Jaimoe

You may have forgetten Josh my friend, that MMJ opened two sold out Pearl Jam shows in Toronto just a few months ago. I don't think we'll see the Jacket anytime before next summer in Ontario. However, their live album comes out in a few days and the companion live DVD will hit the stores on October 31st. Kick out the fucking jams muthafeckers!!

Jean Chretien... immediately after he strangled a protestor.

No Means No kicks serious ass. The band that has been labelled a punk "jamband" almost from their inception in the mid 70's is/was Television . Another band that flirts with punk and jams is the fantastic (and still ass kicking) Rocket From The Tombs .

I totally forgot about Portishead. They are (were?) a fantastic dark and fascinating band.

I encourage you to listen to thier live shows Jaimoe' date=' nothing sappy in the slightest and much harder edged than thier albums. The live stuff is what converted me.[/quote'] Fair enough, but I've had decades of disliking this band in a Peter Cetera kind of way.

In all seriousness, if you like women artists that can rock with the boys or even kick their asses from time to time, this masterpiece album is a must own:

In that case, try The B-52s, Talking Heads, The Breeders, The Pixies, The Von Bondies, Patti Smith, The New York Dolls , Big Brother & The Holding Company, Sleater-Kinney, The Indigo Girls, Heart, Pet Shop Boys, Soft Cell, Culture Club, Level 42...

Cat Power

True, there were a fair number of memorable 80's bands. Level 42 had their Top 40 place and had more talent than most bands of their ilk. If we're talking 80's, give me The Pixes, Sonic Youth or The Replacements.

Innovative bassist; awfully sappy band.

I have little interest in the Greg band. Different style and vibe than the Allmans.

And the venue's acoustics have improved greatly. I loved the sound when Sinead played there last year and it was even better when Sonic Youth raised the muthafucking roof a few months back. Bring on The Mule!

And then there's everyone's favourite jam critic, Toronto Star's Ben Rayner's reaction to the show... and hey hard-core Floyd fans, correct me if I'm wrong, but how come no one mentions Richard Wright's vocal contributions with Floyd? His singing voice comlimented Gilmore's throughout their glory years. On the dark side of the tune Sep. 21, 2006. 09:16 AM BEN RAYNER POP MUSIC CRITIC The dissolution of Pink Floyd presented us with one of the most egregious instances of a rock band whose scattered parts add up to considerably less than their original sum. Roger Waters, at least, hasn't been complicit in soiling the Floyd name since 1983's The Final Cut. But the fact that, after years of intermittently pimping The Wall whenever the solo thing ran aground, he's currently hauling a live version of Dark Side of the Moon around the globe instead of, say, a fond reprisal of Radio K.A.O.S. suggests he knows where his bread will always be buttered. The Dark Side hook was enough to sell out the Air Canada Centre last night and, thus, represented a small victory in his ongoing post-Floyd grudge match with David Gilmour, who played Massey Hall mere months ago to roughly a fifth of the crowd that soaked up Waters's unabashed, big-budget nostalgia trip at the ACC. Still, it has to sting just a bit employing two guitarists night after night to approximate Gilmour's signature, smooth tones onstage — especially when one of them has to take Gilmour's lead-vocal responsibilities on "Money," the ubiquitous Dark Side Of The Moon favourite, while Waters is anti-climactically relegated to the role of bass-toting sideman. And this was mere minutes after Waters had allowed himself, it could be argued, to be upstaged by the gut-busting female vocalist on "The Great Gig In The Sky" and the quadraphonic clockwork accompaniment to "Time." The fussy Dark Side material — for such a landmark album, it's sounding pretty tight-assed and toothless in its old age — actually proved the least interesting component of the 2 1/2-hour show, since the predictability of the album's fixed sequence only served to draw attention to the fact one was essentially watching an officially ordained Pink Floyd cover band recreate its leader's past glories. Much more fun was the first half, wherein Waters and the band offered likeable facsimiles of Floyd's biggest hits — "Mother," "Shine on You Crazy Diamond," "Sheep" — accompanied by some dazzling video animation, the requisite floating pig and, during "Diamond," a well-received photographic tribute to the late Syd Barrett. The solo stuff, meanwhile, was restricted to "Perfect Sense" and a dodgy new song called "Leaving Beirut," a well-intentioned number about an Arab family with whom a young Waters once spent a night that was doubly undercut by its pedantic lyrics and even more heavy-handed cartoon accompaniment. Until the Pink Floyd reunion happens, it's as close as you'll get. You could obtain similar results for much less money at home, though, with a greatest-hits album and some creative lighting.

The Leaf management or to be more accurate, MLSE, care a great deal about one thing: money. What they don't care about - which flies in the face of the greater NHL franchise Montreal Canadiens - is that MLSE could care less about the integrity, passion, or history of the game. It's all about the bottom line - just ask Eugene Melnyk regarding his rejected purchase (by MLSE) of Maple Leaf Gardens. Man, I can't wait to buy groceries at the Gardens.

Neither do I. Lawyers on the other hand... paging stonemountain... I know. I thought of him when I wrote it, but I meant it in the most general of terms... and the one's not named Corey.

Not my point. It's just Tucker's name got dragged into it when this is an overrated Domi thread. Tucker is a pretty effective 2nd line forward - as he has been in the latter part of his career - even though the league outside of Toronto hates him. I don't even like Toilet Hands Tucker, but he is fearless - although there's a fine line between fearless and foolish (see Chara). The one thing Leaf fans get and Leaf management does not is the ineptness of Nik Antropov. Why this guy gets slated on the top line year after year I'll never know. But then again, the Leafs are a bad team, so maybe it's just desserts.

Tucker's a jackass, agitator, diver, scapper and a very effective player, especially for the money. And get it right, he had a 28 goal season. And under his current contract, NHL teams would line up to get him.

Neither do I. Lawyers on the other hand...

I do like O'Rourke (check that spelling), even though I don't agree with his politics. One writer that I constantly agree with is The Star's Christopher Hume (architecture and urban critic) - although even Christopher on occasion gets far too preachy and self-righteous, even if he's right.

one of the few things that united the UW student body in the 80s was a common sense of WTF? with one' date=' Tim Perlich, who reviewed bands in the Imprint. nothing like being told you are too stupid to appreciate a band. :crazy: [/quote'] Actually, that's the critic I don't care for at Now. He has a philosophy of loving/hailing/preaching the virtues of undiscovered or underground bands only until they gain some sort of recognition, then he abandons said bands when they brush any level of a mainstream audience - see his articles pertaining to From Fiction. However, I do have respect for music journalists, even the ones I don't like. Ben Rayner has pissed me off on many occasions, but the bastard writes good copy. He is also pretty insightful and bright, if not way too stuck on worshipping show-gazer era bullshit. Even the Star's Rosie DiManno (someone that has gotten under my skin for decades ) has written some really ballsy and relevant articles recently (see the Politics forum and a topic regarding the Pope's comments towards Islam... or her recent article nailing that fucking idiot murderer in Montreal). Good writers are good writers, even if you don't necessarily agree on their points of view.

Rosie DiManno wrote a fitting piece on that fuckhead murderer in Montreal last week and now she nails the Pope situation to a T: Response to Pope shows hypocrisy Sep. 20, 2006. 01:00 AM ROSIE DIMANNO The Pope better eat his words or there'll be hell to pay. To refute the allegation and revenge the purported offence — linking the Prophet Muhammad to violence by quoting an obscure 14th-century Byzantine emperor — some righteous Muslims will ... get violent. More than a few already have, in attacks against at least seven churches in the West Bank and — though a direct link has not been confirmed — the shooting of a missionary nun in Somalia, slain outside the hospital where she worked only hours after a Somali cleric condemned the Pope's speech. Al Qaeda in Iraq is vowing war on "worshippers of the cross," and Italian media yesterday reported alleged Al Qaeda elements there have called for the pontiff to be punished according to Qur'anic law as they inflict it, which of course means death. Which means assassination. Which could very well mean targeting the Vatican. And if fanatics will blow up mosques, slaughtering fellow Muslims, they can hardly be expected to exercise restraint against the cradle of Catholicism. This does raise the question, even though Pope Benedict wasn't actually posing it. And only those in most vigorous denial would argue against this: that Islam, in the 21st century, is plagued by violence, at least to the extent that the faith is manipulated, co-opted and exploited by a Salafist strain that doesn't recognize any Islamic traditions after the time of the Prophet Muhammad and justifies terrorism against innocents. The Pope, in this Sept. 12 speech at the University of Regensburg — insofar as I can make sense of what was a dryly scholastic address — was musing on the "reasonableness of faith," largely chiding the West for its tendency to separate reason and faith. The reference to the Prophet was only peripheral, restricted to a quote from a historical text — an emperor in conversation with a Persian theologian, the conversation taking place during the siege of Constantinople, and in itself focusing on forced conversion. After the offending passage, Benedict added: "The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul ... "The decisive statement in this argument about violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature." At no point did Benedict concur with the emperor's inflammatory statement about the Prophet Muhammad. His error was not to make that crystal clear, but he was speaking to a room of academics, not thinking sound bites. He's tried to rectify that since, stating the emperor's views "do not in any way express my personal thoughts." A scholar, previously the big stick in the Vatican when it came to toeing the doctrinal line, Benedict cannot easily take cover under an I-was-misinterpreted/misunderstood defence. He was misinterpreted and he was misunderstood. But Benedict, though still a rookie pope, knows that words resonate and, further, he surely grasps that the malevolent, the wilfully incendiary, would be thrillingly provoked. Al Qaeda doesn't speak for Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt doesn't speak for Islam. Hamas doesn't speak for Islam. These are constituencies that have largely mutilated the faith, although they do have vast and spirited adherents, at whatever sorry place it is where religion and politics and lust for power transect. I do understand the hurt that was caused by the Pope's words, especially when taken out of context. Good Muslims believe themselves under siege. There is war aplenty in Muslim lands, although these are hardly nations that were sitting there innocently minding their own business, doing no harm. But there's an intellectual absurdity in pretending that what is isn't, that situating Islam somewhere on the landscape of Islamic jihad is dishonest, evil and part of some modern-day crusade against the faith when the "crusade," insofar as one exists, is arguably the other way 'round and repeatedly invoked by — stated bluntly — those orchestrating violent jihad via global terrorism. There's a moral vacuity in flagellating a pope for his selection of a pretty weird bit of ancient dialogue while ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room that is militant Islam. It is entirely true that most major religions are steeped in blood and, historically, the Catholic Church can match contemporary jihad brutality for brutality. But the Catholic Church has matured; it has acknowledged its wickedness and failures. It does not demand that the rest of the world cower before its might or threaten to blow up your stuff because of words or pictures, with a propensity toward hysteria over offence and grievance. This is madness, but it's emboldened and legitimized by those who aren't so very maddened, who are afforded respect and public platforms and scholarly regard. Sling all the mud you want at the Church, slander the pontiff, excoriate Christians and Jews and Hindus, but speak delicately, with cotton in your mouth, when the subject is Islam, however qualified those remarks, because the blow-back will crush you. The imbalance is staggering. So unlike, say, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who spews vitriol about Jews almost every time he opens his mouth, and got a real kick out of a state-approved cartoon exhibit in Tehran that ridiculed the Holocaust (some polemical dissemblers actually drew an equivalent between these images and the juvenile Danish cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad that unleashed rampaging fury months earlier) — there will likely be no invitation to speak at the United Nations for Pope Benedict any time soon. He has apologized, but apparently not with sufficient scraping. Might even get his invitation to visit Turkey in November revoked. And that threat comes not from radicals on the edges of militant Islamism but mainstream authorities urging a more muscular rebuke from their government. The government, while deploring the pontiff's remarks as "ugly," has thus far said there are no plans to call the trip off. Islam is a religion of peace. We're told this all the time. I mostly believe it to be true — insofar as any of the great monolithic religions can make a claim of universal peace — not just in theory but in practice for the overwhelming majority of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims. I know it to be true from the humbled and dignified observance of their faith by Muslims both in their mosques and in the entirety of their lives, in the muezzin's call to prayer, in how the pillars of Islam infuse everyday existence. But I have difficulty reconciling this Islam to the other, the one that rampages and bludgeons. And I am dismayed by piety that hardly blinks sideways at barbarism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.[color:green]

Slip article or no, I still like Exclaim!, warts and all. I have bigger beefs with the Toronto Star's Ben Rayner and some of those pricks at Now Magazine.

Will this mean a Douglas/Booche roadtrip? We just bought a brand new queen size sofa-bed for the guest room.

Rog's voice certainly has lost it's power, but Pete still can write and play like a mofo. The songs aren't too bad upon only one listen: http://testing.universalmotown.com/thewho/eblast/eblast.html

I think Toronto puts Ottawa and evey other big city in Canada to shame. Sure Torontonians seem to like the Argos right now, with attendance usually in the high 20 thousands, but that could and probably will change soon. The Marlies draw flies as did the St. Mike's Majors prompting their upcoming move to the burbs. The MLS soccer team will play to an empty but new stadium next summer - who can't see this coming? The minor league Maple Leafs ball team barely gets by at Christie Pitts and the admission is FREE. Oh yeah, the Jays attendance is pitiful and an embarrassment to the league, unless the Yankees or Red Sox are in town. As for Ottawa, the idiot Mendes (from a long line of on-air idiots working at Sportsnet) never mentions how great the support is for the 67's - playing to 10 thousand a night. He doesn't mention that the 67's play downtown - far easier to get to than the inconvenience of driving and/or busing to and from a Senators home game out in a field. Nor does he question why Baltimore moved its AAA Orioles to a province that traditionally supports the Jays - I do think one of the Jays affiliates could make a go of it in Ottawa. Get a good owner that makes good management decisions and the Rough Riders will find glory once again. Too bad Eugene Melnyk isn't interested in resurrecting the franchise. The CFL needs a guy like Melnyk. So does Ottawa.