Boards of Canada: "Tomorrow's Harvest." A Soundtrack without a movie.

Like any other Boards of Canada fan, I've eagerly awaited this album for years, checking the internet regularly for any remours concerning the release of this long-anticipated album. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the album did not come out in my part of Canada until a week later. This afforded me the opportunity to check the reviews of the album, and prepare myself.

All I heard of the album so far was "Reach for the Dead." Though it possessed some beautiful moments, it
certainly was a far-less compelling foretaste of the album than I could have hoped for. It certainly paled in memory of most older BoC tracks. Reading through the reviews online I could find that there were indeed a fair number of people unimpressed with the whole album at large. They were a minority opinion (indeed, a significant minority), but I was more inclined to believe them.

Why? For starters, BoC possesses a fan base among whose members comprise people that in many ways best represent the concept of "Religion of Brand;" they are Religious fanatics in the most modern sense. They dissect every track in a manner befitting a medieval scholastic; they're anticipation of this new album, as alluded to elsewhere, was akin to the second coming of Christ (or third, if you've actually read the New Testament; or fourth, if you're a mormon). Their defence of Tomorrow's Harvest on sites such as amazon.com almost makes a pace of Monty Python, "every song is sacred," more than an apt joke. I must admit I've indulged in some of this behaviour myself.

Accordingly, once I purchased the album, I was more sceptical of it than any album I had bought in recent memory.

Listening to it initially, I could only feel reminded of Vangelis' "L'apocalypse des animeaux," which is unusual, since I can't consciously remember anything of that album. That album was certainly not Vangelis' best work, and all I could feel was that this would not be BoC's best work, either. Indeed, the feeling that dominated me throughout the listening was that "Tomorrow's Harvest" simultaneously sounded more modern than previous albums, and yet more dated.

While "L'apocalypse des animeaux" is an actual movie soundtrack from the early 1970's, Tomorrow's Harvest definitely sounds like the soundtrack to an unreleased movie, completed a range going from the made to the unfinished to the unmade in my record collection (the middle being the Uncle Meat soundtrack). A number of the pieces work, if only taken in the vein of a soundtrack; and indeed mixed with the artwork one does receive a sense of the apocalyptic. Having said that, being a good soundtrack doesn't make it a good album.

As other reviewers have pointed out, many of the tracks do not elicit an emotional response. There are tracks that do, which I have listed below in my standouts. That emotional response, ultimately, is nostalgia, which is not necessarily a good thing. BoC has always succeeded by tapping into nostalgia, but that was nostalgia of popular culture from bygone days. The best offerings from Tomorrow's Harvest are nostalgia for Boards of Canada.

Having said that, it is still not a bad album. The tracks that are good are really good, while the theme of the album is strong, and compensates for the weakness of individual tracks (like a real album should). It may not be the place to start listening to BoC (in my opinion that honour falls to Geogaddi), but it is still respectable.

Now, having written all this, I just want to posit and hypothesis. That hypothesis is this: BoC's fanbase has actually dampered the creativity of Boards of Canada. How so? There is a saying I will now poorly restate, that brilliance is a product of strife. Another is that necessity is the mother of invention. Boards of Canada were able to produce wonderful, innovative albums in a relatively short time when they were young and insecure. Having gained security, they were able to retreat even further out of the limelight. Few bands can say that their fanbase has grown over their years of inactivity (My Bloody Valentine, perhaps?) and it is because of this that they could go on for almost a decade doing relatively little. I believe that were their fans less fanatical, they might have been compelled to do something sooner, and it would have probably been better.

Standouts: Sick Times, Split Your Infinities, Nothing is Real, Sundown, New Seeds

MP Rathgeber's Resignation

Today, formerly Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber resigned from that party's caucus. The stated reason was a protest against the government's “lack of commitment to transparency and open government.” This is an issue he attempted to remedy, by proposing a private member's bill, which unfortunately did not survive unscathed its meeting with the aforementioned caucus.

This makes for a rare week for me - a week where I agree with the Conservatives twice. However, the first, was with the government line (over arming Syrian rebels). The second is my agreement with a conservative man, in opposition to that party. I do not agree with everything that MP Rathgeber believes, but I acknowledge that his resignation is both bold and principled. We sometimes think rather cynically of the motives of our elected representatives. By appearances, his motives and actions are not merely acceptable by worthy of congratulation. Members of all parties claim to be people of principle, and he stood on his principles.

Having said that, the reaction of the party is petty and juvenile, and symbolic of the issues with our democracy. They responded to his resignation by stating “The people of Edmonton-St. Albert elected a Conservative Member of Parliament. Mr. Rathgeber should resign and run in a by-election.” While the first contention is very likely true, it is also irrelevant to the second point. I know many of you are agreeing with the Conservative Party line. You probably think it is democratic - if his riding agrees with him, they will re-elect him. In reality it is the opposite of democracy - it is populism.

For, in our more democratic past (and the democratic presents of many of our cousins internationally), it is not considered a mortal sin to go against the party line. Members can come and go from one side of parliament to the next as it suits them. They are not considered traitors. They are not considered replaceable. Indeed, Winston Churchill did this very thing himself, sitting as the Liberal for many years, before rejoining the Conservative Party. For what would be considered in contemporary Canada an unforgivable travesty, Sir Winston was only Prime Minister twice.

By threatening MP Rathgeber the Conservatives are re-asserting an old line: that you cannot go against our party, and that you are replaceable. It must be said that politically they haven't much to lose: they've already lost an MP, while the opposition has gained (it doesn't matter that he could vote for the Conservatives on every occasion) - but if he agrees to a by-election, he will be removed from Parliament for a matter of months, and once the byelection occurs, then it is very likely the Conservatives will win, as we are talking of Alberta, unless Calgary-Centre was not a fluke. Accordingly, the Conservatives will suffer no further damage, while their apparent opponents will.

However, what this issue is about is control. I believe that we all believe that people should be able to vote with their conscience, even if they are in parliament. I feel, and I'm sure that there are others, who agree with me that the Canadian overuse on the "party whip" is abhorent. If you support the Conservative Party's call for a byelection, and share those convictions with me, you are, hopefully unconsciously, betraying them. For, we are presenting them with an ultimatum: if you stand by your conscience, you should be immediately dismissed from Parliament. Such is the consequence of resigning from parliament. It may only be temporary, but in all likelihood, it is permanent. The Party believes it can replace them with someone less independent.

I must now ask three questions: first, are the Constituents of Edmonton-St. Albert served after MP Rathgeber resigns? Second, who will represent them better? The current MP, or his likely successor? Though it will betray my bias, I have to qualify that likely successor as in all likelihood a subservient party lapdog. Finally, what are Members of Parliament elected to do? Is it a) Represent their constituents or b) Support the Party that funded their campaign?

Rathgeber has stood by his principles in resigning from the caucus. He has followed age old precedent, a practice which has unfortunately been exterminated in this country. There is no law that says that he now must resign from Parliament. He can represent his constituents as ably as an independent as a Conservative, and that is all that matters. Were the Conservatives more principled they would not threaten to destroy his career, but respect his action, respect his principles, and invite him to return to their caucus, as his action was so admirable and worthy of one of their party members. Indeed example should be applauded, and if necessary, repeated. However, I would wish it were not necessary. We Canadians need to put away the whips, and the sooner the better.

P.S. For fun, think about past regimes where loyalty to the party came ahead of loyalty to the people! Multiple points for multiple answers!