A
adma
Guest
Re the Rheos--someone suggested to me it might make for interesting UT discussion...
radiofreecanuckistan.blog...-past.html
radiofreecanuckistan.blog...-past.html
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I
indense
Guest
CBC Radio has the audio of the concert. It sounds great. I'm hoping for a CD release.
Final Rheostatics Concert
Also, get the tribute album from Zunior.com
The Secret Sessions (I highly recommend Zunior btw. Great Canadian music at good prices and they always have free samplers for download.)
Very sad to see the Rheos hang it up. I saw the Rheostatics in concert for the first time at Stairway to Heaven in London in 1993 with the Inbreds opening. I would have to guess that I've seen them live somewhere between 20 and 30 times (maybe more) with their multi-show runs at the Horeshoe each year. I was definitely homesick knowing that they were playing their last show 100 yards from my old condo on Shuter while I was now living here in Amsterdam.
Thanks to the boys for the great music and memories, sorry I couldn't be there.
Final Rheostatics Concert
Also, get the tribute album from Zunior.com
The Secret Sessions (I highly recommend Zunior btw. Great Canadian music at good prices and they always have free samplers for download.)
Very sad to see the Rheos hang it up. I saw the Rheostatics in concert for the first time at Stairway to Heaven in London in 1993 with the Inbreds opening. I would have to guess that I've seen them live somewhere between 20 and 30 times (maybe more) with their multi-show runs at the Horeshoe each year. I was definitely homesick knowing that they were playing their last show 100 yards from my old condo on Shuter while I was now living here in Amsterdam.
Thanks to the boys for the great music and memories, sorry I couldn't be there.
E
Ed007Toronto
Guest
I'm listed in the credits on their first release. "Greatest Hits" was the record.
B
BrianHawkins1
Guest
I like the Rheos about as much as the next guy, I guess, and I've seen a bunch of their shows. This, from the linked article, however...
"The Rheostatics are much more than a great Canadian band. They are/were/will always be The Great Canadian Band."
...is a huge overstatement. I don't see how it can be argued that a band whose fan base has never transcended large-ish-cult-following status could legitimately be dubbed "The" Great Canadian Band. They're simply too niche, and still too relatively obscure to qualify for that title. I'd be very surprised if a majority of Canadians has even heard of them, let alone are familiar with their music, let alone love them above all others. Surely some kind of critical mass of genuinely widespread fandom is necessary for something to become the definitive anything of any country. To me it's plainly obvious that the Hip wear this crown, unchallenged. Their music is as close as it gets to nearly universally loved in Canada, and I'd guess that many hundreds of percent more people know their stuff than know the Rheos'. The Hip are at least as 'Canadian' content-wise, as well. And as an aside, Downie is arguably the most underrated lyricist in all of contemporary pop music, imo.
"This band was Gordon Lightfoot and Bruce Cockburn, Mary Margaret O'Hara and Jane Siberry, BTO and Max Webster, DOA and Stompin' Tom Connors, Neil Young and The Band."
Though not actually as talented as most on that list. They could play their instruments very well, but songwriting was never really this band's strong suit. Few truly memorable tunes - Neil, Joni, Lightfoot, Cockburn and others blow them clear off the map in this respect. There is no 'Rheos songbook' to speak of, really.
"...the four members had not played together as the Rheostatics in over a year, and there had only been one band practice earlier that week. Sadly, it showed. Much like the opening nights of their annual week-long Fall Nationals at the Horseshoe, this seemed more like a live rehearsal than a gig."
In my experience, the above is only too typical of the Rheos - their entire career seemed more like one enormous, lark-like, under-rehearsed jammy type thing. There's nothing wrong with that per se (I adore the Dead, for example), but I don't feel like they really pulled it off all that well, frankly. They were too messy too often - the band almost felt like an occasional side-project rather than a cohesive unit. This is just not the stuff that "The" Great Canadian Band is made of.
"My friend and bandmate Tristan O'Malley wondered what would have happened if the Rheos had taken a poll at Massey Hall: How many people here have been in a band that opened for us? Or otherwise appeared on stage with us at some point? I'd guess at least 20 per cent."
That about sums it up: the Rheos never really amounted to much more than an 'insider' band, much more popular with music-scene-ish people than with anyone else. Only someone with a viewpoint this insular could claim that this was the entire country's great band. They were fun and cool for a select audience, but it stops there.
"The Rheostatics are much more than a great Canadian band. They are/were/will always be The Great Canadian Band."
...is a huge overstatement. I don't see how it can be argued that a band whose fan base has never transcended large-ish-cult-following status could legitimately be dubbed "The" Great Canadian Band. They're simply too niche, and still too relatively obscure to qualify for that title. I'd be very surprised if a majority of Canadians has even heard of them, let alone are familiar with their music, let alone love them above all others. Surely some kind of critical mass of genuinely widespread fandom is necessary for something to become the definitive anything of any country. To me it's plainly obvious that the Hip wear this crown, unchallenged. Their music is as close as it gets to nearly universally loved in Canada, and I'd guess that many hundreds of percent more people know their stuff than know the Rheos'. The Hip are at least as 'Canadian' content-wise, as well. And as an aside, Downie is arguably the most underrated lyricist in all of contemporary pop music, imo.
"This band was Gordon Lightfoot and Bruce Cockburn, Mary Margaret O'Hara and Jane Siberry, BTO and Max Webster, DOA and Stompin' Tom Connors, Neil Young and The Band."
Though not actually as talented as most on that list. They could play their instruments very well, but songwriting was never really this band's strong suit. Few truly memorable tunes - Neil, Joni, Lightfoot, Cockburn and others blow them clear off the map in this respect. There is no 'Rheos songbook' to speak of, really.
"...the four members had not played together as the Rheostatics in over a year, and there had only been one band practice earlier that week. Sadly, it showed. Much like the opening nights of their annual week-long Fall Nationals at the Horseshoe, this seemed more like a live rehearsal than a gig."
In my experience, the above is only too typical of the Rheos - their entire career seemed more like one enormous, lark-like, under-rehearsed jammy type thing. There's nothing wrong with that per se (I adore the Dead, for example), but I don't feel like they really pulled it off all that well, frankly. They were too messy too often - the band almost felt like an occasional side-project rather than a cohesive unit. This is just not the stuff that "The" Great Canadian Band is made of.
"My friend and bandmate Tristan O'Malley wondered what would have happened if the Rheos had taken a poll at Massey Hall: How many people here have been in a band that opened for us? Or otherwise appeared on stage with us at some point? I'd guess at least 20 per cent."
That about sums it up: the Rheos never really amounted to much more than an 'insider' band, much more popular with music-scene-ish people than with anyone else. Only someone with a viewpoint this insular could claim that this was the entire country's great band. They were fun and cool for a select audience, but it stops there.
I
indense
Guest
Brian, what do you mean by
I would agree that the hip are "The" Great Canadian Band but if the members grew up in Phoenix, they would still be a great rock band that would sound an awful lot like the hip. One of the reasons that the hip are seen as Canada's band is because they are so popular here but outside of Canada are relatively unknown and unapreciated - they are ours. If the members of the Rheostatics grew up in Phoenix, I don't think that they could have become anything even remotely resembling the Rheostatics. They might have formed a great band called the Rheostatics but they couldn't have been the same band.
I'm not sure if this was the point that the author was trying to make but it's how I view the differences. What do you think?
What is your definition of songbook here? Not arguing or disagreeing with the point (yet), I just have never understood the definition of the term.There is no 'Rheos songbook' to speak of, really.
I think the problem is that the quotes are in the incorrect place - it should be The Great "Canadian" Band. Are they more Canadian than the Hip? It might be a silly thing to measure but for the sake of arguement, I don't think that the measure is so much in lyrical content/lyrics (if it was just that the Rheos would still be way ahead) but in the way that the Rheos wear their musical influences which are listed out in the article and your post (strangely Rush are missing) on their collective sleaves.I don't see how it can be argued that a band whose fan base has never transcended large-ish-cult-following status could legitimately be dubbed "The" Great Canadian Band.
I would agree that the hip are "The" Great Canadian Band but if the members grew up in Phoenix, they would still be a great rock band that would sound an awful lot like the hip. One of the reasons that the hip are seen as Canada's band is because they are so popular here but outside of Canada are relatively unknown and unapreciated - they are ours. If the members of the Rheostatics grew up in Phoenix, I don't think that they could have become anything even remotely resembling the Rheostatics. They might have formed a great band called the Rheostatics but they couldn't have been the same band.
I'm not sure if this was the point that the author was trying to make but it's how I view the differences. What do you think?
B
BrianHawkins1
Guest
"What is your definition of songbook here?"
This question is considerably more difficult to answer than it first appears - after pondering this for a while, I'm still not quite sure. The term seems to mostly be used in reference to the body of songs composed by a widely acknowledged fine songwriter. Anyone who's ever written, say, two songs, technically has a 'songbook', I suppose, but the word obviously connotes more than just that - which is where the slipperiness enters. There are many factors that apparently feed into it - subjective judgments of 'quality' and creativity, breadth and range of output, popularity of the oeuvre, perceived relevance and influence within a genre, etc. But perhaps the best definition I can come up with - and I realize that this is wobbly at best - is, "how likely are this person's songs to be banged out for fun on a beat-up 6-string in someone's basement, or performed by another artist for an audience?". In other words, to what extent do this artist's songs transcend their own career? Look to Dylan, for instance, as perhaps the ultimate example of such. The question, I think, has little to do with the raw musical talent of the artist in question. Take Zappa, for example - many consider him a hyper-musical-genius, as do I, but I think it would be odd to hear his body of work referred to as a 'songbook'. Why? I think largely because coming across a cover of a Zappa 'song', to the extent to which that even exists to begin with (he's more of a 'composer'), is not all that probable. His work is mostly self-contained within his own idiosyncratic world, as brilliant as it may be. To me, the Rheos are closer to the Zappa example than to the Dylan one. It seems far more likely that you'll hear someone performing or recording, like, a Sexsmith song than a Rheos song - hence, 'Sexsmith songbook', and Rheos... well, not.
That's surely full of holes, but I think it's the best I can do.
" I think the problem is that the quotes are in the incorrect place - it should be The Great "Canadian" Band. "
I mostly agree, but I don't think it's me who's put the quotation marks around the 'wrong' word, but the author of the article, by implication.
"I would agree that the hip are "The" Great Canadian Band but if the members grew up in Phoenix, they would still be a great rock band that would sound an awful lot like the hip. ... If the members of the Rheostatics grew up in Phoenix, I don't think that they could have become anything even remotely resembling the Rheostatics."
I understand what you mean, and that could be true, but it's ultimately unknowable. It's the age-old nature/nurture argument, which no one has ever sussed. To what extent are the Hip a cultural product of Kingston? I don't know - maybe very little, but maybe not. To what extent is Dylan the result of "that little Minnesota town", or The Beatles the result of Liverpool? Hard to say.
Beyond just questions of popularity and recognition, I think another 'problem' that I have with the Rheos in this 'great Canadian' context thing, is that they wear their influences SO prominently, that in an odd way they almost don't (can't?) stand solely as their own entity. That is, the whole existence of the band can sort of be seen as one big po-mo referent to Canadian music and culture rather than being a truly significant contributor to such in its own right. They're almost more like the country's house band than its Bob Marley. In the grand scheme, I don't think they really have any lasting 'relevance', despite being quite uber-Canadian. They're kinda like a (premature?) coda, rather than a new verse in the ongoing unfolding of Canadian music.
Know what I mean?
This question is considerably more difficult to answer than it first appears - after pondering this for a while, I'm still not quite sure. The term seems to mostly be used in reference to the body of songs composed by a widely acknowledged fine songwriter. Anyone who's ever written, say, two songs, technically has a 'songbook', I suppose, but the word obviously connotes more than just that - which is where the slipperiness enters. There are many factors that apparently feed into it - subjective judgments of 'quality' and creativity, breadth and range of output, popularity of the oeuvre, perceived relevance and influence within a genre, etc. But perhaps the best definition I can come up with - and I realize that this is wobbly at best - is, "how likely are this person's songs to be banged out for fun on a beat-up 6-string in someone's basement, or performed by another artist for an audience?". In other words, to what extent do this artist's songs transcend their own career? Look to Dylan, for instance, as perhaps the ultimate example of such. The question, I think, has little to do with the raw musical talent of the artist in question. Take Zappa, for example - many consider him a hyper-musical-genius, as do I, but I think it would be odd to hear his body of work referred to as a 'songbook'. Why? I think largely because coming across a cover of a Zappa 'song', to the extent to which that even exists to begin with (he's more of a 'composer'), is not all that probable. His work is mostly self-contained within his own idiosyncratic world, as brilliant as it may be. To me, the Rheos are closer to the Zappa example than to the Dylan one. It seems far more likely that you'll hear someone performing or recording, like, a Sexsmith song than a Rheos song - hence, 'Sexsmith songbook', and Rheos... well, not.
That's surely full of holes, but I think it's the best I can do.
" I think the problem is that the quotes are in the incorrect place - it should be The Great "Canadian" Band. "
I mostly agree, but I don't think it's me who's put the quotation marks around the 'wrong' word, but the author of the article, by implication.
"I would agree that the hip are "The" Great Canadian Band but if the members grew up in Phoenix, they would still be a great rock band that would sound an awful lot like the hip. ... If the members of the Rheostatics grew up in Phoenix, I don't think that they could have become anything even remotely resembling the Rheostatics."
I understand what you mean, and that could be true, but it's ultimately unknowable. It's the age-old nature/nurture argument, which no one has ever sussed. To what extent are the Hip a cultural product of Kingston? I don't know - maybe very little, but maybe not. To what extent is Dylan the result of "that little Minnesota town", or The Beatles the result of Liverpool? Hard to say.
Beyond just questions of popularity and recognition, I think another 'problem' that I have with the Rheos in this 'great Canadian' context thing, is that they wear their influences SO prominently, that in an odd way they almost don't (can't?) stand solely as their own entity. That is, the whole existence of the band can sort of be seen as one big po-mo referent to Canadian music and culture rather than being a truly significant contributor to such in its own right. They're almost more like the country's house band than its Bob Marley. In the grand scheme, I don't think they really have any lasting 'relevance', despite being quite uber-Canadian. They're kinda like a (premature?) coda, rather than a new verse in the ongoing unfolding of Canadian music.
Know what I mean?