MUSIC - John Lennon - Plastic Ono Band

Score: 9.0

I'm a huge Beatles fan. Gigantic, perhaps would be a better word. There is no doubt in my tiny little mind that they were simply the greatest band ever, bar none. Everything they touched reeked of quality, with only a few minor slip-ups in their short, bright career together. But such a band will never exist again, and the evidence of it is all in this one record.

For try as they might, none of Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, or Ringo Starr ever achieved anything as solo artists on the same level as what they managed as a group. It was simply a miracle of human chemistry that such a gigantic amount of creativity deposited itself within Liverpool in the late 1950's, and that those creative endeavours would gel in such a way that they did not compete or outright destroy one another, but managed to complement each other and work harmoniously. The Beatles began before postmodernism, before absolute narcissism became the norm, before music became so fractured it required dashes in order to properly describe what you were listening to. It was only before all of those things that a group like the Beatles could form and write eyeball-to-eyeball some of the greatest pop songs ever.

This album, released in 1970, was Lennon's first after the Beatles, and it was released after all of those other things had happened. Racial barriers in the United States were eliminated (in theory at least), the middle class had blossomed even further, sexual liberation for an entire generation of teens had smoothly produced a mass of sexually active adults on the pill, and suddenly you could be whoever the hell you wanted to be. John Lennon, like the other Beatles, wanted to be himself suddenly. And the music suffered.

Which is not to say, in any way, that this is a bad album. Let's get that out of the way. It's a really, really good album, and don't let anything else I write here sway you otherwise. It's just bad by Beatles standards. Even the fractured, somewhat uninspired Let it Be is better by leaps and bounds. In place of the wide mosaic of abilities that each of the Beatles brought to the table, you have, you guessed it, John Lennon's wordplay and vocal inventiveness, along with some catchy basic melodies and an inventive spirit that underlies all of it. Which produces a lot, a fact which can be attested to by listening to the album today; but it does not produce music that stands the test of time quite as well as say, Revolver or The White Album.

In fact The White Album is a good place for comparison, as the sombre, stripped-down material Lennon produced in that period is similar in many ways to some of the work on Plastic Ono Band. "Hold On" and "I Found Out" could, with some lyrical reworking (you can't say "Fuck" on a Beatles track) have been reworked from the late 60's production of the band. "Look at Me" actually seems to be just that, a redone form of Lennon's own "Julia", complete with the same guitar-picking pattern and a musical and lyrical change of direction. That direction is much darker, much more minimalistic, and simply a more raw sound that puts Lennon's emotions and thoughts right in front of the listener, without McCartney's musical idealism or Harrison's mysticism getting in the way.

That rawness is featured in many tracks, uptempo and down, from "Mother", the opening to end all openings for a record of this type, through "Working Class Hero", a song so covered now it is refreshing to hear Lennon's originally simple, straightforward approach to the lyrical content, through to "Well Well Well" and most poignantly, "My Mummy's Dead", the audio quality of which actually aids in reproducing the simple suffering Lennon is evoking about his mother's death. That bareness of audio soul is refreshing to this day, but it can't pick up the mediocre song-writing (again, by Lennon's own standards) that spots up again and again in this record.

"I Found Out", for example, existed before punk, so even though it's trying to sound punk, Lennon's doing it solo, without the collage of influences that eventually helped form punk as it came to be. The result is a mixed effort that paws halfway between anger and loneliness, without really finding a home in either. "Love" too, is a fairly half-assed collection of phrases which, while poetical in their own right, don't really contribute much in co-ordination with the vocal melody, which is, once again, plain and self-serving.

In fact, it's only when, surprise surprise, Ringo enters on the drums, that these songs really pick up in terms of outright quality. From his steady time on "Mother" to his entrance on "Well Well Well" that set up that track as a perfect steadier on the album, it is his quite unique and identifiable sound on the drums that balance out Lennon's self-aggrandizement on the guitar and piano. Again, the album wouldn't have much positive about it at all without Lennon's self-focus, but it's stronger when a musical buffer, no matter how small, is placed in his way, and it is then that the full emotion of his songs can come out. "Isolation" for instance, is full of the soft, sweeping vocal progression and excellent timing that are Lennon's trademarks, but the killer technique is simply missing. Incipit Paul McCartney, and you have a classic, without him, it is merely a really good song.

All this talk of narcissism and self-focus inevitably brings me to the only place you can naturally end a review of this album, "God". Lennon claims he doesn't believe in Beatles or anything else, just himself (ironically enough always with the inclusion of Yoko Ono, an Other if ever there was one), and that the dream of what the Beatles stood for is over. But somewhere in that deep egotism and individuality that came to typify Lennon in this period, somewhere within the Freudian expression of desires and Primal Therapy, it seems like there is a need to believe in something else, besides himself. Because, let's face it, the quickest way to being an isolated, working-class hero, is to cut yourself off from believing in the closest three friends you might ever have. It's this sort of tension that makes "the line" so painful and confusing for us Beatles-freaks. The line has been talked about to death, and though there's no point adding anything to that discussion, I'm going to. The guy had no idea what the Beatles stood for. His understanding of "the dream" isn't what the Beatles turned out to be in hindsight. They turned out to be the prototype for every rock band since, the most influential group in pop music history, and the poets of an entire generation and movement of love and peace. To Lennon they were just a band. The Beatles will always be remembered as the band that said "All You Need is Love", perhaps above all else, and Lennon, even here (see "Love") still believed as much. It's not that he didn't believe in Beatles, it's that he didn't know what the hell they were yet. They were the last great hurrah for the western musical world before it dissolved into a pluralism it has yet to recover from. But when he wrote that, he was under the sway of that absolute relativity, and in his subjectivity, the Beatles weren't anything to believe in.

Boy, was he wrong.

The song, by the way, is golden, perfectly suited to the list of diatribes against which he is spitting, and augmented by some great piano work by Billy Preston.

Ok, so that's not how I can really end the review. I have to mention the last two tracks, "Power to the People" and "Do the Oz", each filled with enough post-hippie enthusiasm, and Yoko Ono weirdness respectively, to serve as anthemic standbys for... whatever it was they stood for. They clamor, they sway, they demand to be heard. Kind of how the Beatles used to do... but not quite.

CARS - BMW 1 Series

Score: 9.1

Wow, this is a bunch of car-related posts in a row. I apologize. I swear I'm working on a music review too, so don't despair if the auto industry makes you sick.

Anyways, BMW's decided to do what I always hoped it would. Recreate the 3-series. In 1-series form. Just like every other car these days, the 3-series has ballooned to something which it simply was not meant to be. In all actuality, BMW has done a better job than most companies, and the curb weights on its vehicles are usually below competitive averages. Even so, the last 3-series, which ended about two years ago, was the last one to really hit the sweet-spot wherein mass simply isn't a detriment to the driving experience, yet still feels substantial (the same line the Mazda3 and Civic are now straddling). This new 1-series will bring the lightness back, in a big way, and look damn good doing it. I can only hope they bring this to Canada, because I would seriously consider doing whatever it takes to get this car if it arrives here, assuming it drives as well as BMWs are supposed to (I wouldn't know, I've only ever been a passenger). Car & Driver predicts $27,000 American... hmm... if exchange rates stay the same and I get a raise...

CARS - New Accord

Score: 7.8

This doesn't look all that bad. The rear end is a nice improvement especially, but overall I think the Sedan is a little sedate. Not that sedation is a bad thing in this category, it's what customers expect. I'm sure it will sell handily, unless it really screws up the interior (as it sort of has with the Civic, which is too "out there" for some potential buyers who ended up getting a Corolla, or, hopefully a Mazda3).

What are even more interesting are the new engines under the hoods of these cars. Apparently, the word on the Temple of VTEC from a month or so ago was that these engines (both the four cylinder and V6) would represent the debut of A-VTEC, a system similar to BMW's double-vanos, basically giving pinpoint control of the engine valves throughout the rev-range, meaning maximum efficiency at that end of combustion. So, if Edmunds is correct, 180hp should be plenty from the four-cylinder, hopefully while putting it within the 25-26 mpg city range (although the EPA has redone their testing, so 21-22 is probably more realistic). This kind of extraction of energy is becoming increasingly important with energy conservation reaching even the most hardline of anti-environmentalists, in the pocket-book if nowhere else.

CAT POLITICS? - Cats That Look Like Hitler

Score: 5.0 (Not sure if it's funny or ridonculous, but it's definitely up there)

I think the score speaks for itself. Click the title to see what I'm talking about.

CARS - Fuel Economy Standards in the U.S.

Score: 8.8

One word: kick-ass. Sure it didn't go far enough (cars should be around 40 mpg in city driving, not 35 combined mpg as will be legislated), but it's the first significant increase in CAFE demands in 20 years. Since that point, cars have gotten bigger, heavier, and more powerful. It's time to cut down on all three. Power outputs now are excellent, and more than most applications need. Sure, most subcompacts are still underpowered, but there is absolutely no reason midsize sedans need more than the 170 hp provided in most four-cylinder variations. They would need even less if they weren't ballooning in weight every Full-Model-Change. It's gotten so bad that Honda's lineup (which is actually probably the best collection of well-weighted and appropriately powered cars) has done a complete change-up since the late 80's. The Accord is as big as a Legend was, a Civic is the size of an Accord, and the Fit is the new Civic. It's kind of sad really. The big three are going to have to do one hell of a job in order to engineer cars that can meet these requirements, as well as still compete in terms of power and refinement with the Japanese and Hyundai. Ford and Chrysler will have the harder time I believe, since GM has invested a lot in newer, more efficient powertrains in the last six or so years. Ford is still relying on horrible V6's and 8's to equal the power-outputs of far more efficient vehicles. Hell, the 500-hp Vette Z06 got 16 mpg in EPA tests, for the city! The same as the 300-hp Mustang. Ford is in a world of trouble. Chrysler can just up and die for all I care.

CARS - New 350Z?

Score: 8.5

I will promptly cream my pants if this winds up being true. I admit, I've never driven a 350Z, but every review I've read says it seems a bit heavy for its target audience, which want quicker responses and a mass that won't get locked into understeer too easily. Taking 300 pounds off the chassis is probably the best move Nissan could make. I really hope the part about the 3.7 litre V6 is wrong (in all likelihood it won't be of course)... engines need to get smaller, and in the 350's case, that wouldn't be too bad of an idea. Why Nissan has never reworked the VQ engine down to a short-stroke 3.0 or 3.1 litres with an 8000+ rpm redline is beyond me. Those engines have always had good low-end torque, so decreasing displacement and reworking the cams to have more of a Civic Si VTEC feel makes sense to me. A hot cam from 5500 to 8000? That would provide plenty of kick (they could likely get the same 320 hp out of it), and wouldn't sacrifice too much everyday drivability, or track-presence, given the right gear ratios.

MUSIC - Chad VanGaalen - Skelliconnection

Label: Flemish Eye (Sub Pop)

Score: 7.7 (adjusted from 7.9 - hindsight's 20/20)

After seeing Chad VanGaalen open for Leslie Feist, I promptly purchased both of his full-length albums, 2004's Infiniheart, and this one, released in 2006. Of the two this is probably the better record, slightly more varied, and playing much more to VanGaalen's strengths.

The album begins with an ode to radio-rock fiends everywhere in the form of "Flower Gardens", a song which, volume aside, begins to shape the entire record. The melodies present on this, and all the other tracks are fairly plain, solid attempts at each of the intended musical niches the singer-songwriter inherently plays on. With rare exceptions, those melodies carry the album, song by song, with relatively little overlapping material from one iteration to the next (except perhaps VanGaalen's love of dogs) - a fact which is neither a great hindrance nor a great boon, as the songs each provide their own stage and perform admirably on it. Songs such as "Wing Finger" and "Wind Driving Dogs" prove (as if it needed to be proven yet again) that yes, the blues are the greatest vehicle for simple, catchy songs that will get your toes tapping. These tracks, along with "Graveyard" and "Sing Me 2 Sleep" showcase VanGaalen's strongest point anywhere along the way: the ability to craft a riff which will provide the backbone to a song.

However, inevitably such simplicity becomes a bit ponderous, and at certain points this does drag the album down, though never to the point where you feel the intense need to skip over a track in order to avoid falling asleep at the wheel. Nor is it a sign that, as a musician, he is incapable of providing the extra touches that can turn a song into a great piece. These flourishes don't arrive often, but when they do, such as the late acoustic guitar entry on "Burn 2 Ash" which nicely compliments the basic melody, they're tasteful, restrained, and don't dare get in the way of the beat. As well, his light use of electronica is well weighted in a post-Kid A and dance-punk world, augmenting the guitar money-maker. The same goes for the woodwinds, which add a nice sentimental flavour to "Wing Finger" and "Sing Me 2 Sleep", again never intruding, always ready to play second base and let the strings play short-stop.

All this adds up to some fairly innocuous but well-conceived music, which then promptly runs into VanGaalen's lyrics. The guy is funny, I think most people would give him that (especially those of us who have heard his song about "making movies"), and his lyrics fluctuate between sentimental and that uniquely comedic brand of weird. One may call him Calgary's 40-year-and-one-major-worldview-change-late answer to Bob Dylan, and they wouldn't be too far off actually. At any given time though, those simple melodies start running into sentence structures that just won't accommodate the 12-bar setup he's got ready for them. The result is a sometimes awkward delivery, or lyrics that will simply jump out at you from the relative calm of the music. Again it's not a massive failing the record can't get over, it's just a little oft-putting for the uninitiated. The same (roughly) goes for VanGaalen's vocals, which take about 30 seconds to adjust to, but then feel right at home alongside everything else. In fact, his ability to go from strange to pleading to maddening in both vocal and lyrical content are probably the best features of the CD that will go unnoticed until you sit back and think about them.

And the CD as a whole definitely has a progression, from the hard rocking beginning, to the lullaby of "Sing Me 2 Sleep" at the end, though it must be stated the low and mid-tempo tracks receive the bulk of attention and craft. They are the lucky ones with those extra touches mentioned, and they benefit greatly, which is not to say that the up-tempo tracks are weak, they aren't, they just lack the extra effort and thought that the quieter numbers naturally call out for. The few instrumentals included are actually decent as well (I'm not a fan of most rock-based instrumentals, so you know), again, not really detracting or enhancing the album as a whole, though they do give the other synth entries a bit of an easier ride since the listener's ears are already prepared for them.

So on the whole the album is quite good. Not great perhaps, but definitely solid at every turn. It rarely lifts you up to the stratosphere of emotion or intellectual "holy-crapness" that the singer-songwriter can potentially provide (see Yankee Hotel Foxtrot or Blonde on Blonde for that), but it never really throws you to the dirt and pukes in your ears either (like the inevitable post-Oasis Liam Gallagher album will undoubtedly do). So go and support your struggling Canadian artists and buy a copy, will ya?

P.S. Thanks to Pitchfork for the image of the CD. I need an image-editor bad.

MOVIES - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Score: 3.14159...

This film was so extraordinarily boring, immediately after watching it, I couldn't remember more than a third of the film. The opening scene, sure, because Chow Yun Fat kicks ass. The last portion, sure, because it was so over-the-top and actually kind of enjoyable. The ending because I fought with my significant other over the viability of it as an ending. But everything else? Meh.

The day after watching this, I still cannot recall more than I could in the few minutes following it. I've rarely been this bored to death by any movie, let alone a series of films that had as much promise as this Pirates franchise. The first was truly incredible, but the second began the problems, and the third let them override even the fractional positive sum of sinful pleasure the second still allowed. I really cannot remember a movie as over-baked, poorly acted (even Johnny Depp seemed to have problems putting anything new or exciting into Captain Jack Sparrow, which is scary; Keira Knightley, how I do adore thee so, but that "rousing speech" was dreadful), and badly written as this one. Like, ever. The script was absolutely atrocious... I honestly think there was probably a better fan-fiction out there somewhere. The general plot itself was decent (from what I can recall), but the dialogue and movement from character to character, scene to scene, etc. was disgustingly amateur. The first was intriguing because the double-crosses were new, inventive, unexpected and added to the characters - in this one they were simply there to confuse the audience, which was an unfortunate success. That basically sums up the film as a whole.

It receives a Pi because, like the number, it carried on forever, without ever really delivering much, except a valuable portion of a circle, which seems complete at the end of this film. I truly hope they don't make a fourth one, though Disney may waggle fifty million in front of Depp to make it happen. The plot actually feels complete, in that it has basically started over again, replacing Will Turner as the new Davy Jones, Elizabeth Swan as the Calypso, and Jack Sparrow remaining his own highly personable self. It's actually a fairly well thought-out ending, but it's a shame it wasn't more entertaining in the meantime.

VIDEO GAMES/POLITICS - Manhunt 2

Score: 0.8

Edit (Later the same day): So, Nintendo is now leaving Rockstar out to dry as well, saying that Nintendo will not "allow any AO-rated content on its systems". This is immediately after stating that "Games made for Nintendo systems enjoy a broad variety of styles, genres and ratings." Basically Nintendo has blocked Manhunt 2 from being released stateside as well now too... at least until it resolves its appeal of the ESRB rating, or reworks the game to make it a bit more tame. This is so sad. Leave the decision to the consumer Nintendo, not to some wacko-parent lobby group that is obviously afraid of doing some real parenting. Let those "broad variety" of gamers all be equally satisfied by the Wii, including those who enjoy excessive violence and gore, and the extremely odd, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest kind of psychological experiment that is Manhunt. Don't tell gamers what they want, let them tell you. God, I thought this was a capitalist society we lived in... you can now consider this score to be a 0. My first post, and its my first 0 as well. This sucks.

So censorship finally won out. Manhunt, one of the most grizzly and violent games ever released (I played about five minutes of it and was promptly bored) originally managed to avoid classification by the ESRB as an "AO" title, for Adults Only, which Grand Theft Auto San Andreas was hampered by after revealing that it had pornographic pictures on the disc. Some major retailers such as Wal-Mart refuse to carry or sell AO titles, which means sales will inevitably suffer. Now, the sequel of that game, aptly titled Manhunt 2, has been dealt a double blow. The British equivalent of the ESRB, only with the upgraded British ability to outright ban Adult-themed titles, has done just that to Manhunt 2, meaning the game cannot be sold at any retail outlet in the UK. And, on top of that, the game's been hit with the dreaded AO in North America.

The fact that the violence and repeated killings are no different from any of the latest brand of horror movie, is just the tip of the bullshit on this matter. There is no excuse for this blatant censorship, nor the lack of reasoning provided for these measures. I suppose my problem lies more with the UK banning, as the AO does not mean that the game is impossible to buy, and the retailer has every right to protect its image from the Christian right base of customers which it fears angering by selling an Adult game. That I can understand. But there is no place for the banning of what is essentially a work of art (you will be hearing a lot about video games as such in upcoming posts I'm sure). Is it violent? Yes. Is it probably overbearingly violent and gory? Yes. Does it place the gamer at the helm of a murderous rampage? Yes. However, there is no reason consenting adults should not be able to experience such a game. By the time they are 18 and capable of buying the game, an adult's morality is firmly in place - there is no wiggle room by which a possibly homicidal maniac is turned into one through this one video game, especially since it will probably be only marginally more violent than the prequel, which is still available. Children should definitely not be able to just purchase or play this game, but children are no longer the target demographic for these type of games.

Blatant censorship is obviously a delicate issue, and necessary on occasion (hate messages, etc.), but this is not one of them. The piss-Christ across the pond is undoubtedly weeping for its maligned UK brethren.