'It was like men against boys' Michel Therrien notoriously lamented as coach of the Pittsburgh Penguins. It was a cold January night in 2006 and his slumping team had just dropped a 3-1 stinker to the Edmonton Oilers.
Therrien threw the entire team under the bus that night and perhaps unwittingly, himself. He lambasted the player's soft defence and utter lack of passion, then concluded his exasperated diatribe by wondering aloud if he could possibly find a solution.
Despite the much publicized rant, Therrien managed to turn things around for the Penguins, eventually leading the team to the Stanley Cup finals in 2008. Though the Peguins lost to the Detroit Red Wings, the team looked poised to become perennial cup contenders. But by February of the following season it had all unravelled again and Therrien was sent packing. It was an inglorious end to what had once seemed a storybook tale for the former Habs coach. Adding insult to injury was his replacement, Dan Bylsma, leading the team to their third Stanley Cup in the same season, fulfilling a destiny Therrien surely felt he had earned.
When Therrien returned as coach for the Canadiens in 2012, that rant among other things, was firmly on the minds of fans. It was unsettling to know that the organization had placed its trust in a man whose past history included the most public display of losing a locker room in living memory. Secondary to that, was a lingering concern about whether Therrien was still capable of coaching at the professional level after a three-year absence from the bench.
We got our answer in the shortened 2012-2013 season when the Habs showed significant improvement. The mission was simple: make the playoffs. To that end, Therrien delivered. But the first round loss to a truculent Ottawa Senators team seemed to bring out a bit of the old, exasperated Therrien, although his frustration was mercifully not directed at his players.
Last season was something of a different story. Although Therrien more than delivered on the goal of the post-season, it was during the regular season when fans and pundits began to wonder which Michel Therrien was behind the bench. There were moments of what some might label strategic brilliance, like putting Peter Budaj between the pipes for a second time in Boston, as a healthy Carey Price sat on the sidelines. Then there were those head-scratching moments, such as stapling P.K. Subban to the bench in critical 3rd period situations, or virtually any time he let Douglas Murray on the ice.
As the season progressed, opinions in the Canadiens' fan-base and media alternated between various levels of frustration, confusion, surprise and muted admiration of Therrien's coaching abilities. When things went bad, Therrien stood silently behind the bench, looking remarkably like that bronze Rodin sculpture, while more than a few of us wondered if he was thinking 'what is the solution?'
The Habs solid performance in the post-season seemed to erase much of that doubt. Save for a couple of fumbles (see Douglas Murray again) Therrien adjusted strategy, boosted minutes of his top performers and most importantly, remained composed.
So the real question for the forthcoming season is: Which Michel Therrien will show up? Will the old habits resurface, or has the experience of the past two seasons become the wisdom that will take his coaching abilities to the next level?
It could be argued that there is a similarity between the Pittsburgh Penguins roster under Therrien and the 2014-15 Canadiens. Both are teams well equipped with a core group of young players with the capacity of becoming the league's best.
Similar too, is coaching a talented, but struggling team to a turnaround that led deep into the post season. In 2009, Therrien failed to capitalize on that past success, which ultimately led to his dismissal.
One hopes these similarities are not lost on Michel Therrien, and that somewhere behind that distant thoughtful gaze lies a man with something to prove.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Captain? What Captain?
The announcement of Saku Koivu's retirement last week was bittersweet. Sweet, for the memories of one the Montreal Canadiens most loved and respected team leaders in their history. Considering that list includes the likes of Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau and Yvan Cournoyer, that is high praise.
Bitter, for the ignominious way in which some media in Montreal regarded his captaincy and being uncerimoniously jettisonned to the Anaheim Ducks in 2009, after a record tying ten-year tenure as team captain. Yes, that other captain was Beliveau.
Koivu was a talented hockey player, though maybe not a superstar by a statistical measure, who played in an era when the Habs roster was mediocre at best. He was a difference-maker for a team that managed far more playoff success than expected.
It was his battle with cancer, specifically Burkitt's lymphoma, that truly defined his character for Habs fans. Koivu demonstrated a quiet courage and determination that inspired many in the stands and on the ice. The experience cemented his relationship with the community, a legacy that remains to this day courtesy of the Saku Koivu Foundation's onging support of the Montreal General Hospital, and his role in securing a PET/CT diagnostic scanner.
Still, it is bittersweet that his last days as an NHL hockey player were not spent in a Habs uniform. If you believe in the power of symbolism, then in many ways it would have represented the paradigm shift in thinking that the Canadiens management claim to have undergone under Marc Bergevin's leadership.
It is for this reason many believe that Koivu's number 11 should be retired by the team, if not for his inspired leadership, certainly to make amends for letting go of one of its most respected leaders.
Perhaps part of the reason for not choosing a captain after sending Brian Gionta packing, is that the organization at long last recognized the bar set by Koivu.
Perhaps veterans Andrei Markov and Tomas Plekanec, who both played with Koivu, recognize what it really means to be team captain.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization understand the maturity demonstrated by Koivu and so concluded that neither Max Pacioretty or P.K. Subban are ready to don the coveted 'C', at least not yet.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization is recognizing what it had, and what it meant.
Perhaps.
Saku Koivu has certainly earned something beyond a cursory congratulations from the Montreal Canadiens for a long and successful career. I wonder though, if the idea of retiring his jersey will awaken those critics who regularly described Koivu as overrated and a poor leader for his difficulty with a certain language.
It's a page of history for which the organization and media ought to atone.
You could easily do worse than having a team captain like Saku Koivu, but you most assuredly would have a hard time doing better.
Bitter, for the ignominious way in which some media in Montreal regarded his captaincy and being uncerimoniously jettisonned to the Anaheim Ducks in 2009, after a record tying ten-year tenure as team captain. Yes, that other captain was Beliveau.
Koivu was a talented hockey player, though maybe not a superstar by a statistical measure, who played in an era when the Habs roster was mediocre at best. He was a difference-maker for a team that managed far more playoff success than expected.
It was his battle with cancer, specifically Burkitt's lymphoma, that truly defined his character for Habs fans. Koivu demonstrated a quiet courage and determination that inspired many in the stands and on the ice. The experience cemented his relationship with the community, a legacy that remains to this day courtesy of the Saku Koivu Foundation's onging support of the Montreal General Hospital, and his role in securing a PET/CT diagnostic scanner.
Still, it is bittersweet that his last days as an NHL hockey player were not spent in a Habs uniform. If you believe in the power of symbolism, then in many ways it would have represented the paradigm shift in thinking that the Canadiens management claim to have undergone under Marc Bergevin's leadership.
It is for this reason many believe that Koivu's number 11 should be retired by the team, if not for his inspired leadership, certainly to make amends for letting go of one of its most respected leaders.
Perhaps part of the reason for not choosing a captain after sending Brian Gionta packing, is that the organization at long last recognized the bar set by Koivu.
Perhaps veterans Andrei Markov and Tomas Plekanec, who both played with Koivu, recognize what it really means to be team captain.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization understand the maturity demonstrated by Koivu and so concluded that neither Max Pacioretty or P.K. Subban are ready to don the coveted 'C', at least not yet.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization is recognizing what it had, and what it meant.
Perhaps.
Saku Koivu has certainly earned something beyond a cursory congratulations from the Montreal Canadiens for a long and successful career. I wonder though, if the idea of retiring his jersey will awaken those critics who regularly described Koivu as overrated and a poor leader for his difficulty with a certain language.
It's a page of history for which the organization and media ought to atone.
You could easily do worse than having a team captain like Saku Koivu, but you most assuredly would have a hard time doing better.
Monday, September 8, 2014
This Looks Bad
One of the first posts I saw on Twitter this morning concerning the Ray Rice video read quite simply:
This looks bad.
That could be the understatement of the year. The video, the second to surface since the incident last February in the elevator of an Atlantic City casino, is an irrefutable indictment of Ray Rice. The footage shows Rice violently striking his then-fiancee (now wife) Janay Palmer, knocking her unconscious. Those facts, as a prosecutor would say, are indisputable.
A star athlete caught on video in an act of domestic violence. This looks bad.
When the NFL initially disciplined the Baltimore Ravens' running back, it was for a mere two games. What followed was a media and public outcry that essentially forced the league to amend its own policy and the suspension grew to six games.
Then came today's video. Rice has subsequently been released by the Ravens and faces an indefinite ban from the NFL.
It looks as bad for Rice as it does for the NFL, who must now deal with the question: had they or had they not seen the second video? One could easily presume that both versions of the surveillance footage would have come from the same source, which on the surface casts doubt of any claim of ignorance.
A damning video the NFL denies seeing. This looks bad.
The problem is, in a society obsessed with optics, the facts are often quickly kicked to the curb. They are superfluous in the eyes of the spin-doctors whose purview is not justice, but how incidents affect the brand.
A two-game suspension seemed a reasonable response to the NFL, but when the heat was on a contrite Roger Goodell stood before the cameras to concede the league had 'got it wrong.' Now in the face of universal disgust at Rice's actions, and with virtually no other choice, the league has issued its strongest punishment.
A professional sports league slow to react to the criminal behaviour of its players. This looks bad.
What is most unsettling is that, without the video, the disciplinary action most likely doesn't happen. The media would only have hearsay and eyewitness accounts to pursue the story, and the incident would fade into the shadows beyond the spotlight of professional football.
We didn't see it, therefore it doesn't look bad, we move on, forget the whole thing and go back to our Sunday sports ritual guilt-free. The NFL brand lives to cash another cheque.
In the grand scheme of things, I'm fairly certain Janay Palmer and all victims of domestic violence could give a good Goddamn about the NFL brand. In Janay Palmer's case she had the media and TMZ to do her fighting for her, but only because she's a high-profile figure. Most assuredly the plight of the vast majority of domestic abuse victims go unreported and unacknowledged.
It doesn't just look bad, it is bad. It's about time organizations stopped focusing on how things look and address the issue of domestic violence for what it is.
Unacceptable.
This looks bad.
That could be the understatement of the year. The video, the second to surface since the incident last February in the elevator of an Atlantic City casino, is an irrefutable indictment of Ray Rice. The footage shows Rice violently striking his then-fiancee (now wife) Janay Palmer, knocking her unconscious. Those facts, as a prosecutor would say, are indisputable.
A star athlete caught on video in an act of domestic violence. This looks bad.
When the NFL initially disciplined the Baltimore Ravens' running back, it was for a mere two games. What followed was a media and public outcry that essentially forced the league to amend its own policy and the suspension grew to six games.
Then came today's video. Rice has subsequently been released by the Ravens and faces an indefinite ban from the NFL.
It looks as bad for Rice as it does for the NFL, who must now deal with the question: had they or had they not seen the second video? One could easily presume that both versions of the surveillance footage would have come from the same source, which on the surface casts doubt of any claim of ignorance.
A damning video the NFL denies seeing. This looks bad.
The problem is, in a society obsessed with optics, the facts are often quickly kicked to the curb. They are superfluous in the eyes of the spin-doctors whose purview is not justice, but how incidents affect the brand.
A two-game suspension seemed a reasonable response to the NFL, but when the heat was on a contrite Roger Goodell stood before the cameras to concede the league had 'got it wrong.' Now in the face of universal disgust at Rice's actions, and with virtually no other choice, the league has issued its strongest punishment.
A professional sports league slow to react to the criminal behaviour of its players. This looks bad.
What is most unsettling is that, without the video, the disciplinary action most likely doesn't happen. The media would only have hearsay and eyewitness accounts to pursue the story, and the incident would fade into the shadows beyond the spotlight of professional football.
We didn't see it, therefore it doesn't look bad, we move on, forget the whole thing and go back to our Sunday sports ritual guilt-free. The NFL brand lives to cash another cheque.
In the grand scheme of things, I'm fairly certain Janay Palmer and all victims of domestic violence could give a good Goddamn about the NFL brand. In Janay Palmer's case she had the media and TMZ to do her fighting for her, but only because she's a high-profile figure. Most assuredly the plight of the vast majority of domestic abuse victims go unreported and unacknowledged.
It doesn't just look bad, it is bad. It's about time organizations stopped focusing on how things look and address the issue of domestic violence for what it is.
Unacceptable.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Leading Questions
It's still early in the 2014 Québec provincial election and the public conversation has already devolved into discussions of nationalism, sovereignty and the practicalities of an independent Québec. These are not new ideas, the concept of an independent Québec has been the subject of decades of discussion and theoretical scenarios involving borders, passports and currency.
The problem with this kind of discussion is that it is so passionate and so divisive that it eclipses all other issues in the election conversation. It gives a voice to radicals on both sides of the debate and leaves very little air time for rational and sober analysis of more immediate and troublesome realities.
I use the term realities because that is exactly what they are. Jobs, the economy, cost of living, public debt, degrading infrastructure and a fractured healthcare system. These are real problems that citizens of Québec will have to deal with on April 8th, regardless of which party is elected to serve Quebeckers. What is most troubling is that these issues will likely persist until the next election.
As an anglophone, you might think I would be prone to blame the Parti Québecois (PQ) for steering the conversation towards sovereignty, after all it has been at the core of the party's political constitution since its inception. But is it really the PQ that we should be blaming for the current public discourse? English media outlets like CJAD, CTV, The Gazette, Global Quebec and others, seem just as complicit in finding ways to ramp up the sovereignty discussion. From newspapers, radio, television and social media, we have been fed a steady stream of the PQ's current vision of an independent Québec. Again, a theory, not reality.
So why exactly are the English media so obsessed with pressing the PQ on a subject for which they are more than pleased to discuss? It seems somewhat disingenuous to criticize politicians for engaging in a divisive conversation when English media outlets are more than willing to lap it up and spew it back out.
Why are reporters not asking questions about concrete plans to deal with Québec's massive debt problem? Or how it plans to create real and sustainable employment? Or making our roads safer, our healthcare system more accessible, and ease the heavy burden on tax payers? These are issues that every single voter, of every single political and cultural stripe, have to face every day of their lives. People with families, mortgages, rental payments, student loans and a myriad of other concerns.
As one who relies on media sources to provide a reasonably informative account of the issues of the day, I expect reporters to press candidates to address these issues. When candidates attempt to redirect the conversation, then I expect an explanation as to why. What we don't need is a parroted version of political spin.
Of course, the French media has its own issues at the moment, complicated ones, but that is a conversation for another blog. Right now it is the English media's apparent unwillingness to demand answers on subjects pertaining to real-world issues that is most disconcerting. At the very least, I would like to know why we are engaging the PQ in a conversation that ultimately makes them unaccountable for their record in office?
The citizens of Québec have earned the right to expect their politicians and media to frame the public discourse around issues that directly affect our lives. We deserve responsive governance and factual reporting, not ideological clashes and hyperbolic fear-mongering.
English media needs to step up and press political candidates to respond to the realities faced by Québec voters. Obsessing over sovereignty serves only to reinforce the impression that anglophones are incapable of embracing the complex political landscape of Québec, and that we are as one-sided as we accuse PQ hardliners to be.
We've had enough theory, get to the facts already, and stop being part of the problem.
The problem with this kind of discussion is that it is so passionate and so divisive that it eclipses all other issues in the election conversation. It gives a voice to radicals on both sides of the debate and leaves very little air time for rational and sober analysis of more immediate and troublesome realities.
I use the term realities because that is exactly what they are. Jobs, the economy, cost of living, public debt, degrading infrastructure and a fractured healthcare system. These are real problems that citizens of Québec will have to deal with on April 8th, regardless of which party is elected to serve Quebeckers. What is most troubling is that these issues will likely persist until the next election.
As an anglophone, you might think I would be prone to blame the Parti Québecois (PQ) for steering the conversation towards sovereignty, after all it has been at the core of the party's political constitution since its inception. But is it really the PQ that we should be blaming for the current public discourse? English media outlets like CJAD, CTV, The Gazette, Global Quebec and others, seem just as complicit in finding ways to ramp up the sovereignty discussion. From newspapers, radio, television and social media, we have been fed a steady stream of the PQ's current vision of an independent Québec. Again, a theory, not reality.
So why exactly are the English media so obsessed with pressing the PQ on a subject for which they are more than pleased to discuss? It seems somewhat disingenuous to criticize politicians for engaging in a divisive conversation when English media outlets are more than willing to lap it up and spew it back out.
Why are reporters not asking questions about concrete plans to deal with Québec's massive debt problem? Or how it plans to create real and sustainable employment? Or making our roads safer, our healthcare system more accessible, and ease the heavy burden on tax payers? These are issues that every single voter, of every single political and cultural stripe, have to face every day of their lives. People with families, mortgages, rental payments, student loans and a myriad of other concerns.
As one who relies on media sources to provide a reasonably informative account of the issues of the day, I expect reporters to press candidates to address these issues. When candidates attempt to redirect the conversation, then I expect an explanation as to why. What we don't need is a parroted version of political spin.
Of course, the French media has its own issues at the moment, complicated ones, but that is a conversation for another blog. Right now it is the English media's apparent unwillingness to demand answers on subjects pertaining to real-world issues that is most disconcerting. At the very least, I would like to know why we are engaging the PQ in a conversation that ultimately makes them unaccountable for their record in office?
The citizens of Québec have earned the right to expect their politicians and media to frame the public discourse around issues that directly affect our lives. We deserve responsive governance and factual reporting, not ideological clashes and hyperbolic fear-mongering.
English media needs to step up and press political candidates to respond to the realities faced by Québec voters. Obsessing over sovereignty serves only to reinforce the impression that anglophones are incapable of embracing the complex political landscape of Québec, and that we are as one-sided as we accuse PQ hardliners to be.
We've had enough theory, get to the facts already, and stop being part of the problem.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Waxing Nostalgic about Spinning Wax
What's old is new again.
That is a frequent observation of anyone who's lived long enough to see the patterns of history develop. In the 1970s we were obsessed with the idyllic, nuclear-family, rebel without a cause culture of the 1950s. In the 1980s, the baby-boomers retold legends of the tumultuous 60s, breathing new life into Woodstock-era rock and Motown-inspired soul, while staking claim to being the greatest generation in history.
So now we've arrived in the 2010s, for want of a better term, and so it is the 90s grunge-era, punk revival, vacuous pop-dance music that is bubbling back up to the surface.
In the midst of all this nostalgia, the vinyl record has seen an incredible resurgence. It has reached a point where radio stations have now reinstalled turntables in their studios, trumpeting the on-air return of vinyl like it's the resurrection of Elvis.
The sound is richer and purer we've been told. Nothing sounds as good as vinyl. The record companies destroyed the music industry when they switched to Compact Disc technology.
Well, allow me, somebody who grew up with vinyl records, to say back the truck up.
Over the course of the 1980s I compiled a rather large collection of records, not a much as an audiophile, but more than your average music fan. The reason for the collection was that I was plying my trade as a disc jockey for live events. Though I made little money, I thought at the time it had an element of glamour to it, and let's face it, I got to talk to a lot of pretty girls at parties.
The little money I had went to buying more records to meet with the seemingly insatiable demands of party-goers. For a kid with little or no income, it was a huge investment.
Sure, there were many a night spent with earphones glued to my head, listening to hours of my favourite artists, enjoying every second vocal nuance and guitar riff. But what many of today's vinyl obsessed junkies don't know is that over the period of the 1980s the quality of mass-produced vinyl records was falling off. It was economics of course. Record companies were driven produce cheaper products, faster and we were just as willing to line up to buy them. It should be noted that the price of a record album in the 80s was roughly the same as it is on iTunes today, which, adjusting for inflation, is almost 3 times more expensive.
The other thing that those who did not grow up in that era cannot appreciate, was that there was no comparable alternative to vinyl. There were cassette tapes, but they're quality was dubious from the start, and would degrade rather quickly over time. Vinyl was the best choice for sound quality and durability, but vinyl was also easily susceptible to damage due to repeated playing and mishandling. Records would get dusty and scratched, and once that happened, they we damaged forever. As much as I loved listening to music for hours on end, it galled me that I had to tolerate all the static noise that came from their eventual and virtually unstoppable degradation.
Record companies were fully aware of the limitations of vinyl and were quite content to let it go on for the foreseeable future, but the digital revolution was coming, whether they were prepared for it or not.
Let me be absolutely clear about my next point. The advent of the Compact Disc was the greatest thing to happen to music lovers since the invention of the phonograph. Read any review from any expert audiophile, producer or sound engineer from that era and you will come to understand that the quality of Compact Disc audio far surpassed anything ever produced on vinyl. Period.
You may wish to wax nostalgic about the amazing artwork on the sleeves of 12" records, and you will certainly get no argument from me. In many ways it was a pure form of pop culture art that will never be duplicated. But on the sound quality argument, you cannot convince me for one second that vinyl is superior. Every device capable of measuring audio range will support that contention, this is not just an opinion.
Now, MP3s are a different discussion, but that is a discussion for another time.
If you grew up loving music and hating all of the hiss and rumble and pops of dusty, scratched LPs, the advent of Compact Discs was miraculous. In fact, some of the early CDs used to come with a proviso from the record label noting that the background hissing sounds were he result of the original analogue studio recordings that none of us had previously detected on vinyl. On some CDs we could hear the musicians breathing, a page of music turning and other sounds that were previously undetectable on other media. It was like having the original master tapes from our favourite artists in one remarkably small package. Record companies had finally answered our prayers, and for many of us, the era of vinyl was mercifully over.
Two things have contributed to vinyl's resurgence. The first is driven mostly by nostalgia. Records were cool. From the artwork on the sleeve, to their smell and feel. We've even fallen in love with the crackles and pops, the warping that causes the stylus to dance, all of those little quirks that take us back to what we perceive to be a simpler time.
The other thing that's driving vinyl's resurgence is society's compelling and ironic distrust for anything corporate. The very companies who sold us billions of dollars in sub-standard vinyl are now being blamed for destroying the industry by providing the superior product we all demanded. Now those same companies are profiting again by reselling the same product at a significantly higher profit.
I'm neither defending nor condoning how corporations make their money. Corporations exist to make money, and they'll go wherever the marketplace allows them to do it.
You can love vinyl, I don't have an issue with that, and indeed there are many things to love. But please don't try to convince me that they are sonically superior than the best of today's digital technology, because on every possible scale of measurement it simply is not true. I can also do without the notion that the music industry set about to destroy vinyl as some bizarre plot to undermine music lovers and decimate independent record stores. Consumers were just as culpable when peer-to-peer file sharing sites sucked the life out of the music industry, devaluing the product and ultimately hurting both established and struggling musicians to this day.
At least the good news about consumers newfound love for vinyl is that maybe some of the investment I made all those years ago might be recouped if the right buyer comes along.
When it comes to choosing vinyl or digital I'm going to side with Montreal's most iconic radio personality, Too Tall, who is just as glad we don't have to rely on vinyl for our music as I am.
That is a frequent observation of anyone who's lived long enough to see the patterns of history develop. In the 1970s we were obsessed with the idyllic, nuclear-family, rebel without a cause culture of the 1950s. In the 1980s, the baby-boomers retold legends of the tumultuous 60s, breathing new life into Woodstock-era rock and Motown-inspired soul, while staking claim to being the greatest generation in history.
So now we've arrived in the 2010s, for want of a better term, and so it is the 90s grunge-era, punk revival, vacuous pop-dance music that is bubbling back up to the surface.
In the midst of all this nostalgia, the vinyl record has seen an incredible resurgence. It has reached a point where radio stations have now reinstalled turntables in their studios, trumpeting the on-air return of vinyl like it's the resurrection of Elvis.
The sound is richer and purer we've been told. Nothing sounds as good as vinyl. The record companies destroyed the music industry when they switched to Compact Disc technology.
Well, allow me, somebody who grew up with vinyl records, to say back the truck up.
Over the course of the 1980s I compiled a rather large collection of records, not a much as an audiophile, but more than your average music fan. The reason for the collection was that I was plying my trade as a disc jockey for live events. Though I made little money, I thought at the time it had an element of glamour to it, and let's face it, I got to talk to a lot of pretty girls at parties.
The little money I had went to buying more records to meet with the seemingly insatiable demands of party-goers. For a kid with little or no income, it was a huge investment.
Sure, there were many a night spent with earphones glued to my head, listening to hours of my favourite artists, enjoying every second vocal nuance and guitar riff. But what many of today's vinyl obsessed junkies don't know is that over the period of the 1980s the quality of mass-produced vinyl records was falling off. It was economics of course. Record companies were driven produce cheaper products, faster and we were just as willing to line up to buy them. It should be noted that the price of a record album in the 80s was roughly the same as it is on iTunes today, which, adjusting for inflation, is almost 3 times more expensive.
The other thing that those who did not grow up in that era cannot appreciate, was that there was no comparable alternative to vinyl. There were cassette tapes, but they're quality was dubious from the start, and would degrade rather quickly over time. Vinyl was the best choice for sound quality and durability, but vinyl was also easily susceptible to damage due to repeated playing and mishandling. Records would get dusty and scratched, and once that happened, they we damaged forever. As much as I loved listening to music for hours on end, it galled me that I had to tolerate all the static noise that came from their eventual and virtually unstoppable degradation.
Record companies were fully aware of the limitations of vinyl and were quite content to let it go on for the foreseeable future, but the digital revolution was coming, whether they were prepared for it or not.
Let me be absolutely clear about my next point. The advent of the Compact Disc was the greatest thing to happen to music lovers since the invention of the phonograph. Read any review from any expert audiophile, producer or sound engineer from that era and you will come to understand that the quality of Compact Disc audio far surpassed anything ever produced on vinyl. Period.
You may wish to wax nostalgic about the amazing artwork on the sleeves of 12" records, and you will certainly get no argument from me. In many ways it was a pure form of pop culture art that will never be duplicated. But on the sound quality argument, you cannot convince me for one second that vinyl is superior. Every device capable of measuring audio range will support that contention, this is not just an opinion.
Now, MP3s are a different discussion, but that is a discussion for another time.
If you grew up loving music and hating all of the hiss and rumble and pops of dusty, scratched LPs, the advent of Compact Discs was miraculous. In fact, some of the early CDs used to come with a proviso from the record label noting that the background hissing sounds were he result of the original analogue studio recordings that none of us had previously detected on vinyl. On some CDs we could hear the musicians breathing, a page of music turning and other sounds that were previously undetectable on other media. It was like having the original master tapes from our favourite artists in one remarkably small package. Record companies had finally answered our prayers, and for many of us, the era of vinyl was mercifully over.
Two things have contributed to vinyl's resurgence. The first is driven mostly by nostalgia. Records were cool. From the artwork on the sleeve, to their smell and feel. We've even fallen in love with the crackles and pops, the warping that causes the stylus to dance, all of those little quirks that take us back to what we perceive to be a simpler time.
The other thing that's driving vinyl's resurgence is society's compelling and ironic distrust for anything corporate. The very companies who sold us billions of dollars in sub-standard vinyl are now being blamed for destroying the industry by providing the superior product we all demanded. Now those same companies are profiting again by reselling the same product at a significantly higher profit.
I'm neither defending nor condoning how corporations make their money. Corporations exist to make money, and they'll go wherever the marketplace allows them to do it.
You can love vinyl, I don't have an issue with that, and indeed there are many things to love. But please don't try to convince me that they are sonically superior than the best of today's digital technology, because on every possible scale of measurement it simply is not true. I can also do without the notion that the music industry set about to destroy vinyl as some bizarre plot to undermine music lovers and decimate independent record stores. Consumers were just as culpable when peer-to-peer file sharing sites sucked the life out of the music industry, devaluing the product and ultimately hurting both established and struggling musicians to this day.
At least the good news about consumers newfound love for vinyl is that maybe some of the investment I made all those years ago might be recouped if the right buyer comes along.
When it comes to choosing vinyl or digital I'm going to side with Montreal's most iconic radio personality, Too Tall, who is just as glad we don't have to rely on vinyl for our music as I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)