Anyone between the age of 25 and 30 remembers the first incarnation of the Manic Street Preachers. The "first incarnation" means the Richey James years, when the Manics were an exciting, confrontational band, not sweater-wearing AOR junk. Those very Manics released the 1991 single "Motorcycle Emptiness". It was almost instantly hailed as a classic. Perfect Smithsian melancholy. A depressing masterpiece. The song debunked the stereotypical rock and roll lifestyle. The fame, women, drugs, all of it collected into a single metaphor -- a motorcycle -- and passed off as meaningless and emotionally empty. Taking nothing away from the Manics, who composed an excellent single, but Yo La Tengo beat them to the punch when they released "Speeding Motorcycle" the year before, in 1990. And THAT was a cover version in itself -- a version of West Virginian singer/songwriter Daniel Johnston's 1983 tune. The two songs are almost identical in sentiment. Both songs take the motorcycle -- a symbol of speed and wild living -- and deglamourise it completely. The motorcycle may be fun but it is also extremely dangerous. The solution, somewhat predictably, is love life without taking unnecessary chances. Long time Manics fans are advised to seek out the "Motorcycle Emptiness"'s older brother.

The Great Napster Debate continues as the MP3-sharing program has received a reprieve and will stay active at least until the case comes to trial. The core issue -- consumers obtaining music without paying proceeds to the artists that made the recording -- is not new, as it's just a variation on the home taping "scare" of the 70's and '80's and the never-to-be-settled "problem" of bootlegging. Yes, MP3 files are digital recordings, which means they can be copied over and over without any loss in sound quality. Yes, it is not difficult to envision ALL music being traded digitally, because after all, it IS digital, so what's the point of spending $1.70 to get on the subway and physically bring myself to HMV if I can download the same product while sitting at home in front of my computer? This merely shows that copying MP3 files is easier and of better quality than the tried and true methods of home taping and bootlegging. However, the driving force behind all three is FREE PUBLICITY. Collectors have based an entire counterculture around tracking down hard-to-find concert bootlegs. Artists don't receive a cent for them, but bootlegs pad their fan base, spawn a cult of mythology around the artist and generally raise their profile amongst fans and critics alike. What's to complain about there? Similarly, home taping is a complete non-issue if NOBODY WANTS THE RECORD. Metallica might bitch and complain about kids downloading their albums for free, but they're only doing so because Metallica's music is in demand. Metallica must be doing SOMETHING right if so many people want their music. If people want their music, then they'll want to attend gigs, buy merchandise, etc.

On a different, but related topic, word-of-mouth popularity, or "coolness" if you will, correlates little with actual popularity, or "sales". Just because bootleg albums CAN be found, doesn't mean everybody WILL buy them instead of trekking to the closest music outlet. Just because my FRIEND bought the Britney Spears album doesn't mean I am going to tape it off her rather than buy my own copy. And just because I can sample tracks from the upcoming Madonna album using Napster doesn't mean I'll never buy that or any other Madonna CD. The Velvet Underground are one of the most namedropped bands ever. Musicians love them, critics purr over them and fans revere them. From all that has been written about them, you'd think the whole world must have heard their music by now. You'd think the band would be bathing in royalties. Surprise -- "The Velvet Underground and Nico" has sold in the neighbourhood of one million copies. Yeah, that's a lot of records, but it means that the VU are roughly 1/50th as popular as the Backstreet Boys.

Sometime this week, the Toronto city council will finally come to a decision regarding raves being held on city property. No matter what they decide, raves will still go down each and every weekend. They'll just move further underground, away from the Better Living Centre and back into basements and warehouses. Every Queen Street store will carry dozens of rave flyers and promoters will continue bust their asses to promote their parties no matter what a bunch of politicians have to say about it. If all this is true, then why should we care about the city council vote? The answer, Watson, is PRECISELY. Why should we care? When a DJ is spinning in the city, and you really want to hear that person, WHO CARES if it's on city property or in a promoter's backyard? Similarly, if a band I love plays in town, if I want to see them badly enough, the concert could be anywhere from Sneaky Dee's to Skydome -- I couldn't really care less.

The issue is drugs. Ravers want to do them. At the same time, they want raves to be safe. This requires responsible event security, which is assured on city property but a dicey issue on private property. However, a rave is only as safe as it's ravers. If there were no drugs present, then the need for security would not be as stringent and first aid concerns would also be at a minimum. With drugs comes the preventative babysitting -- from the security to search for them to the first aid personnel to care for the casualties. Thus, the push to continue to hold raves on city properly is (at least partly) based, albeit indirectly, on the want to have the city chaperone the parties, rather than the promoters. Then, if anybody dies from a drug overdose during a city-approved rave, guess who gets the blame? That's right, the net effect is a transfer of blame from the ravers and promoters to the city of Toronto.

I've read countless newspaper comments from people in the scene that read "Kids come to raves for the music, they don't come for the drugs. Raves are safe, and drugs are not widely used". But if this were true, then the impending city council vote would be anti-climatic -- a minor issue. But it is not, is it?