For those of you out there who don't know (or don't care) the Winter Olympics are coming to Vancouver next year. They don't come cheap. Toronto, where I live, has tried on a number of occasions to be the host city and will no doubt try again. I takes cojones to be a dissenting voice against the numerous corporate and national interests stacked up in the cheerleading chorus so I was interested to read a piece in the Globe and Mail newspaper mentioning Vancouver based musician/songwriter, Matthew Good's, refusal to be involved in any of the games ceremonies. He questions the priorities involved in spending that kind of money in that way on that event. Much as that city is topographically beautiful it also, like any other city of 2 million, has it's areas that need help and issues that need attending to. I tend to agree that spending money on the Olympics might not be the best way of supporting the arts or the more vulnerable communities in the city. Does anyone believe in trickle down effect anymore? I thought the Thatcher/Mulroney/Reagan years were long gone?

Matthew's stand got me thinking I should listen to some of his new work. He has a new album out called, ironically, 'Vancouver'. After a quick listen to the previews I bought it on iTunes. I hate making these kind of comments but I feel motivated nevertheless to say that this is the best and deepest collection of atmospheric rock I've heard in a long, long time - Canadian or not, and let's face it there has been some high quality work coming out of these shores lately. Have a listen. I find it to be a beautiful and searching piece of work.

The Matthew Good site

I've added another four charts to the transcriptions page.
Cut Me Down, Patience, Sentimental Fool and Speedboat.

Trigger Happy, Why I Love Country Music and Perfect Blue chords added to the Transcriptions page

Came across a great piece online after doing a bit of Gang of Four revision. Considering the current global political situation it does surprise me that in song writing escapism seems to rule. I've never agreed that rock 'n' roll and politics don't mix - a list of 'political' songs that work both as great music and polemic would go on and on and on......

Jon King of Gang of Four says.....

...... "The limits are only ever self imposed . I've always thought that the most powerful word you can say is 'no', but there seems to be an incredible reluctance to rock the boat now. For a lot of indie or so called left field music, the radicalism is often only in being either obscure or loud or both: loudness being a cheap signifier for rebellion and obscurity for being interesting or mysterious, like wearing sunglasses at nighttime. But loudness and pretentious cleverness can't be the point. We live in a fucked-up world where we internalise everything, thinking it's all about ourselves, and the world becomes a mad parade. We censor ourselves or get self righteous about peripheral issues because it's convenient to do so and we can let ourselves off the big lies we sleep with every night. For example, it's incredible how almost no musicians will take on a big subject like the Iraq War, whereas, during the Vietnam War era, all of pop, even people like Kenny Rodgers with his great - Ruby, Don't Take Your Love To Town - alongside Edwin Starr and Marvin Gaye and The Byrds etc - would have a view. Rock and pop don't get engaged in that way today. Gang Of Four songs like I Love A Man In Uniform, which was banned by the BBC during the Falklands conflict, or Ether work because they move people on a physical and musical and mental level. And they're funny, too. That is, if you like laughing."

The entire article is HERE just expand the bio link.