The Northern Pikes and Chalk Circle live 1988

I'm finally getting around to transferring some old videotapes to DVD & uploading the interesting bits to YouTube. You know, I could have sworn this aired in 1987, but at the end it says (c)[somethingsomething]VIII. At the time I thought this concert was really awesome - and the performances are still pretty good today. This double bill was aired as part of MuchMusic's Big Ticket Concert program.



The Northern Pikes' set features material from its major-label debut Big Blue Sky and one as-then unreleased song which would be recorded for the next album - by which time they'd gotten terrible haircuts and the hammy guitarist started doing vocals - all of which lead to the cock-rocking career nadir of "She Ain't Pretty." Ugh. But this set is still pretty good. It's nice to see 1980s French boys singing along to deep cut "You Sold The Farm" - and I always thought one of the Le-Chateau-looking chicks in the front was Erica Ehm, but now I don't think so. The performance of "Dancing In A Dance Club" was later used as the official music video for that track. The performance includes the hits "Teenland" and "Things I Do For Money."



Chalk Circle's set mostly features tracks from its first full-length album, Mending Wall and the two hits from the first EP. Again, 1980s Quebec teenagers knew their Canadian rock deep cuts - opener "My Artificial Sweetener" gets a much more emphatic response than might be expected, but the performance is pretty great. In fact, this is a solid set from Chris Tate & co., marred only by the steel-drum sounding violin-plucking of special guest Hugh Marsh. Tate's hand is bleeding through the last couple of songs - a sure sign of a good show. Hits played: April Fool; Me, Myself & I; This Mourning; 20th Century Boy.

A benefit E.P. for Japanese relief efforts.

The Linger Effect has released an E.P. entitled Watercolour. All profits from the sale of this release will be donated to the Canadian Red Cross to support relief efforts in Japan in light of the recent earthquake and tsunami. There is a minimum payment of $5.00 CAD, but if you are able to donate more please pay what you can!

Get it here: lingereffect.bandcamp.com/.

Please blog, tweet and otherwise spread the word!

Now look at them yo-yos...

The recent ban on the unedited radio broadcast of Dire Straits' tedious 1985 single "Money For Nothing" has resulted in a huge public outcry in support of the continued unedited broadcast of the song. Anti-censorship bantor has been bandied about mercilessly in Facebook status updates and website comments sections with very few people applauding the recent decision against CHOZ-FM by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. Mark Knopfler's lyrics are being defended as a stance against ignorance -- any fool can see that the song is a brilliant piece of satire of Norman-Lear-sitcom-type proportions at best, and a snapshot of a former society's prejudicial norms at worse. The ban against the unedited version of the song is being compared to the recent decision to publish a version of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn with the word "nigger" replaced by "slave" because "Money For Nothing" is apparently just that artistically and culturally significant.

Before I discuss this further I wish to take a moment to present some information about the CBSC, OZ-FM's obligations as a voluntary member of that council, and the appeal process. From the FAQ section of the CBSC's website:

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) is an independent, voluntary organization created and funded by Canada’s private broadcasters to administer the broadcasting standards established by its members. Although the CBSC is a non-governmental agency, it operates with the approval of the federal regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Consequently, complaints made by members of the public to the CRTC will be referred to the CBSC for resolution when they concern CBSC members.

---

The CBSC’s membership rolls include nearly all of Canada’s private broadcasters, including radio and television stations, networks and specialty services.

---

Those private broadcasters which are members of the CBSC have all agreed to be subject to the Codes and other standards administered by the CBSC.

---

If a CBSC Adjudicating Panel decides that the programming has violated one or more Code provisions, the broadcaster must announce that result on air. It must make the announcement twice, once within three days following the release of the decision in prime time for television or peak listening hours for radio, and again within seven days following the release of the decision in the time period in which the offending content was broadcast. It must also write a letter to the complainant(s) within 14 days thereafter indicating that the announcements have been made. The broadcaster then must provide the CBSC with a copy of that letter and with copies of the tapes containing the broadcast announcements.

It is also expected that a similar violation will not recur; that is, the broadcaster will not air similar material in the future. It is up to the broadcaster to determine the appropriate means to ensure that the offending type of broadcast does not recur.

---

The CBSC does not have an internal appeals mechanism, which would permit an appeal from the decision of one Panel to, say, another appellate Panel. Consequently, in the event that a complainant is discontent with a CBSC decision, he or she must take the matter to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Upon receipt of a request to review a CBSC decision, the Commission undertakes a review "de novo" of the matter, that is to say, they will not confine themselves strictly to standards of appellate review but will rather look at the matter afresh. As part of this review, they will likely ask for further submissions from the "appellant" and the broadcaster in question and they will request that the provide them with our file, including the broadcast tapes, relating to the matter. Any member of the public, even those who have no connection to the initial complaint, can request that the CRTC review a CBSC decision.

In summary, almost all Canadian private broadcasters are voluntary members of the CBSC, including OZ-FM. All members agree to follow CBSC broadcast codes, and to follow the decisions made by the panel when confronted with a complaint from the public. If a broadcaster or a member of the general public wishes to appeal a decision made by the CBSC, an appeal can be made to the CRTC to review the decision.

During my time as music director of the local campus radio station, I was responsible for telling people what they could and could not play on the radio - usually due to lyrical content (violence, obscenities, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) - so that we did not receive listener complaints and thus possible reprimands from the CRTC. We received a shitload of CDs daily from record companies - including "clean" versions for airplay (such as obscenities changed to more innocuous words or "beeped" out).

Radio stations have been playing "clean" versions of songs for decades - from Pink Floyd's "Money" to Alanis Morrissette's "You Oughta Know" to just about everything in the current top 40 - so as not to offend listeners ("Forget You" vs. "Fuck You," anyone?). Free-to-air television stations have been editing movies and other programs of potentially offensive content for probably longer. These are common events in the broadcast industry - from shooting Elvis from the waist up on The Ed Sullivan Show to looping new dialogue for films in place of obscenities (or removing scenes altogether). Only cable channels and public radio and television stations such as the CBC have ever gotten away with broadcasting racier material here in Canada. Very rarely does anyone cry "censorship" when this happens as it is understood that radio and television stations are required to offend as few people as possible by not airing material which contains obscenities or explicit content.

Private radio's regulatory body is saying "Money For Nothing" should not be played on the air without that one word being edited out - the same as fuck, shit, cunt, or nigger. I am puzzled about the uproar over the CBSC's decision. Yes, the song has been played countless times on the radio over the past 26 years and yes, the song won awards, but does the song really possess such intrinsic historical and cultural value that it should not be subjected to the same standards as thousand of other songs being played on the radio in 2011? No one is saying the song cannot be played in a "clean" format. No one is burning Dire Straits records or demanding the song be removed from iTunes. No one is suggesting that Dire Straits CDs be removed from store shelves unless all copies of the song are edited, and this is why comparison's to the nigger-less Huckleberry Finn fall flat - especially considering the record company has provided a radio edit to stations for years now.

Until this recent event I had never heard anyone justify Mark Knopfler's use of the word "faggot." I've never heard anyone on the radio explaining that Knopfler is in character as a bigoted moron before or after airing the song (I've certainly never even heard anyone on the radio alerting listeners that there would be material aired which may be offensive to some, an act commonplace on television). I am weary of giving Knopfler the benefit of the doubt as this is not the first instance where he has been called on potentially homophobic lyrics. "Les Boys" was criticized by many at the time it was released (see Robert Christgau's review of "Making Movies," for instance). I must confess that I do not find either song offensive, personally, but I have a hard time deciding what Knopfler's motives are, and I do not think he has ever made it explicitly clear - flip remarks in ancient Rolling Stone interviews be damned.

A common argument about the "faggot" ban is removing this word diminishes the power of the song. I do not see how this is the case when any put-down can be substituted in its place and the meaning of the song remains clear - the character remains the same. When he reviewed the parent album, Christgau asked "'I mean, why not 'little nigger with the spitcurl' instead of 'little faggot with the earring,' Mark?" The answer then is the same as the answer today: there are triple standards in society where racism is intolerable, while other forms of bigotry are viewed as less offensive and shrugged off. (I'm guessing that OZ-FM wouldn't dare play John Lennon's "Woman is the Nigger of the World" in this day and age although it has a much more important social message than the supposed satire of "Money For Nothing.")

It isn't 1985 anymore and throwing out the insult "faggot" without good reason is no longer acceptable.

I, however, would have no problem with any radio station airing Joe Jackson's 'Real Men" which also uses the word "faggot," but in a completely different context.



In the interest of full disclosure I should probably clarify that during my time at campus radio I participated in a comedy program which included a series of skits called "The Unknown Faggot" - written by and starring myself as the titular character. This gay superhero, disguised by a paper bag worn over the head like the Unknown Comic, traveled around combating homophobia. The only skit which I can recall involved sneaking into a Boy Scouts meeting and painting pink triangles over all of the merit badges to the chagrin of the Scout leaders. Whenever the superhero's name was spoken it was spoken by a chorus for emphasis - the unknown FAGGOT. This was done (a) because I thought it was funny, and (b) as my own pathetic attempt to reclaim the word from homophobes. Was it a Kids In The Hall rip-off? Probably. Am I a hypocrite for criticizing Mark Knopfler for using the same word? Probably, but I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it.

(see Queer Liberal's opinion)

(see McNutt's opinion)