Changes in Attitude by Lee Cadwallader

This special edition is by Guest Blogger, Lee Cadwallader.  Thanks, Lee!


In the '60s and '70s, there was the rock music of the '60s and '70s. And then there was the '80s in which the '60s weren't quite retro (and who cared about retro when you had legwarmers and Nintendo) and the music acts of the '70s were still sort of around anyway. The '90s seemed to pass over the '70s because, I can only assume, that their popular rock music was still reasonably great (Seattle grunge). That brings us to the 2000s, which brought on what I call a '60s/'70s rock revival in teenagers as an alternative to hip-hop, which was taking its place in popular music. Being a teenager in the 2000s, who could be more of a reliable source on this subject than myself?

Interest was revitalized in many older artists and acts. Such groups (just to name a few) revisited by youth included The Doors, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix and Cream. My Grade 12 English teacher was glad to see that she could use Bob Dylan in her poetry unit and finally not seem lame to her students. Long hair and rock tees came back in, everyone wanted to be in a garage band and play a guitar. Influence of this movement can even be heard in some bands of the 2000s era.

I'm going to single out the Australian '70s rock n' roll throwback group Wolfmother (debut album released in 2005), who were cooler than cool to the children of the rock revolution. They sound pretty retro. Mike Patton once asked and interviewer, after hearing Wolfmother playing in the background, "are you hearing this [expletive removed]? What YEAR is this". That was actually a defamatory comment in context, but still. They have a song titled Joker & the Thief: a clear reference to All Along the Watchtower. Their lyrics are comparably mystical and all that jazz.

Wolfmother was in their early twenties when they were formed, and I believe they were aspiring to be Zeppelinesque. So I thought: "wouldn't it be funny if there were a group of twenty-somethings writing throwback music that was influenced by Jimmy Buffett, who also made a name for himself in the '70s"?  

This is a young person's conundrum, but Jimmy Buffett, like Neil Young, is someone I can't even IMAGINE under the age of, like, 50. This may be because they've been that age my entire life, but also because both of their lyrics seem to be written and sung from the perspective of a wise (let's throw quotation marks on that for Buffett), experienced man. I don't know where I'm-a-gonna go when the Volcano blow, but really who cares? That's life, ain't it? As long as I don't get radiation poisoning or arrested for possession or landlocked. I'm pretty happy with where I'm at, let's go get a burger and a beer.

Imagine a trio of kids, barely out of high school or Berkeley or whatever, earnestly singing "The Great Filling Station Holdup". There are plenty of songs on the radio about drinking right now, but there aren't nearly enough of them about doing it out of a coconut shell. How about instead of Travis McCoy "want[ing] to be a billionaire, so frickin' bad", he just wishes he had a Pencil Thin Moustache? Less Sexy Bitches, more sunny beaches. You get my drift (draught).

Let's make it happen, talented musicians!

The Best One Can Hope For

With the Canadian federal election campaign under way, it seems like a good time to have a look at the best possible outcome for the nation and for you, reader,  and what better place to bring some clarity to the topic than here at Random Access.  It serves no real purpose to look at the platforms, when rarely presented, by any of the main political parties or even the wannabe parties (yes, that mean you Green Party) because the platforms really aren't relevant to the best possible outcome.  Neither are the leaders or the candidates relevant.  So, you say, what is relevant to a best possible outcome?
First, let's take a quick etymological look at "politics" and see what we can learn.  From Greek, "of, for and relating to citizens".  Seems that there is a tenuous connection between the definition and the actions of most Canadian political parties.  As with much of the English language, the definition seems to have evolved over time to "of, for and relating to politicians".  When was the last time that a constituency elected a person who represented them rather than one who has successfully convinced them that the political party's ideas were also the ideas of the citizens?  So with the new definition in mind, let's jump back to the best possible outcome of the next election and, most likely, any future election in this country.
In Canada we will end up with a political party in power, elected on the basis of whoever portrays the other party's leader as most incompetent, evil, corrupt or (insert any negative adjective here).  There will be no debate on the issues or the proposed solutions to the issues.  When the party is in power, they will be able to implement very little since the parliamentary system prevents any dramatic systemic change whatsoever.  For a clear example,  look at the efforts to implement a national childcare program in Canada.  A good idea becomes a reason to ridicule the other political party because they proposed the idea before you could.  It evolves into a political (see new definition above) "debate" and nothing gets implemented.
This will be the same in Canada after the election.  There will be no radical or dramatic change in policy or programs and sometimes this is a good thing.  Dramatic change often leads to dramatic pain and unexpected ripple effects.  People don't like this and respond poorly and sometimes violently (North Africa).  This topic is another blog post, though, so we won't explore it now.  Suffice to say that when the election is over there will be a hamstrung party in place with a leader who will not be able to do too much damage or good for the course of their time at the wheel.  And that is the best that one can hope for in Canadian politics.  There will be corruption and scandal and incompetence.  However, the best YOU can hope for is that it will not be so bad as to impact you.  Sad, but true.
That being said, get out and vote.  Don't be cynical and believe that your contribution means nothing.  If you don't participate, it becomes a slippery slope and we could end up with a political nightmare like we see in so many countries around us today where truly evil, corrupt and incompetent people end up at the wheel and really are able to impact your daily life, and never in a good way.  It may be messy and frustrating, but it's ours and we should look after it.  Vote.