Skip to main content

The Montreal Sound: The Suburbs

When I lived in Montreal, in the 80s and 90s, it was a semi-ruined place, with 20% unemployment - a paradise for slackers, grungy students, and layabout hipsters.  Littered with taverns, clubs, cafes, and other venues, everyone under the age of 40 who wasn't nailed down to a day job hung out and wrote movies, did spoken word, or was a dancer / musician.  My brother ran a record label.  I performed with rappers and hip-hop artists around midnight, and ran cabarets that showcased Martha and Rufus Wainwright before the acclaim. The best emcee in town was bizarro genius Jake, who wore underwear onstage and nothing else, showing off his gigantic toned skinhead body.  His lisping grandeur intro'd great young slam and other poets, including many who would go on to some sort of success.

It was a great time.  Local bands like The Kingpins and Me, Mom and Morgentaler (an infamous abortionist) rubbed shoulders with more critically-acclaimed concerns, like Godspeed You! Black Emperor.  Montreal was no stranger to excess or talent - it is the home of Lepage.  And Men Without Hats was huge (no joke) at some point.  Then came Arcade Fire.  I thought that 2004's Funeral was a great work - it captured the snowy urban feel of Quebec youth-life.  Their second was way too didactic and on-the-nose relevant, aiming at evangelism and environmental concerns like a late night cokehead or granola-head rant.  Now comes the "universally acclaimed" third album, a victory lap more than a musical event.  Compared to OK Computer, Sonic Youth, Talking Heads, and name-checked as an improvement on U2 and Depeche Mode, among others, it is hard not to balk at the urge to worship.

The British press seems to think it is an "American" album, because they don't know or imagine the Canadian suburbs, which are very similar to their Southern counterparts.  I grew up in the landscape mapped by this album.  I have trouble taking the lyrics of such a "masterpiece" too seriously, because I know a dozen younger Canadian poets who have written of such things better - indeed, my own pamphlet Suburban Sublunar was exploring this world 16 years ago.  What is apparent here is that the sonic stylings aim at transcendence - total shucks and ah - but who are they kidding?  In a world of Afghanistan, what are the suburbs to a billion Chinese people?  The grandeur here is comically misplaced, but grandiosity and bands are what rock is all about.  I confess to finding this work vaguely irritating.  I think it may be because I do not love Butler's voice.  It has a bit much of Bono's deadening sincerity.  I will have to let the hour-long thing sink in, and will no doubt change my mind.  For now I remain a reluctant convert - or rather, a  lapsed AF fan.  I think I'll go hang out at the other dep.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".