These are "the worst"!

I can't say that I'm really a "movie buff". Sure, I enjoy a good flick as much as the next person and have a list of "favourites" but I don't go to the movies or do a rental all that often and there are a lot of "classics" that I've never seen (maybe someday). Conversely, I think I have seen my fair share of stinkeroos! Here are some bombs that stick out in my mind, times I attempted to watch the unwatchable.

For most of their career the Bee Gees tried to distance themselves from The Beatles. Although they loved, and like most pop groups, emulated The Beatles by times, the Bee Gees are probably the world's most successful songwriting group...although The Beatles cast a long shadow. (Forget what you think you know about the Bee Gees, they've penned one hell of a list of top selling hits for themselves and for others.) So it seems due to contractual obligations and poor advice what do they do? Make a musical based entirely on music by The Beatles. Not long after filming began the Bee Gees begged to be released from the project, but alas they were obligated to see it through to the bitter end. And it's a wretch of a movie too. Robin, Barry & Maurice are cast as three quarters of the eponymous band in this 70s "rock opera". Andy Gibb dodged the bullet on this one and Peter Frampton takes the lead. Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, Earth Wind & Fire also star, as well as Steve Martin, George Burns and a whole slew of others. It's a star studded flop. The scenes that stick out in my mind are the drug scene, the fist fight the boys have with Aerosmith, and the part where Frampton's character commits suicide (only to have a big "rewind" thanks to a funky R&B rendition of "Get Back!" by Billy Preston). The story is baffling and goofy, the campy humour falls flat -- watching it now, you suspect that it just "doesn't age well", but no, it was never funny. It reminds me of the infamous "Star Wars Christmas Special": a star-studded flop that no one wants to admit being part of!

My best friend in high school was a fan of Jean Claude Van Damme. (Admittedly, in those days my tastes weren't exactly "refined" either.) I think it was just something about aesthetics of our culture in the late 80s/early 90s. We all had poor judgement. And these beefed-up, macho, body building action star types were all the rage (Remember, this was the height of Schwarzenegger, Steven Seagal, Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren's careers!) So this friend & I rented Van Damme's back catalogue of "films", and would go see his current work in the theatre as they came out. Up front I should say that I'm not a fan of the "action" genre. Honestly, his first few "films" I enjoyed: "Bloodsport" was great and I recall liking "Kickboxer" and may be another one that I can't remember , possibly "Black Eagle"? (because really, you've seen one, you've seen them all). As more movies came out, I enjoyed them less and less. The succession of Van Damme movies is a blur to me now. I do recall there was one where my friend and I actually left the theatre mid-way through, which was the first time (and possibly only time?) I've ever done that. I'm not even sure which movie it was now -- I think it might have been "Nowhere to Run". I just remember that I'd finally reached my breaking point with Van Damme movies. (I'm showing a picture of "Double Impact" here because it was Van Damme as twins.... 'nuff said.)

Hands down, "The Road to Wellville" is THE WORST MOVIE I've ever seen. This is truly a pile. Believe it or not, I saw this in the theatre, and I didn't even walk out. I suffered through to the end. At the time, I was a huge fan of Anthony Hopkins. He was at the peak of his career, coming down off "Silence of the Lambs", "Remains of the Day", and so on. All Oscar worthy performances. Then he decided he wanted to try his hand at "comedy". Not long afterwards I recall seeing Hopkins on Entertainment Tonight say something to the effect that he'd be willing to read the phone book if someone would pay him for it. Thus we have "The Road to Wellville". "The Road to Wellville" is based on the real life Kellog (yup, the guy who invented Corn Flakes) and the health spa/retreat that he ran. It's all about restrictive diets, measuring the length of bowel movements, sexual abstinence, that kind of thing. As I recall (because I'm never re-watching this monstrosity!) Dana Carvey plays Kellog's mentally challenged son; John Cusack is a skeptical reporter and Matthew Broderick plays an unwilling patient at the spa. Poo jokes abound. And the occasional Victorian orgasm joke. This movie makes you feel ashamed to call yourself human. There's really not much more you can say about this.

And least of all (in every possible way!) the horrible, embarrassing and completely unnecessary "The Avengers". A sad excuse of a "remake" of a tv show which I enjoy, although it bears very little resemblance to said tv show. I think someone looked at some stills from the

show, based their ideas about what the show was about on that and somehow made a movie. Not only is this movie a disservice to fans of the tv show, but it's a poorly made movie. Even during my initial viewing of it I could spot numerous editing and continuity errors (someone's holding a gun in this frame, suddenly it's gone, a few frames later it's back again... stuff like that.) I feel like I could've made a better movie myself with my Jazz cam and Windows Movie Maker. Also, Uma Thurman is completely one dimensional in this: basically a wire hanger for the famous "Emma Peeler" catsuit. Ralph Fiennes ain't my idea of John Steed either, and Sean Connery comes off as a complete loon.

So there you have it: a veritable rogue's gallery of box office bombs. Even if I could hand out a "Razzie" award I'm not sure I'd want to dignify these mess-terpieces. I'm sure once I get dwelling about this, other hated films will come to mind, but these ones stand out as some of my memorable "worsts". What are yours?

Rainy Saturdays and comic shops

On rainy Saturday mornings I get a tinge of sadness. Not because the soggy SJ weather brings me down (although it does suck) but because it reminds me of when Christian and I used to go hang out at The Sorcerer's Stone. Although I didn't live here very long before the store closed I still developed an attachment to the place. (And it seemed like most of our trips there were on rainy Saturday afternoons, so it's an associative thing for me.) When The Sorcerer's Stone closed, and Joe died, it left a gaping hole in the uptown and in local "geek" culture. We don't really have an "old school" comic shop/hangout anymore. Sure, we have Mad City Comics but it's inside Read's/United Book Store, so it's not strictly a "comic shop". You can get comics and paraphernalia there, the staff are nice & you can hang out a bit (although it's not really conducive to long stays), but there are all these non-geeks coming in there buying cigarettes and trading in their musty paperbacks. Then there's Gamezilla, but it's way over on the West side, so it's doesn't have that "downtown" vibe that a true comic shop has. Plus, comics aren't the main focus of Gamezilla: they're secondary to gaming (TCGs, role playing, minis, video games, etc. are their main stock, then manga/anime their second focus, with comics probably coming in third). What Gamezilla does have going for it is that "clubhouse" feel, where you can go waste an afternoon hanging out with your friends, and again the staff is cool. Still, neither of those places is, in my mind, a "true" comic shop. I've been to a lot of comic shops and when I think back on the truly great ones, there are general characteristics that they all share.

When I think of what makes a great comic shop is a combination of nostalgia and the "underground" factor. This is one part the "musty, dusty" stuff and one part cutting edge. By "musty, dusty", I'm sure you know what I mean: basically what you might describe as "the old curiosity shop". Prized golden-age and silver age comics lining the walls (something to drool over and aspire to one day buying); rows and rows of long boxes of alphabetized back issues (for treasure hunting); and the "museum pieces", ie, assorted collector's items from by-gone eras like baseball cards and old toys (ie, things you wouldn't want to buy but enjoy looking at). The really good "old school" comic shops generally have this same look (kind of worn and dingy, downtown storefront), and yes a distinctive smell (very dusty and slightly moldy!). On the flip side, a good comic shop also needs an underground or "cutting edge" factor too. By "cutting edge" I'm referring to items that were more modern and had a quirkier bent to them. In this category are the "indie" comics, photocopied zines, strange import books, fan magazines devoted to really obscure topics, etc. These are the types of materials you'd never see anywhere else but a comic shop. You'd never be exposed to this type of stuff in a "mainstream" place like a drug store comic rack or a flea market table. These are what you might call the skeezier items: either too racy/controversial/violent or too obscure and fan-specific to be palatable to the casual consumer. With these items lay the possibility of discovering something new and interesting...or it might go completely over your head.

Finally, a third characteristic of a great comic shop is the "Cheers" factor. You know, a place where everybody knows your name. I touched on this earlier with Mad City and Gamezilla, but a comic shop tends to be a hangout for like-minded individuals (ok, "geeks") and there's a social aspect to shopping there. Any given time you visit the shop you're bound to see someone you know there. The workers know you, remember your tastes and interests, and they're usually free to sit behind the counter & chat. The best shops invariably have a character, a distinctive personality, that everyone associates with the store. In the case of The Sorcerer's Stone, it was Joe Harris. So, a great comic shop can be a kind of clubhouse, where you might go just to seek friendship not necessarily to buy anything. Even when you visit a comic shop in another city, you tend to see the same thing. You can almost spot the "counterparts" people have in other cities!

In Halifax it's Strange Adventures. In Bangor it's Topshelf Comics. In Toronto it's The Beguiling. No matter where you go, the feel is pretty much the same. Here it used to be The Sorcerer's Stone, and although there are some worthy successors, nothing has truly replaced it.

Lately I've been into...

Currently reading:

"World War Z" - Max Brooks

There's been a bit of hype about "World War Z" (and zombies in general, as discussed here previously), so when I found a used copy for cheap I thought I'd check it out. That was way back in September and I'm still trying to slough through it. I'm having a weird relationship with this book: sometimes I pick it up & have a hard time getting through a chapter. Other times I get really "into" it & dig it. Suffice to say it's not great "literature". My biggest complaint about it is that although it's an interesting concept, it's not great writing. Let me qualify that: "logistically" and "technically" it's really good. It has a great concept and the story is quite ambitious. All the individual "threads" tie together nicely and it seems like the author did a lot of research (scientific, military, political) to make the whole zombie pandemic thing seem plausible. My complaint is largely that although every chapter is supposed to be "spoken" by ethnically and geographically diverse characters, to me, they all have the same literary "voice". Maybe I'm just expecting too much. It is just horror fantasy, and admittedly I'm not even finished it yet. Damn all those undergrad English lit courses I took for inhibiting my enjoyment of pulp fiction! I keep looking for symbolism and meaning instead of just entertainment!



And now having just poo-pooed on "pulp" fiction....


"Concrete" - Paul Chadwick

The editions I'm reading are not the same as pictured here, but I've been devouring volumes of Paul Chadwick's "Concrete" comics. If you're not familiar with the series, here it is in a nutshell: These are the adventures of Concrete, formerly political speech writer Ron Lithgow, whose brain is transplanted by aliens into a massive clay-like and seemingly indestructible body. Concrete is a sensitive, introspective fellow who attempts to "make lemonade" from the lemons he's been handed, and embarks on extraordinary globe-trotting adventures (eg., climbing Mt Everest solo, swimming across the Atlantic ocean, etc.), or sometimes just use his new abilities to help out people in need. Problem is there are always complications. In lesser hands, this premise would invite heavy handed slapstick, but what Chadwick gives us is just the opposite. In the style of what's good about "indie" comics, it's done in a touching, sometimes philosophic, and ever so "human" way. Another thing that appeals to me is that it's just so 1980s America. Get your hands on a copy & see what I mean. My only complaint: I am baffled as to how Concrete's assistant Larry Munro manges to score so much tail...

Currently listening to:

To be honest, I've been kind of "off" music lately.

I'm bored with my old music collection right now (I still love it mind you, just bored) and haven't found anything new that's piqued my interest. The only "current" band that I'm digging these days is Death Cab for Cutie. But as much as I like them, I really need to be a certain mood or frame of mind to listen to them because my gawd they can depress me! And yes, I'm a Morrissey/Smiths fan from way back, so I am fond of melancholy pop!

On a related note: Why do people take their taste in music so personally? Why do people take pop music so seriously? Is it because when they listen to their earphones, the music becomes the voice in their head, in essence "their" voice and it incorporates into their personality? Seriously, let's discuss this! I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Well, anyway, as a result, I've been listening to "talk radio" more and more. And yes, most of it is really bad. Most radio phone-in shows seem to be an open forum for the ignorant and ill-informed to shoot their mouths off. Beyond that, you do occasionally learn some interesting things, mostly from science programs. But again, news and current affairs are depressing too.

My plan for this winter is to become a real homebody. Recently we moved the tv out of the room that was originally earmarked as mine, and I've starting setting it up as my drawing studio/projects room. Hopefully I can get some time & concentration in the coming months & start working on some arts & crafts. I feel better when I'm producing something but sometimes I just seem to lack the inspiration or the focus. There are so many distractions. Sometimes I wonder if I'm a little ADHD...

Random Shuffle

When things get busy in my personal life I tend to have difficulty focusing on anything for very long. Tonight my thoughts are all over the place, so I'll put the blog on "random shuffle" and share a smattering of things that have been occupying my head space as of late.

Flickr. I've been addicted to Flickr for a quite some time. When I first got a Flickr account my intention was to have a place to post my drawings and photos (which I still do). A nice bonus of adding your stuff to Flickr is that total strangers will look at your stuff and often comment on it or even add it as a favourite, which is pretty cool. Getting feedback on your work is always great, especially when it's from an unbiased source. Lately I find myself trolling other people's Flickr sites and discovering a lot of cool stuff along the way. Sure, some people use it as a repository for their boring party photos and such, but you can also find a lot of really interesting creative and artistic work there too. It's great for archival information too. Admittedly, I can waste many hours just creeping around on Flickr.

kijiji. It's a well known & documented fact that I am a cheapskate. I like to bargain hunt and I also like old, retro things. Ok, I have yet to actually buy anything off kijiji... but I check it constantly just in case something I want ever shows up there! With the move into the townhouse brings the need for some new (to me) household items. Right now I'm in the market for bedroom furniture. I want something high quality, in good taste -- and I want to pay next to nothing for it! I realize it is highly unlikely I will ever find anything there... but I've gotta look! After browsing a great number of ads there, I've come to the conclusion that (a) most people have no idea how to use a digital camera (pictures, when provided, are usually blurry and displayed sideways!) and (b) some people don't really give a shit about presentation, or accurately describing their item or even about spelling.

Movies. I've never been what you'd call a "movie buff" but I am slowly getting around to watching some on my "want to see" list. I've been having a weekly "movie date" night with my husband which is a nice change of pace for us. He likes romantic comedies, whereas my taste usually gravitates more toward older classics or rough & tumble escapism so we're enjoying a mix. Usually whatever we can borrow for free is what we end-up watching (... remember what I said about being a cheapskate?) Showing this weekend: "The Wild Bunch", "The Great Escape" and "American Graffiti". Mmmm... young Harrison Ford.... To Flickr!!!

"Heroes" Since this series premiered I've tried to follow it but only caught episodes sporadically. I borrowed season 1 on DVD and am finally watching it in sequence. Liking it a lot so far... although Hiro's childlike goofiness and constant squealing grates on my nerves. Thankfully I really enjoy the rest of the ensemble cast so they're a good buffer! My current favourite series is still "Lost", which gets more deliciously convoluted every episode and I love it. I can't wait for the season 5 DVD to be released so I can re-watch it.

Music. I haven't really been listening to anything new lately. I'm sort of going through a dry period right now where nothing new has captured my attention. I've been listening to Daft Punk "Alive" a lot, and I got a newly remastered double CD of The Smiths a while ago that I'll probably blog about later.

And to shift gears for a moment: Is it just me, or have you noticed an increasing amount of musical plagiarism on top 40 radio these days? The radio plays at my work so I am subjected to it all day long, and it seems every other song uses the music of some hit from the 70s or 80s with new, irrelevant vocals over top? It's like some vapid karaoke. And I have yet to hear any song that has been improved upon in this way -- just the opposite actually-- which begs the question, why bother? What a lazy, obvious cash grab that is! More and more I am learning that pop music really is just for teenagers. A 3 minute pop song is just the aural equivalent of fast food anyway; there comes a point when your tastes change or you just outgrow it and you really can't stomach it anymore. People take their musical taste very personally and seriously (myself included -- I can be as big of a music snob as anyone!) but in the end it just boils down to one thing: ENTERTAINMENT. When I was in high school we had an English assignment where we had to choose a song and prove that it was poetry. Most of the class failed that assignment. (I didn't. I chose the alternate assignment: to do a literary comparison of a song to a specific piece of poetry). Anyway, to me it proved conclusively that no matter how strongly you may feel about it, Bon Jovi or Poison isn't poetry. Rhyming couplets set to a catchy tune does not make art. Anyway, maybe my musical memory is too long. The entire evolution of popular music seems to be the bastardization of something that has already been done. Meh. I think it's just my old fartism setting in.

Worst. Cliche. Ever.

Here's a hugely over used cliche these days:

"Best. _______. Ever."

This phrase is completely meaningless and it is everywhere lately. It seems to be used mostly in conjunction with something kitschy (e.g., "Best. Shark attack. Ever.") or some tired worn-out internet meme, going hand in hand with Chuck Norris jokes, ninjas and pirates or poking fun of 80s hair band videos. And the people who say it tend to say it all the time... about everything.

Presumably this is just the thing to say when you absolutely must chime-in on a message board but have nothing of value to say and apparently no actual opinion whatsoever. I've noticed it crossing over into "mainstream" media such as magazines lately too (eg., "Lost: Best TV Show Ever"). Maybe they think hyperbole is a way to create a hip, attention getting headline. In reality this is as cliche as "Not!" was in the 90s. This is lazy, slack-assed sarcasm that passes for wit on Twitter or Facebook and it's hard to believe someone in the "legitimate" media would deem it fit to print. It's meaningless. To quote "Napoleon Dynamite":

Napoleon: "This is pretty much the worst video ever made."
Kip: "Napoleon, like anyone could even know that."

Which leads me to the second part of this rant: Another thing I've noticed in magazines (and even on tv) more and more is "lists". This is another completely lazy piece of filler that should be saved for the internet not for anything that is for sale. "The 50 Most Beautiful People in Hollywood"; "Top Ten Greatest Science Fiction Movies of All Time"; "One Hundred Books You Must Read Before You Die". According to whom?

All opinion is completely subjective -- that's its very definition. So, should I really care that some nameless staff writer prefers product A over product B? Furthermore is that worth shelling out the cover price to read it? Opinion and editorial have their place in the media -- of course! -- but these "best of" lists are the type of thing that should be saved for a blog. Even so: this is my blog, but would you really care to see me randomly itemize things I like into numerical order of preference? Unless you have some personal interest in the author, it makes for a very boring read! And again, it's all just opinion: there's rarely any "justification" in these lists. What's the criteria of "best"? Does "best" equal most popular? Most publicized? Earned the most money? Is the actress who is in the current top grossing movie somehow more beautiful than one who is not? Is something "better" if it is part of the current pop culture zeitgeist than something older or overlooked?

What's the standard? Whose standard? Why should we care? Do we really need someone to tell us what we should like? It's all personal preference and it's just that; personal. Or, do these lists exist just to justify our preferences and flatter our egos: I am right to like what I like because a magazine says it is good. Are we that unsure of ourselves that we need "best of" lists to reassure us that our tastes are somehow superior?

That's probably the Worst. Idea. Ever.

The end of the affair?

This coming Saturday, May 2nd, is Free Comic Book Day. So what better time than this to stop and reflect on my long, sordid relationship with comic books and to make a startling confession....

I'm falling out of love with comics.

But, it wouldn't be the first time.

My on-again, off-again affair with comic books started as many relationships do: I was young, naive and lonely.

Actually, I was probably only about 8 or 9 years old when my brother gave me a stack of his old cast-off 70s DC comics. Mostly Green Lantern (my God, Hal Jordan seemed handsome back then!) and The Flash. Admittedly, I don't think I had any idea what the stories were even actually about but they seemed to open up a strange, new, almost underground kind of world to me. I was intrigued by the bold, colourful artwork; the iconic look of the characters; the inexplicable little melodramas; and those strange advertisements were completely fascinating. (X-ray specs? Sell "Grit"? Keep on Truckin' iron-on t-shirts?) Probably around this same time, our local tv station started airing re-runs of the old "Marvel Super-Heroes" cartoon. It was shown weekdays around 5pm and very early on Saturday morning and I watched it religiously. My favourite was Iron Man, although it seemed like they'd always re-run the Hulk way too much! Say what you like about the animation, I still have a soft place in my heart for those jerky, choppy, traced Kirby panels being dragged across the screen (which seemed archaic even back then!)

Inevitably, as the saying goes when I got a bit older I "put away childish things" and lost interest in comic books. My time was filled with other distractions: I got more heavily into "grown-up" books (like "Interview With the Vampire" and Mervyn Peake's "Gormenghast" trilogy!), music, and of course, chasing boys. At that awkward, self-conscious age I tried to sever all ties to anything childish. Ironically, it was when I started high school, when most kids tend to gravitate toward more mature interests, that I was again seduced by comic books. This time I was hooked-up by a friend.

In high school I struck up a short-lived friendship with a girl in my Art class who collected Spider-Woman comics. (I say "short-lived friendship" because she moved away the following year and we subsequently lost touch). Whenever we'd hang out, we'd walk down to a local used bookstore and flip through old, dog-eared comics. I started buying cheap horror comics, like Charlton's "Ghost Manor". Honestly, they were bad. The artwork and stories were lacking, and the magazines themselves were in terrible condition. To my teenage mind there was nothing childish or immature about horror comics (yeah right!) so by reading them I was somehow being cool & alternative. Such are the delusions of youth! In retrospect, horror comics were my gateway drug: they got me back into comics again. On one of those nights rummaging through the used comic bins I found something interesting. My new drug of choice: The Joker.

Although I've never been much of a "collector", I became smitten with The Joker & sought out any comic that he appeared in -- any I could find and afford, that is! Again, my teenage mind made excuses: The Joker is cool. He's a homicidal lunatic -- there's nothing childish or geeky about collecting Joker comics. Sure. In my quest for more Joker comics, I graduated from the used bookstores to the local comic shop. It was located above another business, on the second floor. Through a poorly marked door, then up a steep staircase: there was the musty smell of paper and all kinds of new and exciting things I'd never even heard of there. And people hung out there all the time, like it was some kind of secret club (like the Masons -- for nerds!). This was very indie and underground, I told myself. It was a good time to be collecting Joker comics though: Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke" was released around that time.

All the money I earned in my part-time job as dishwasher and kitchen bitch went into comic books. I started branching out, collecting Wolverine (OMG! No one does that!) and The Punisher. My best friend at the time starting collecting "Heavy Metal", which we read without a hint of irony and for some reason didn't think were all that smutty. Being the 80s, we inevitably got into grading our collections as "Fine", "Very Good" or "Mint" (we really had no idea!) and putting little price tags as to what each issue was worth. It was around this time that the allure of comics began to fade for me. With variant covers, multi-title crossovers, holographic foil gimmicks, barrel-chested heroes with huge ridiculous guns... my "secret life" with comic books seemed less & less like love's innocent dream and more like a heartless money-sucking burden. So comics & I went our separate ways.

It was an amicable split. I checked in on them from time to time just to see how they were doing. It wasn't until many years later, after I met my husband, that I rekindled the flame with comics. He introduced me to Mike Allred comics, which were a bit like how I remember comics used to be... only updated, and with a bit more heart. Again, I was attracted to non-super powered characters like the meditative Dr. Strange and wise-cracking Hawkeye of the Avengers (although I can't delude myself into thinking they're in any way "indie").

But as everything comes around goes around, so comics too seem to be heading in the direction they were in the early 90s: huge summer "must read" blockbusters, multi-title crossovers, hot-shot creators dictating the "house style", unnecessary "deaths" of beloved characters... and again I feel the romance is drying up for me. I find myself philandering: my roving eye has been checking out "indie" and alternative comics more and more and I find myself getting more satisfaction from the likes of Harvey Pekar and Daniel Clowes than from the superhero set. (Plus I can read graphic novels for free from the library, so there's no commitment or money burden either.)

Of course I plan to take part in Free Comic Book Day, hoping to find the next thing that will captivate my interest. My relationship with comics plays out like a Billie Holiday song. Maybe "This is my Last Affair"...?


http://www.freecomicbookday.com/

Magazine Review - "Under the Radar"

Ever since I gave up my campus radio shows a few years ago -- and with it my CD reviewing duties for the programming committee -- I feel completely out of the loop where new music is concerned. Although admittedly most of the CDs I had to review back then were a real chore to listen to, occasionally I'd find a diamond in the rough. Some of the artists I discovered then have stuck with me (notably Jay Jay Johanson, Mum, and Chromeo) but most were completely forgettable or at best marginally interesting. Since then, my exposure to new music comes mainly by word of mouth, recommendation from friends, or sometimes through serendipity on the Internet.

Occasionally I flip through magazines on my weekly visits to Indigo, scanning for anything that might pique my interest. My favourite music mag is "Uncut" because for one thing it's British and my musical tastes tend to be more Euro flavoured than American. Also "Uncut" features a nice, long retrospective of an iconic band from the past. Usually the free sampler CD (another bonus!) features cover versions of that iconic band by current artists. (So, simple logic: If a new band covered a David Bowie song, their sound will likely be Bowie-influenced and ergo as a Bowie fan, I may enjoy this new band too.) But I digress, this isn't about "Uncut"...

"Under The Radar" is a new discovery for me. It's an American alternative music and pop culture magazine, reasonably priced at $4.99. What drew my eye was the cover: though full colour, it is matte finished, not glossy. For some reason that simple feature caught my attention, as if it inexplicably gave it a bit of indie "cred" somehow. I flipped through and it interested me enough to buy it.

Two things I notice about the music scene in general these days. First, there are a LOT of indie bands out there, and they all pretty much strike me as the same. Secondly, the press is almost by it's definition, advertising. The music industry is an "industry", after all. There's really nothing wrong with that. So, I read pretty much every article and review as an advertisement. What is this artist selling? For the most part, it's nothing I'd care to buy. Usually music that is described by phrases like "60s psychedelia", "frequent tempo changes" and "wall of sound guitars" doesn't interest me. Most bands even look the same: take a handful of 20-somethings, poorly groomed, dressed in kitschy thrift shop used clothes, and take a "candid" shot of them holding quirky old props or sitting on worn-out basement furniture. I guess I just miss the package and polish of the 80s. Nevertheless, I'm willing to give anyone points for at least trying to be creative or artistic so I'll try to take a look beyond the packaging & see if the product inside is something I'd like to buy. Usually I scan reviews for clues & catchwords that might tip me off to something I'd like (eg, "electro", "Kraftwerk-inspired", "futuristic", etc.).

Getting back to "Under the Radar" specifically, there were some things in this magazine that I genuinely liked. There's an interview with Depeche Mode about their new album, "Sounds of the Universe". There's a one-page bit from Flight of the Conchords, whom I love and also a short interview with Aziz Ansari from "Human Giant". This issue also had a really fun article called "The Future Ain't What is Used to Be" where they looked at "near future" science fiction movies (eg, the year 1997 in "Escape from New York," "Freejack" in 2009) and compared their vision of the future, technology, etc with what we actually have today. There's also DVD reviews and Comic Book reviews (Hey! Darwyn Cooke did some art in "Jonah Hex vol 5: Bullets Don't Lie". Also, a review of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen vol 3: Century" that I am looking forward to reading.)

There's also a rather superficial piece written by Eddie Argos from Art Brut about his love of DC comics. (I still don't understand his current team-up with Black Box Recorder.) I found out that Karin Dreijer Anderson from The Knife has a new solo album. One interesting feature in the magazine is called "Self Portrait", where artists submit a photo they're taken of themselves and provide a list of personal facts and trivia. As an aside, it appears that the same creative team seem to wear many hats in the making of the magazine: I noticed one of the publishers is also the creative director, designer, and a photographer. The other publisher shares the same last name, and is also an editor of many of the features. So, I'm guessing this is probably a creative labour of love for the people who make this magazine. If so, good for them!

It's also available online so check it out at www.undertheradarmag.com