Zoilus by Carl Wilson

Let’s Check Under the Hood

May 26th, 2010

It’s been a couple of months now since the site shifted to its more laid-back posting schedule and made some format changes, so I thought I’d check in with you. In particular, I’m wondering whether Toronto readers have feedback, thoughts, complaints about the weekly show highlights over in the left margin - are they giving you information you can use, or do you wish they projected further into the future? Also, sorry I haven’t gotten around to putting content in the new “Recommendation” and “Projects” pages yet. It’ll come.

As well, wanted to let those who’ve been asking know that my new group blog with Chris Randle and Margaux Williamson, called Back to the World, is now scheduled to launch June 15. Much more to come about that.

Torontopia Blues: RIP Will Munro

May 25th, 2010

Inside the Solar Temple of the Cosmic Leather Daddy, Will Munro, 2010
Will Munro’s “Inside the Solar Temple of the Cosmic Leather Daddy,” 2010. Photo via No More Potlucks.

I’ve found it hard to know what to say about the death on Friday of the angelic Will Munro - artist, organizer, DJ, impresario and collaborator par excellence - of brain cancer at only 35. Will was easily one of the most significant creators of the cultural mood of the Toronto of the 2000s, to which this site has devoted so much energy and affection. But many other people were closer to him and can pay tribute more richly, as they do in this feature published today on the Eye Weekly site,, this appreciation by Benjamin Boles, and particularly in this post from another queer Toronto iconoclast-icon, Bruce LaBruce, on Torontoist. A celebration of Will’s life - and, I assume, an appropriately bitchin’ dance party - will take place on Wednesday night at the Gladstone. I’ll add only the words that I, along with scores of others, posted to Will’s Facebook wall in tribute:

Will, I was one of the many people in the cultural scene who didn’t know you well, but loved your effect on this city, and treasured your courage, your charisma, your ease, your imagination and above all your example of how to make positive change. Whenever I undertake a project you are one of the people I keep in mind as a model of how to approach it: to make the work at once open and welcoming, and challenging and thought-provoking. Whenever we did meet, you never failed to convey a sense of mutual recognition and common cause. It’s impossible to say how much you already have been missed and how much poorer we are that you will not be here, contributing to our cultural and social lives, in the years to come. We’ll all have to try harder, love stronger, think brighter, in your memory and your honour.

2010 is in the house:
Breaking Out Now, Ms. Monae,
We assume?

May 19th, 2010

Janelle Monae on Letterman last night, the day of the long-awaited release of The ArchAndroid, leading contender for album of the year. Check the totally James Brown finale and the quick Diddy victory lap at the end.

Flavorwire: The Dion Abides

May 12th, 2010

"You like me, you really like me..."
‘You like me, you really like me …’

Last week a poll came out suggesting that Celine Dion is still the most popular singer in America. Statistical skepticism aside, the idea that this could be remotely true came as a surprise to a lot of people. So, for obvious reasons, New York’s Flavorwire came knocking, seeking explanations. Here’s the unabridged version of our conversation.

FW: Are you surprised?

I’m not surprised, given how enormously popular Celine was in her heyday (which, going by the sales of her last couple of releases, has definitely passed): She was one of the biggest stars of the 1990s. That doesn’t just fade away in a decade. To make a comparison that’ll curdle some people’s blood, when I was a teenager in the 1980s, Led Zeppelin records from the early ‘70s were still the coolest thing. And the fact that she still tours, plays Vegas, puts out concert films, etc., helps perpetuate that. That’s how an entertainer cultivates Sinatra-esque longevity.

Her fame is also renewed regularly these days by American Idol, the largest mass musical phenomenon of the past decade, where Celine’s stood solidly in its pantheon of singers for young people to emulate, alongside Whitney & Mariah.

You can’t take an online poll as gospel in any case, but I have to admit I’m relieved to know that Celine won’t be irrelevant by the time the next edition of my book comes out.

Why has she remained so popular?

Celine occupies a niche in popular music that’s far from the sexiest, most intellectually stimulating or world-shaking. But it’s central, and it’s a job someone has to do. She makes the sentimental music that’s the soundtrack to courting, marrying and burying. It’s music for the wedding dance floor and the family-video montage.

At the same time, it’s music that reinforces and plays out central value conflicts in our culture: It’s got a constant eye on individual ambition, striving and success, in everything from its lyrical content to its production style and Celine’s vocal performance, and yet it is very attached, again both lyrically and melodically, to family and tradition.

In other words, it’s quintessentially middle-class music, with a stress on the feminine side. That’s the kiss of critical death, of course - it’s got neither global-slumming esoteric bohemianism nor virile proletarian machismo, so in post-1960s western Cool culture, it’s void of the marks of sophistication and distinction that count. But it’s the kind of music that, once it lodges in someone’s life, stays there, as part of that person’s story.

What does this say about American taste after all this time?

It’s not particularly an American story, in fact. Celine wasn’t born in the U.S. and she remains popular all over the world - likely even more so in places like Asia, the Middle East, Africa, the Caribbean. She represents somewhat different things in those places - no doubt she seems more glamorous to a listener in a developing country than she does to someone in Los Angeles - but she signifies.

It’s partly, too, that her own story is rags-to-riches, a fairy tale people want to emulate. In that sense her fame may be more like Oprah’s or a basketball star’s than that of, say, Mick Jagger.

But for Americans perhaps this poll is a welcome sign that there’s still some loyalty and longevity to people’s tastes. It’s not all instant disposability. Meanwhile if you’re waiting for the public at large to move on to a favorite that isn’t on at least some level cheesy and goofy, well, make sure you’ve packed plenty of lunches. Look at her main rival - Bono! Goofiness is the crack in a star’s aura that lets the fans’ love in.

(By the way, is no one else a little surprised that after Celine and U2, then Elvis & Beatles tied at #3, next comes Tim McGraw? That’s what we should be talking about.)

Will Celine Dion ever fall out of favor?

My suspicion is that in a generation, she’ll be remembered more vaguely, the way that Nat King Cole or Connie Francis is by younger people today - you might recognize a few songs but you don’t necessarily have a firm grip on who or what they were. The sentimental-song niche may turn on a longer cycle than that of the dance hit, but it’s still pop music, and it turns. Plus, not much of her repertoire is up to the level of the Great American Songbook era - Dianne Warren has her strengths, but she’s no Brill Building writer (I wish Celine had done more songs with Carole King), much less a Gershwin.

So there’ll be a fade. Whether it’s a fade to black, and how long that would take, I wouldn’t venture to guess.

To be of use

April 21st, 2010

The dust-up on Roger Ebert’s site about his statement that “video games can never be art” is bizarre - you really wonder why Ebert was driven to go out, blind, on this particular limb. (My favourite riposte so far came from Michael Kupperman on Twitter: ” ‘Art will never be art’ - a caveman.”) This is a topic that’s come up on Zoilus before, less as a “whether” than a “when” (though I managed to betray some of my own ignorance at the time).

But what’s intriguing about it is that Ebert, though he’s not consistent or clear about it, is making his argument, unattributed, via Kant: Anything that has an instrumental purpose - a use-value - isn’t art. It may convey beauty but it lacks the basic character of aesthetic autonomy. So a quilt isn’t art if it’s placed on a bed and a vase isn’t art if it contains anything, etc.

All this of course depends on the proposition that nothing can be at once art and not-art, in different contexts or even simultaneously. (Then again, lots of Kantian aesthetic propositions, as I discuss in my book, rest on taking things for granted that ain’t necessarily so.)

Yet the “use” that Ebert’s claiming disqualifies video games is simply the fact that you can score points and “win,” even though this fact’s largely internal to the video game’s own logic and isn’t exactly a real-world “use.” Easy to imagine an interactive art installation that you could “win” that foregrounded the absurdity of that win to any relevant definition of gain or advantage. But in any case what if you just took the scoring away? That (as some of Ebert’s commentators note) is what some experimental/indie/avant-etc game designers have already done, while others are using the scoring systems as creative elements in themselves.

In that case, though, all you need is a hypothetical: Would you’d play the game whether or not it had a scoring system? Then it’s still art even if it has a scoring system. Thus a scoring system isn’t determinant to being or not being art. (And when you think about it, that’s a lucky thing for galleries, reviewers, collectors, etc!)

Which brings us back to the modern definition of art that comes down to us from Marcel Duchamp on: It’s art if the artist says it is. (Maybe even if anyone else says it is.) It’s the enunciating act that provokes the whole apparatus of art into motion.

Whether it’s good art, the other question that Ebert seems to want to ask - he keeps confusing classification and quality - is up to everybody else. Including, sure, Roger Ebert, even if his calls are less perceptive in this arena than he usually is. Thing is, something’s compelling him to make them. And that may be the best defense of game-as-art of all.

TL;DR? Okay, two-word alternate clincher: Katamari Damacy.

Monday, Apr. 26: A significant footnote!

RIP Guru, RIP Devon Clifford (YSPWSD)

April 20th, 2010

I was planning to get my Pop Conference notes up today, but then left them on the computer at home, so - tomorrow. Meanwhile, what it says up there: tears and sympathies. This Guru story goes deep and gets messy; whichever way you read it, real and tragic complexities about hip-hop culture and culture in general are involved.

Gone Fishin’…

April 14th, 2010

… for stimulation, sociability and salmon dinners at the 2010 EMP Pop Conference in Seattle, where rock & pop writers, academics, musicians and intellectuals-at-large gather to trade notes and dodge the rain of defunct music publications, this year centering on “The Pop Machine: Music and Technology.” Since I’m not presenting a paper this time around, just chairing a panel, I’m hoping to update quite regularly on what I see & hear over the next four days on Zoilus, as well as on Twitter. (For that super-live version, follow me, @carlzoilus.)

See here for Zoilus coverage of past PopConfs.

‘The Rush joke is about
middle-class shame,
and it’s funny because
so many of us are in on it’

April 8th, 2010

rush2112

My essay on Chris McDonald’s new book on Rush, Dreaming in Middletown, is now live at the Literary Review of Canada. As a footnote, I notice that since I wrote the piece, McDonald has (sort of) addressed one of the issues I raise - the humour question, or perhaps, the unbearable lightness of being Rush - on his Middletown blog.

Had to happen

April 7th, 2010

Gaga-theory gathering place.

Three Easy Pieces from the Bureau of Good Housekeeping

April 5th, 2010

Thanks for your patience over my March break, everybody. That over, here are a few announcements:

One. Probably the most conspicuous to many local users will be the fact that the Gig Guide page is no longer being updated, and soon will vanish. Zoilus picks for Toronto live shows will continue to appear over in the left margin, hopefully updated at least weekly and looking at least a week or two ahead. (Maybe further in the case of particularly exciting and likely-to-sell-out events.) Please continue to send listings our way!

Two. The Links page, which is massively out-of-date, will disappear too; the “latest links” element in the left margin should get more active.

Three. As both those points suggest, Zoilus.com is shape-shifting: It will still be home to any more Toronto-focused notes I have to make; it will still keep you updated on what I’m publishing, or events I’m doing (that will probably be a larger portion of things, in fact); reflections on criticism and comments on currently raging blogosphere controversies will probably appear here (though they are also likely to pop up in more shorthanded form on Twitter, Facebook, etc.) But broader music-and-culture-related thoughts or comments on particular songs, records, films, etc., will soon begin appearing on a new, as-yet-unnamed group blog to launch sometime in the next month, with collaborators Margaux Williamson and Chris Randle. Much more about that site in the near future. Meanwhile, thank you for reading for however long you’ve been reading, and hope to keep in touch with you as my online life gets a little makeover for the new decade.


This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.