has happened twice in two weeks. I know I might look slightly under 25, but I don't look under 19. And if I was under 19, I'm smart enough that I wouldn't have an ID that said I'm twenty seven.

So, lady at the liquor store today, thank you for saying, "Well, jeez, you look way younger than you are!" while an incredibly attractive guy stood behind me in line with his bottle of expensive whiskey. I'm sure you thought my deadpan reply of, "Yeah, I know," was bitchy and unnecessary.

I'm old enough that I can be bitchy if I want to. I have the ID to prove it.

This post is archived under life

Things one would assume about the universe if my home was the only example of what life on Earth is like.

1. It is easy to turn things on, but not to turn them off. Once a light has been switched on, it must remain on until the home's designated light exterminator deems it time for the light to be switched off. Same goes for televisions and some major appliances. Also, even if it is the middle of the day and the light doesn't need to be turned on, someone will flip that switch.
   
2. Two televisions must be on at all times, even when only one person is home. Perhaps they are set to the same channel, but perhaps not. The person who turned on the television does not need to be in the room to watch what is on, either. If this is the case, the volume must be turned up to an obnoxious level. Also, if one person has turned their television up and another person is watching something in a separate room, it sparks a battle to see whose volume can drown out the other's. It is customary for three people to be split between two rooms, watching the exact same show.
   Depending on who is sitting in front of the television, it may also be necessary to have music playing from a laptop, or to be talking on the phone at the same time. Possibly both.
   
3. One must never throw anything away. The most common excuse being "I might need that someday." Yard sales do not exist, nor do charitable donations of things like furniture or clothing.
   
4. Each dinner must consist of meat, vegetable and potatoes. No substitutions.
   
5. It is perfectly acceptable to leave doors open when you are doing things like showering, changing, or using the washroom, no matter how many people may be home at the time of these activities.
   
6. Conversations are to be had at extreme volumes, generally from opposite sides of the house, instead of face to face.
   
7. America's Funniest Home Videos is the greatest show ever to have aired on television. Followed closely by The Greatest Catch. Any argument to these facts will be seen as rude and will result in the silent treatment towards the offending party.
   
8. The youngest sibling will be exempt from all household duties for the entirety of his or her life. Also, they will receive anything they ask for, no matter the price tag, and will not be expected to achieve basic human accomplishments, such as earning a driver's license.
   
9. Political views other than staunch conservatism will be ignored and likely torn down using mildly-informed rhetoric. Other opinions are allowed, but not encouraged and certainly not spoken about. Talk of any modern issues will be answered by a rant instead of made into an actual intelligent conversation.
   
10. Global warming does not exist. Environmentalism is a waste of time and money. (Do not mention David Suzuki's name. Ever.)

Failure to comply with these and other truths will result in a miserable existence.

This post is archived under life

Here's something weird about me. For as much as I love music and buying/owning CDs, I am not really a fan of used music stores, or buy and trade places. I don't know. There's something really satisfying about unwrapping new music and feeling like it is yours only and no one else has ever listened to it and had an opinion on it. I don't like to share music. I like to recommend music. I'll make someone a mix. I will not lend them a CD. You know you're very special to me if I actually physically lend you a CD. I am protective of my music.

Strange, then, that I am almost the complete opposite with books. (Though I don't lend them out, typically, either.) Used book stores are my playground. I love them. I love knowing that someone else's hands have turned the pages. Even better if someone else's name is written in the front cover. I once bought a book I will probably never read, just because someone had written on the first blank page 'I adore you' and nothing else. If someone ever bought a book for me and wrote that on the first page, I'd likely propose. (Possibly via the first page of a book.) Old books smell better. They're easier to hold. The pages aren't all pressed together.

I found an incredible used book store today. My theory on used book stores is that there has to be a certain amount of disorganization. I've been in a book store in Vancouver that was so organized it was disorientating. I'm sorry, you have books separated by alphabetically by genre, then alphabetically by author? Too clean. I was in a used book store in Halifax that was such a disaster it was overwhelming. There were general 'sections', but I got totally lost, fearing that if I didn't look at every shelf (nearly impossible, unless you had an entire day) I'd miss some potential gem. Then I heard someone ask the clerk for a certain genre and the woman said, "Oh, you have to go to our other location for all children's books." Another location! Absurd! How would you ever know what you had, to be able to answer someone if they needed a title?

The store I was in today was small, in an historic old town near where I live. It was broken up into sections, and the books were alphabetized vertically, instead of horizontally on the shelves, so the owner (who was the only one working in the store) could fit more books on the shelves in her little shop. There was a huge room of mystery books - her favourite; I asked - and a perfectly appropriate back corner with wall to wall, floor to ceiling shelves of classics. The front part of the store was all fiction, alphabetized by author. She had a travel section, cooking section, sci-fi, religion, etc. History and biographies were lumped together, which makes sense to me.

I asked for a book and she knew exactly which shelf it was on, exactly which books it was in between, and when she held it up, she said, "Wait, which edition did you want, honey?"

This woman just loves books.

I walked out the door $20 poorer but with four books in my hand, and that is a fair trade if you ask me.

Next time I go back, which will be soon, I'll likely be picking up more classics.

Suggestions?

This post is archived under books, the collection

Attempting to write something with some kind of direction. Of course, to procrastinate, I had to make a playlist to help the process.

It consists of:

• Aretha Franklin
• Gladys Knight And The Pips
• Marvin Gaye
• Stevie Wonder
• The Temptations
• Smokey Robinson And The Miracles
• The Jackson 5
• Otis Redding
• The Supremes

This post is archived under aretha franklin, gladys knight, marvin gaye, otis redding, playlist, smokey, stevie, the jackson 5, the supremes, the temptations, writing

Or at least 21.

It's not that I don't love the album. I do. It's fantastic, by and far one of the best albums to come out in the past year (if not few years), and she's going to clean up at the Grammys and it'll be great, because it's better than someone like (just off the top of my head) Katy Perry winning a bunch of awards she doesn't deserve.

But honestly, could Adele put out a new record please? It's not just because I need my sister to stop listening to the same four Adele songs on repeat like it's the only music that exists in the world.

There's a distinct growth between Adele's 19 and 21. The 'essence' (lame descriptor, but it'll do) is there, the common link between the two albums, the general feel of who Adele is as a musician. That's what I like best in a sophomore effort. I want to know that you're the same artist, just growing and getting better at your craft. I don't want to hear the same album every time you put out something 'new'. Don't cop out. The best part about art is the terror of evolving and wondering if people will still like you at your new stop on the road. Adele does this wonderfully.

All this probably goes full circle to my hatred of things with too much hype. People hype things up so much and then the product can never live up to the expectations. The worst is that people who don't know what they're talking about are the ones facilitating the hype (which is basically all of the internet these days anyway). So you have some kid who knows very little about music other than what he or she likes to listen to (and there's nothing wrong with that, at the heart of it) telling people that Adele is the best singer ever.

Um, I'm sorry. Best singer ever? No. Great, yes. Unique, yes. Extremely talented, yes. Best singer ever? Hell no.

The more I hear and read about people stating things like that, the less I like Adele and the less desire I have to listen to her music. I know this will pass and that I'll need to listen to Turning Tables like breathing in probably a matter of weeks.

But right now I need a break from all things Adele, and given that my sister lives in this house and everyone on the internet seems to think Adele is the greatest musician alive and oh my god these lyrics apply to everything!, I think I'm going to have a hard time escaping her.

This post is archived under adele

NeedToBreathe >>>>>>>>>>>> Kings of Leon

In my opinion.

(And yes, maybe instead of listening to a bunch of old music, I just went through iTunes and bought a bunch more NeedToBreathe stuff I didn't own.)

But seriously. Listen to Washed By The Water, These Hard Times, Don't Wait for Daylight, and More Than. Just do it. They're brilliant.

This post is archived under kings of leon, needtobreathe

I am never not in love with music. That's pretty much a given by now, right? I'd hope so. If you have any doubts about that, you have probably only just stumbled upon this blog and you should probably scroll back and read a little more.

The love? It's permanent.

I know I always say I'm looking for new music. This is true. I'm always searching for the next voice that's going to make me crazy with adoration.

But really, there's only so many 'new' people I'm going to love that way. Let's be honest, for a music snot like myself, it's not easy for me to listen to someone and fall in love at first listen. And I'm not just saying that because it usually takes two or three for me to really decide. Nine times out of ten, I don't even like something new that I'm listening to, I'm merely testing it out (so glad iTunes bumped up previews to 1:30!). It's not like every artist or band that comes out is a Chris Young or a Needtobreathe.

I have this thing for re-falling in love with music. Yes, re-falling. Verbed it.

There are artists who will always be in the heavy rotation pile, so to speak. Mayer, Urban, Paisley, Legend, McKnight, Kanye, D'Lo, Aretha, et. al. That love's not going anywhere and I'm exposed to it daily.

My album collection is still in totes from the move that happened a full year ago. It's almost shameful, really. For a while I didn't have CD storage, and now I do, but I can't decide how I want to organize my albums. Leaning towards alphabetically by genre, but I still have this really weird, very strong desire to do them alphabetically by region, just to see what that looks like.

I'm getting away from my point.

All the albums I listen to regularly have been uploaded to my laptop. Explains why I have well over 3,000 songs on here. However, I have over 400 albums sitting in totes (or, as the case may be, in stacks on my shelves surrounding my stereo). Obviously not all these albums are on my laptop. There are complete catalogs of artists not on my laptop.

I want to listen to them. I want to be reminded why I bought these albums, why I fell in love with them. Or, as I'm sure I'll find, didn't.

I know I failed on the whole 'Listen To All My Albums In Alphabetical Oder' thing. This is basically that project on a smaller scale, and it allows me to skip over Jack Johnson, because, let's be real, there's no effing way I'm listening to that garbage, okay?

I basically want to listen to Norah Jones like it's 2002, or Mat Kearney like it's the day after seeing him open for Jason Mraz in Stanley Park.

I'm going to start, however, with Bonnie Raitt. Because I'm pretty sure no bad thing has ever started with Bonnie Raitt.

This post is archived under aretha franklin, brad paisley, brian mcknight, chris young, d angelo, john legend, john mayer, kanye west, keith urban, needtobreathe, new music, the collection

One of my favourite things to say and, without sounding like the cliché I am not, live by, is this: Art inspires art. This goes for hearing a song and wanting to write good songs, or reading a book and wanting to write good books, or looking at a Monet and wanting to paint good paintings. Or seeing a painting and wanting to write a song. Et cetera and so on.

I have not been happy with the way I'm writing lately. Not necessarily the quality, but the speed and, shall I say, ease. There are many theories I have as to why, but I won't bore you with them here. It's just becoming increasingly harder and harder for me to sit down and write 10,000 words in a day. How dare my muse do this to me? (Tongue in cheek, folks...)

I often encounter artists whose work I listen to, read, or see, and think to myself, "I want to be as good at anything as he is at his craft." (Some examples: Just about any musician ever mentioned on this blog, John Green, Lawrence Hill, the guy who does chalk drawings on the sidewalk in downtown Ottawa.)

Think about it: If I was as good at writing words as John Mayer is at writing songs, I'd be a millionaire by now. Clearly it doesn't work like that. (Neither does wishful thinking, but I digress.)

I wanted background music to write to, simply because the silence was irritating me. I grabbed my headphones (honestly, if I'm going to listen to music, I want to hear it) and set myTunes to shuffle, figuring since I had no set mood, no desire to hear any specific song or artist, I'd just leave it up to my computer to decide.

Sometimes my computer makes good choices.

A song by one of, in my opinion, the best voices in country music came on about five songs in. The song is just vocal and piano, and it's about choosing a woman (and a life, really) over alcohol. The artist is Joe Nichols and the song is An Old Friend Of Mine. The song is brilliant, especially when you consider that Nichols actually did battle addiction.

Anyway, his voice.

You can't teach talent. You can't. You can shape it, hone it, build on potential. You cannot teach talent. Someone can either sing or they can't. Someone has natural artistic talent or they do not.

Joe Nichols' voice is a gift. From whom or where, I have no idea, but that doesn't really matter. Somehow, he drew the card to have a voice that sounds like that. Clear, clean, emotive. I'd almost say effortless.

This is how I feel about my writing. It's the one thing I do that comes naturally. Of course it takes thought and work, and like any other art form, there is a certain amount of evolution involved in the entire process, piece by piece as well as over an entire body of work. My ability to write is my gift.

So who's to say I won't eventually be as good at writing as Mayer is at lyrical turns of phrase? I'm not deluded enough to think that's even entirely possible, let alone for me, but why rule it out? Why think negatively and accept a reality which may not even be true, that having a talent that a lot of other people have for the same thing may mean I can't excel at it?

I honestly don't even know what I'm trying to get at here. I just had this really weird realization that writing less might mean writing better, and that maybe that whole evolution of the process thing is forcing me to take a step back and ask 'why?' A lot of whys.

Somehow that all ties into music, as just about everything does for me. I hope you can find a point here, because I really did, and now I'm going to try and make sense of that.

This post is archived under joe nichols, john mayer, writing

Hey, D'Angelo. It's me. Big fan. Just sitting here on a Sunday night, drinking wine and writing a bit. Have some music on. Neosoul: You, Maxwell, The RH Factor, Erykah. A little Anthony Hamilton, 'cause...Well, you know.

And Brown Sugar comes on.

You know what happens to me when Brown Sugar comes on? Aside from some Stevie Wonder-inspired head movements and putting my hand in the air? I think about how nice it'd be if you released some new music.

Look, I know you've got your problems; we all do. It's just that the music...That'll help you, won't it? I mean, someone of your talent doesn't just lose it. Sure, it's been a while and, for real, some people might have forgotten about you. But not all. Some of us still listen to Voodoo on our headphones and marvel at the near-perfection. Some of us think the climax of Send It On is possibly the best part of any song, ever.

Some of us are patiently waiting on James River. Great title, by the way. How's that coming along?

This post is archived under anthony hamilton, d angelo, erykah badu, maxwell, the rh factor

Yes. It is.

Badu makes some good points. She also makes incredible music. These are facts. I'm still trying to sort out my feelings from the show last night.

The basics: Badu was 35 minutes late, walked onto the stage like she was waiting for someone to come up and lick her shoes, and then sang the hell out of a few highlights from her huge body of work. I went to the show with a friend who had a Bluesfest pass and had no interest in seeing Badu (or any idea of who she was). As soon as Badu came on stage - before she'd sung a word - my friend turned to me and said, "I don't like her." I still don't know whether or not I've let this play into my perspective on the show.

The band was tight as hell. Possibly one of the best bands I've ever seen live. The bassist was a standout. R&B bass players are always ridiculously talented, but this guy was incredible, and fun to watch, too.

So, amazing band, great vocalist, awesome songs. Why am I on the fence?

I just keep wondering: At what point does extreme talent justify arrogance? Or rather: At what point does arrogance detract from extreme talent?

Certainly I think any premier artist is going to have a touch of arrogance, or at least be extremely self-assured. I don't think you can get to the point of being a premier artist without at least thinking once or twice, "I am the best at what I do." But when you start abusing the crowd's love of what you do, it becomes an issue.

Because, to me, when Badu took to the stage, I felt like she had spent the last 35 minutes knowing the crowd wouldn't care once she opened her mouth. Which, fine. Maybe, musically, she made up for being late. Maybe fans can grant forgiveness if she jams on Kiss Me On My Neck for 10 minutes. But should they have to?

No, they shouldn't.

I know the music's good. I know she's going to come on stage and blow the crowd away with her style and voice and presence. I don't feel part of that presence has to be an air of not giving a fuck that thousands of people spent their money and their Saturday night on her.

So yes, the show was amazing, and if I were a regular fan and not someone who overthinks everything - especially where music is concerned - I'd probably have left thrilled that she played the hits and went late and kept The Tragically Hip (who I loathe) off the stage for a good 20 minutes.

I still love the music. I just don't ever want that to play into an artist's sense of entitlement.

This post is archived under erykah badu

So, I've been thinking about love as it pertains to music. Not like, 'love songs' or 'breakup songs', or any kind of song, really.

We've all got those artists and songs, right? The ones that take you back to a certain relationship. Those songs are either difficult or really easy to listen to, depending on the memories they carry. For me, as someone who loves music, I think it's pretty telling, of all my relationships, that I've never really selected a 'song'. And not just because I think that's kind of lame. I just can't ruin a perfectly good song because I associated it with a bad relationship. Or at least a relationship that didn't deserve a good piece of music as its soundtrack.

I'm not so much talking about that kind of thing right now, though. I'm just talking about music, at any given moment, and the people you get to share it with.

What brought this on was my first listen to the Tedeschi Trucks Band's Revelator. I've been anticipating this album since I heard it was in the works, and then no music stores in Ottawa were carrying it (assholes) so I had to have it special ordered. I got it about two weeks after the release date, which sucked, but whatever.

As I was driving home from a night of hanging out with friends, I tore the plastic off the record and played it for the first time. As I'm sitting in my car, driving home in the dark, I started thinking to myself, "God, I wish I was listening to this record with someone right now." That's not meant to make me sound lonely or desperate; I am neither. It's just one of those situations where I love something so much that I want to share it with someone who will love it as much as I do.

I've since been thinking a lot about this, the idea of sharing a love of something with someone, in real time. I recommend books and music like nobody's business, but that's after I've read or listened and can riff off a list of reasons, quotes or songs or intricacies that make what I'm recommending a sure thing. That's not at all the same as sitting next to someone and hearing the line, "He was born to love me. I was raised to be his fool," for the first time. It's not like hearing a slide guitar and looking to the person on your right in the car and sharing that look; that look you have when something's amazing and two people recognize that at exactly the same moment.

This, of course, doesn't have to be a romantic love. I suppose it doesn't have to be a love at all, really. I guess I'm just the kind of person who doesn't really thinks it matters what you love, as long as you love something.

I don't know that any of this even makes sense. I guess I just want to experience more things in the presence of someone who understands exactly what we're experiencing together. Which means that I'll constantly be reminded of that person. Then again, given my track record, I'm starting to think I might not mind being reminded of that person. I've been pretty good at keeping people and music separate. Maybe the fact that I'm starting to want to put the two together means something more than I have even figured out yet.

This post is archived under derek trucks, susan tedeschi, tedeschi trucks band

Okay, so Bob Dylan.

Here's the thing. The guy's a fucking genius. No one has ever or will ever write songs like him. It's possible that's the whiskey and multiple listens of my favourite Dylan songs talking, but let's be real. You go to his website to look for one song and you see the list of songs he's written and it's effing ridiculous. The man is a songwriting machine, no doubt about it.

That's not what this blog is about.

Last night I was sitting here writing about something else and listening to Susan Tedeschi sing Don't Think Twice, It's Alright, and I realized that I've never disliked Dylan's songs, I've just disliked his voice. I love Dylan's songs. They're brilliant. He's versatile and prolific and incredible. Then I listened to Tyler Hilton's cover of Boots of Spanish Leather (my personal favourite Dylan song, for reasons I don't even know) and Garth Brooks' cover of To Make You Feel My Love and a bunch of other covers of other songs, and I just kind of had a Dylan night.

I went to work today and in a coworker recommended an artist to me, compared him to Bob Dylan, "If Bob Dylan was a better singer."

Funny that she'd say that.

Then another coworker came in a couple hours later, and in a conversation about The Beatles, she mentioned Bob Dylan really randomly.

Okay. Now I'm starting to get freaked out.

Cut to tonight, sitting here, sipping Wiser's on the rocks and listening to The Tallest Man On Earth, my brother texts me and mentions who else but Bob Dylan.

What the hell, universe?

But that's not all. As I'm listening to The Tallest Man On Earth, he says, "I'll get my boots of Spanish leather," in a song called King Of Spain.

I tap out.

I give.

Mercy.

Uncle.

Fine, okay. Fine.

I'll listen to more Dylan.

This post is archived under bob dylan, garth brooks, susan tedeschi, tyler hilton