"Down on the Upside" by Soundgarden (1996, A&M)

Unfortunately the songwriting isn't as strong as the last two. It's still as clean as the last one, too, which isn't so good. But it's still solid stuff. It's not like they suddenly turned into a post-grunge band or something. It would be really something if the songwriting were as consistent as their last two outings. I guess that's as much as I can say.

"The Queen is Dead" by the Smiths (1986, Rough Trade)

I usually don't have trouble liking rock I'm "supposed" to like (i.e. the generally accept rock canon). I can't say the same about pop I'm supposed to "like" (frankly, I just prefer inventiveness, grit, rhythm and other such things to melody, aesthetic angles to precision arrangements, appropriate to clean production and mixing, etc). I usually can at least bring myself to respect most rock music that has become canonical. Hell, often I can put aside my gut feelings and and least say "this is a pretty impressive feat even though I don't particularly like the style of music." But I can't really here.
And the thing is, I like so-called "Brit-pop" normally. I love the Beatles. I am in the process of writing a book about how great they are. I went through a period where the Who were pretty much my favourite band. I respect the Kinks and I've grown to quite like them. I like the Small Faces. I think Blur is pretty damn great (if slightly overrated).
I'm not saying it's bad. It's not bad. It's better than a lot of what was on the radio in 1986 Britain, I'm sure.  It's competent. It's catchy enough. The lyrics are pretty great (and this is coming from someone who doesn't like Morissey at all). But there're two things this album isn't, which Smiths boosters - and numerous rock critics - claim it is: great and important.
This album, and the other Smiths albums which I have yet to hear, is held up as some kind of landmark where British people rediscovered guitars. We are taught by the music press that the Smiths helped save guitar rock. I feel similarly about the Smiths and Springsteen: if this is guitar rock I don't need more of it.
Why is that some critics must champion wussiness as upholding rock tradition when there are clear alternatives that are not wussy in the least. They did it with Springsteen, when scared boomers held him up over punk. And they did it with the Smiths, when critics - either wholly unfamiliar with the breadth of great American alternative rock in the 80s, or put off by how "rock" it was - elevated a band like the Smiths to a status of champions of guitar-based rock music. Calling much of this "rock" isn't exactly fair. Jangle pop is indeed appropriate. Guitar pop. Pop rock. Terms like that. There's very little "rockness" (i.e. muscle) in this album, and its telling.
It's hard for me to understand the Marr worship from this one album, as well. He has maybe a moment or two, where he shows he's a pretty good rhythm player.
The production dates it, like so many 80s albums. Say what you want about American alternative rock of the 80s, but most of it does not have horrible 80s drums or synthesizers in it. Alas, TQID has a little.
The other exaggerated thing about this album is its supposed importance. The Smiths wrought what exactly? To my ears many if not most of the decent Brit Pop bands of the 90s owe more to the Who than they do to the Smiths. Maybe I'm not up enough on the lesser lights of 90s Brit Pop or on guitar-based rock music in England in the late 80s, but that's okay with me. After listening to this, I can't say I'm particularly interested. I feel like what this album needs is a little - no, a lot - of Steve Wynn and Karl Precoda, or Baird Figig, or Joey Santiago, or anyone anywhere who knows what distortion is.

The Campaign to Fire Brian Burke: Brian Burke

Burke attended the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference as a guest speaker just so he could tell everyone he doesn't like analytics.

"Tiger Talk" by Yukon Blonde (2012, Dine Alone)

Well this is certainly not bad: it's competent, it's catchy, I think it is pretty obvious that these guys have some kind of talent. But sounds so much like other things and it just lacks any real kind of desire to make interesting music that there really isn't anything here for someone who wants something new or interesting. 5/10

"Strange Grey Days" by Chains of Love (2012, Manimal)

My step-dad buys the odd CD because of the looks of the girl. And I make fun of him (behind his back) for this.
At least I think it's the looks. Maybe it's the voice as well, but looks are definitely a part of it. And usually I can't understand it.
But occasionally I come upon something where I sort of get how an alluring female voice can make you forget the musical problems.
It's why I went through a period where I tried to like She & Him. Her voice did it for me, though at this remove I must say that the aesthetic rarely did, if ever.
These girls have very alluring voices, particularly the lead singer. And it makes me want to think "for a guilty pleasure, this isn't bad." But that's not really true. What's true is that it's girl group pop paired with psychedelic / garage pop (I don't really get how this is "soul") and as such, it's almost purely revivalist. Sure, it combines two or three genres in its revivalism, so that's something. But it's still revivalist. And at the end of the day, no matter how much I want to like these girls, I can't bring myself to say that they are doing something special because, well, they're not.

"French Residency" by Boxer the Horse (2011, label unknown)

I want to like this, I do. For much of it, it sounds like a tour of American indy rock over the past two decades (and also Blur's foray into American indy rock). The problem is that one of the singers is a dead ringer for Stephen Malkmus. I mean, it's uncanny. And I just can't get over it. He needs to learn to sing like himself before I think I can take these guys seriously. 6/10.

"Wrecking Ball" by Bruce Springsteen (2012, Columbia)

Springsteen seems to me to be - at least half of the time - on a similar kind of mission as Costello and Dylan: bringing non-rock and pre-rock Americana into the 21st century (I say this about only about half the material on this album, though). The only problem is that he overproduces the shit out of it, so it really doesn't stand comparison with those two.
The remaining material is made up of his usual over-the-top productions. I don't know what I would think of Springsteen's songwriting if he ever let up on the wannabe Phil Spector thing. Well, I guess I do know. I like Nebraska. But every other time I try to give him a chance I can't really concentrate on the songs because he just goes so overboard on the arrangements that it distracts the hell out of me.

What's the title to the TV show about your life?

Formspring keeps telling me people ask me questions, but people don't ask me questions and I think it's all a ruse to get me to visit the site.

Ask me anything

The Campaign to Fire Brian Burke: Grabo

I like Grabo. He is probably my favourite forward on the Leafs at the moment. But liking him has nothing to do with sound hockey decisions and this contract is not a sound hockey decision.

Grabo may very well be the best all-around forward on the Toronto Maple Leafs, but that is damning with faint praise. He is a #2 centre and frankly, he isn't even an elite #2 (an elite #2 would be someone who merits regular consideration as a possible one). Sure, the Leafs still don't have a #1 centre, but is that any reason to overpay someone who isn't a #1? Look how well that worked out with Connelly.

So Grabo is a #2 centre: a top 6 forward, a top 10 skater, etc. As of this contract, he is now getting paid the 2nd most on the team behind Phaneuf. It is a raise of nearly 100%. Now Grabovski has certainly performed well, but I would argue that he has performed somewhat better than you would expect a player making slightly less than $3 mil / season to perform, not doubly better.

And then there is the length. Yes, Grabo hasn't been in the league long, but has anyone checked his age lately? He is 28. He will be 33 at the end of this deal. Will he be putting up 50-60 points per year at 32 or 33? Maybe. Maybe not. It's pretty tough to know because compared to most NHL players, Grabo is in his prime right now. I.e. he probably will be putting up more like 40 points in his early 30s, but it's a gamble. I'm just not sure how smart it is.

Because the thing is Grabo does have a little bit of an injury history and he also plays that style that does incur the odd injury. So couldn't it be a little shorter?

But the length would not be as much of an issue if the obvious per year discrepancy didn't exist. Grabo is being paid like he is the most important forward on the team. Maybe he is, but he is the most important forward on a 12th place team which needs to improve somehow this summer because, as usual, they are not bad enough to improve quickly through the draft.

So how do they improve this summer? Well by signing and trading. But currently they have about $7.6 million in cap space this summer and 5 roster spots unaccounted for. That means some RFAs probably aren't sticking around unless Burke makes a trade.

So essentially what this deal does is it forces Burke to make a trade. That could be a good thing. He has shown that he can sometimes make a good deal. He has also shown that he can make the odd bad deal. But he has to deal. Otherwise the 2012-13 Leafs will be pretty much the same team as this one. I know I'm excited.

"Rotten Apples [Deluxe Edition]" by the Smashing Pumpkins (2001, Virgin)

Note: this is a review of both and the rating reflects that.
The first disc is a good compilation. It showcases most of the band's best known songs, and a cover that has become fairly famous (though it is pretty straightforward). The only problem with it (aside from it being a "greatest hits" album) is that there are two songs on it that clearly don't belong. As with so many of these things, someone has stuck on some "new" material in the hope that this too becomes successful. Oops.
The second disc is less consistent, but that is obviously to be expected since it is a rarities comp.  About half of it isn't new exactly, so that sort of defeats the purpose. And it's hardly complete. But it's still solid for what it is.

"The Singles Collect" by Skinny Puppy (Nettwerk America, 1999)

I can't say that I like this particular style of music. It's like a far more accessible Throbbing Gristle, and I've always only appreciated Throbbing Gristle (especially as a practical joke) rather than liked anything about them. I get it, it's art. But it's not my thing. And so I must feel the same way about a band that sounds awfully indebted to TG and all those other "proto-industrial" (for lack of a better term) "bands" (again, for lack of a better term). But I can't deny that what they were up to is art: it's provocative, it's sometimes clever, it's certainly relatively unique, especially given the era when they were putting out these singles. And perhaps that's the key word, these are singles. I know that in this case it's merely a matter of format but at one point a single was something designed to get radio play. Gotta admire a band that issues such deliberately unfriendly and inaccessible music as singles. So I can appreciate this as art, but I can't say I'm in a rush to listen to it much.

"Ex Lives" by Every Time I Die (Epitaph, 2012)

So this is pretty standard "metalcore" (I feel like I should make a joke) but it's still right up my alley. I can't help myself, even though I feel like I've heard this sound a million times by now, I still can't help but like it. It helps that the lyrics are above average for this subgenre and genre as a whole and it helps that there is a little variation as compared to some of their contemporaries. 7/10

"Bone Soldiers" by Baby Eagle and the Proud Mothers (2012, label unknown)

Way too much like Built to Spill (and some other indy / alternative band I can't place) but that's okay with me. I'd rather listen to this than a lot of the other stuff I come across on Exclaim. 6.5/10