I don't review gigs on these pages (although I do plan to make an exception for next weekend's MUTEK festival in Montreal) but Mogwai and Bardo Pond are touring together. If you haven't bought a ticket yet, drop everything and do so NOW. They played here last night and it may be the best show I've ever seen. Bardo Pond's set alone was the best gig of the year. They were loud and fucking INTENSE. If I'd gone home then, I'd have had a smile on my face for the rest of the week. I was already deaf by the time Mogwai took the stage. Their set easily smoked the three previous times I'd seen them. The new songs were in full effect, and were played at 100 000 times the volume that they appear on the record (why they didn't record it like that, who knows). You've never heard such melodious noise.

Yesterday, I was flipping through the latest issue of Maxim, and I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that, but I digress. I'm a sucker for "Top ___ of ____" lists, so I was curious to see the contents of their "1001 Sexist Women Ever" list. Of course, the existence (or proposal of the existence) of such a list is beyond preposterous. A real Top ___ Ever list should based on statistical methods (not flippant opinions) at least in some sense. Stated differently, trends should develop over time, with certain items settling into some sort of local minimum or maximum of the chart. A list of the greatest albums ever shouldn't, as of this week, contain seven REM records in its top ten just because they played a free show here in Toronto last week. Just because everyone's got a warm and fuzzy feeling in their bellies over REM doesn't mean they deserve to ride their hot streak into a Best of All Time List. Similarly, any list appearing in Maxim involving female celebrities is going to give precedence to the latest piece of hot T&A, with the odd Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe thrown in to make it look like someone actually did a bit of research. In twelve months, half the women in the top 50, say, wouldn't be there (if they did the list again).

A THOUSAND women. I couldn't even name two hundred women, let alone a thousand sexy ones. Half of them are easily replaceable in a year's time by newer, fresher T&A willing to bare their nipples through a see-through top in Maxim's glossy pages. Just think about this. What does it all mean? That's right, sexy women are EVERYWHERE. New ones are becoming pseudo-celebrities by the day. I can go out to any club on any night in the city of Toronto and see five gorgeous women that are sexier than the average woman on Maxim's list. I recalled Roger Ebert's comment on the Spice Girls, which stated, in essence, that they are no more beautiful than any random five young girls standing in line at a Dunkin Donuts. Ebert completely missed the point -- his dislike of the Spiceworld movie aside -- because the Spice Girls never claimed to be the sexiest women on the planet. But it's funny how superstardom leads to female celebrities being scrutinized as such. For every man or woman who pants over Ali Landry or Gisele Bunschen, there's an equal number who resent them because "they're not THAT pretty". So was the Spice Girls success just a massive fluke? Could any idiot have randomly picked five girls off the street and made them into superstars?

Would Titanic have been the same without Kate Winslett? If Kate Beckinsdale had played the part, would it have mattered?

Pick your favourite rock band. Suppose some random guy had played the bass instead of whoever they actually had. Would the band REALLY have turned out much different?

I was at the Autechre show yesterday. Techno shows aren't what they used to be. In the old days, you had to show up to a rave at 2 AM to see Orbital or Autechre. Now their concerts get announced in mainstream papers for mainstream venues. Thus, people get fooled into thinking that the music is now mainstream. In the old days, it would be me and a bunch of neon bracelet-wearing powder-sniffers watching Autechre. Now you get goths and Queen Street pop kids and old people wearing collared shirts. I'm not sure what I enjoyed more: the gig, or the looks of confusion and bewilderment from this motley crue as Autechre played an hours' worth of stuttering beats and electronic noise. People had no idea what to do and there were all these horrified faces with "but we can't dance to this, waaahhh" looks. Many people simply left.

I have received more feedback about my anti-Radiohead diatribes than anything else that I have written. I don't mind being known as "the guy who hates Radiohead", but I would prefer to be known for bands that I have championed. You take what you can get, but I wouldn't mind the title of "the guy who wouldn't leave My Bloody Valentine well enough alone" being bestowed upon me. Plus, I don't actually HATE Radiohead, as I explained on 04/01/01.

Nonetheless, I am not the most, um, appropriate candidate for previewing their new album "Amnesiac". And yet, that's what the world is about to get, because I was "privileged" to be treated to about six tracks from the advance copy at Sam's at Yonge&Dundas. With the exception of a Satan-awful jazz track, "Amnesiac" is extremely listenable. As we all know, "Kid A" is meandering electronic junk. "Amnesiac" features the same liberal electronic use, but it throbs and glows like the most ambient bits of Broadcast and Stereolab. It clicks and purrs not unlike Pole or Autechre would. Thom Yorke's voice is far back in the mix, and it's barely noticeable, drifting above each track like an afterthought. The key difference is that rather than using electronics for electronics sake, they're using the technology for creating a bristling, glowing, wall of noise.

Still, for an almost identical feel, with superior haunting melody to boot, I'd recommend Yo La Tengo's "Danelectro e.p." any day of the week.