A couple of days ago Frog Eyes frontman/Swan Lake member Carey Mercer sent us a link to an article in the Edmonton Journal that discussed a clause in the contracts signed by performers at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics that barred them from speaking negatively about the Games or the Olympic organizing committee. Since this gag order impacts a number of musicians, and Carey is a Vancouver-based musician who didn’t sign the dialogue-crushing contract, we asked him to write a guest blog about the situation.
“The artist shall at all times refrain from making any negative or derogatory remarks respecting VANOC (the organizing committee), the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Olympic movement generally, Bell and/or other sponsors associated with VANOC.”
VANOC is the Vancouver Olympic Committee. No one, including our courts, can figure out if it is a public or private entity. It seems to be public when it needs tax dollars (6 billion), but private whenever it is challenged: challenged by the usual alliance of Beat-niks; Peace-niks; Alternative Media Types; First Nations (particularly pissed on by the Olympic Experience), and any other social group that questions the use of 6 billion tax dollars to build Bob-Sledding tracks, etc., instead of focusing these resources on more pressing social issues. For example: Vancouver has the most condensed area of homelessness and addiction in Canada (hear: any Vancouver musician’s ubiquitous and repetitive references to Hastings Street/”Downtown East Side”).
But this is a music blog, right? So why am I blathering on about bob-sledding and homeless dudes, and not telling you about Vampire Weekend’s apartment?
The Olympics always has a “cultural component,” a cultural Olympiad, and this year, to quote their puke-in-my-mouth inducing website, they have made a back-patting hullabaloo about including “cutting edge indie rock.” And each and every “cutting edge” performer that has agreed to play has signed a contract that includes the above clause. A clause that states, in case you skimmed over it, that these artists must never say anything negative about an entity that will spend 900 million dollars on “security.” An entity that has already infuriated anti-poverty and anti-homeless groups who accuse VANOC of not living up to its promise of providing affordable housing.
Most participating artists claim to be unaware of this clause. Some names you might be familiar with:
- Feist
- Malajube
- Rural Alberta Advantage
- Laurie Anderson
- Steve Earle
- Chromeo
- Something called “Hal Willner’s Neil Young Project”*
There are more acts, but this is enough information.
Why censor?
Does VANOC think Feist is going to unfurl a massive canvas portrait of the Anarchist prince Kropotkin, inciting a cop-car-smashing riot, the likes of which Vancouver has not seen since Axl Rose cancelled his 2002 concert? Would she play her smash-the-state anthem “Down with the Olympics, Class War Now, Eat The Rich,” while the streets run red with revolutionary blood?
No. It is likely that if she said anything to the tune of “maybe we could have spent this six billion dollars of some housing for all of these lost souls that have no where to go,” the majority of Olympiad-goers would bite into their hot-dog, agree half-heartedly, and then start thinking about how excited they are for tomorrow’s bob-sledding event.
Also: I like Feist. Every time I go to Zellers I hear her song. It reminds me of going to the store to buy batteries, but instead buying licorice.
I like lots of these artists. The idea of this article is not to trot out the old tired binary of punks vs sell-outs. The idea of this article is not to question why these artists were ever aligned with the Olympics in the first place. They should speak for themselves — except they can’t. (Though I must admit I was perplexed and saddened when I saw Steve “The Wire” Earle slated to perform.)
I feel bad for these musicians. They’ve unwittingly gagged themselves. I think they would speak out against this treatment, if they had not unwittingly signed a contract that legally forbids them to do so. I choose to believe that they were unaware of this clause. This is the season for charity.
I don’t feel bad for VANOC. I can’t fathom why they would have included this clause. Are these people who have absolutely no sense of history? I think so. And by history, I mean: that chilling legacy, wherein totalitarian states silence and dictate the output of artists. Nice company you keep, VANOC! Or: to paraphrase David Eby from the BC Civil Liberties Association, speaking on Q, a national radio program: Propaganda.
When artists are not allowed to critique their government, or the governing agency that endows them with grants and funding, then what they are asking for is nothing more than propaganda. Propaganda, for some reason, rankles that sensitivity towards freedom of expression that seems to be hard-wired into our culture. It’s kind of immaterial though: neither propaganda, nor deeply subversive art won’t stop us from, in the foreseeable future, cracking a can of cola/Pabst while loading up our cool, individualized playlists that reflect our life-style identification. Sorry: I just ralphed in my mouth again.
So I do not feel bad for VANOC. The bob-sled is in their proverbial bob-sled track. They can respond to the mounting criticism of this clause by publicly removing this inane restriction, or they can remain mute, high up in their glass towers, silently and joylessly holding their contracts to their chests, secure in the knowledge that they suckered a few independent bands to sign a piece of paper that insures that these aforementioned bands cannot criticize their gala event — an event so imminently meaningful and central to our collective notion of “the world” that it contains, at its core, a ritual where grown men and women dressed in full-body spandex hurtle down an icy downhill track strapped to an ice-sled.
* Editor’s Note: Hal Willner’s project is a night (1/18) of Neil Young covers performed by Broken Social Scene, Iron & Wine, Sun Kil Moon, Ron Sexsmith, and Joan As Police Woman. The night before, Feist plays a one-off at the Orphem. Billboard reports that a pre-teen Leslie “performed as a dancer in the opening ceremonies for the 1988 Calgary Winter Games.”
You Might Also Like
 Blackout Beach – “Beautiful Burning Desire” (Stereogum… |  Download Bon Iver’s 10 Best Cover Songs |  The 20 Most Overlooked LPs Of 2010 |  The 5 Best Videos Of The Week |
 |
 |
The world isn’t a perfect place, unfortunately.
Have you stopped driving your car to help the environment or have you helped out at your local daily food band during tough times? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Please let the group know what you have done to make the world a better place for all of us, since you’re so perfect, you know, being an artist entitles you to being perfect doesn’t it? Get off your high horse. Everyone is guilty for fuck sakes.
It’s people like you who dismiss anyone’s attempt to give their opinion who are the problem. It’s so easy to label anything as self-righteous, but it’s just opinions?we all have them and they shouldn’t be suppressed. (also, if you think about it, your comment is just as self-righteous?and so is this one I suppose)
If you believe that everyone’s entitled to their opinion, you must also believe that we’re entitled to an opinion on their opinion. All else is hypocrisy.
I appreciate a good militant stance myself, and yes the IOC and local Olympic committees exert a bit too much control in general for my liking, but VANOC hardly has done anything unusual. Also, the op/ed here is too unfocused and makes a very common contract clause a war cry.
My guess is that Feist can say what she likes about Steven Harper’s haircut at the opening ceremonies and VANOC won’t care a whit.
Mountain, meet molehill.
Oh come on, stop being a dick.
Whats that? The Marshmallow man?…Dumbest looking mascot I’ve ever seen…
Well, congratulations for dismissing one of the most recognizable symbols of an ancient indigenous culture via a Ghostbusters reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inukshuk
aaaand can of worms.
Let’s all resign to living in shit since we can’t change anything. Good call.
The marshmallow man is an Inukshuk.
What he said.
The problem isnt what is and isnt being done by who, the problem is censorship and a strict willingness to violate the right of any person who has the right to criticize any organization for the practices and policies that they set. off course the story of Amy Goodman being interrogated at the border on her motives to criticize the Olympics is just the first major instance, artist, reporters, who is next?
I love the fact that I can actually read about something local on stereogum
carolyn is that you!?? its jordan! im lost near the bottom of the page!!!! whats everyone doing down here!??? im looking for the internet MP3s!!
Who cares about the winter olympics anyway, they are a total borefest compared to summer olympics.
Here are my two problems with this article:
1. I assume that these artists knowingly signed this contract with full awareness of all clauses therein. If they didn’t, then they can be accused of recklessness or stupidity or both. Therefore, it seems weird to portray them as being “suckered” or as victims. Heck – if this clause is so objectionable, shouldn’t the onus be put on the person/artist who consents to it?
2. Why is it the responsibility of the Olympic Committee to provide affordable housing for homeless people in Vancouver? I assume that the six billion dollars invested in the Olympic Spectacle is based on some sort of return-on-investment scheme that some economist plotted out. It just seems like a big logical leap to suggest that money designated for the Olympics should be used for civic purposes instead and that because artists performing at the Olympics cannot criticize the Olympic Committee that they are somehow…what?…unable to express their hatred of homelessness, or of the government’s larger refusal to divert funds that could help fight drug addiction?
Actually, the article is handing these artists the benefit of the doubt but still holds a certain level of responsibility to read the contract before signing your principles away, a mistake you wouldn’t think Steve Earl would make given his reputation.
And yes, believe it or not the Olympic committee is responsible for SOME urban reform, including moving homeless people off the streets (as best they can anyway). Part of the reason they receive a ridiculous amount of tax money is to help beautify and tourist proof the host city, something a country has to prove they will be able to accomplish when they bid for the games in the first place. The fact that these dollars are not being spent the way tax payers were promised they would is a tad bit frustrating. No, it’s infuriating!
Right on, SG. Thanks for answering some of my questions.
To me, what you’re saying seems to assume that these artists didn’t knowingly sign the contract (“signing their principles away”) – what if their “principles” are simply consonant with the clauses therein? In any case, I think it’s pretty clear that the article principally attacks the creators of the contract and not those who consented to it. The thing is titled, “How the Vancouver Olympics are Fucking Over Your Favorite Artists” and not “How Your Favorite Artists and the Olympics Are Fucking Over Vancouver.” There’s a clear sense of artists-as-victims here.
Also: Is “beautifying and tourist proofing” the city the same as urban reform? To me it seems like a “beautification” scheme mostly for “tourists” for a fleeting event like Winter Olympics is a superficial solution for deeply-rooted civic problems. It just doesn’t seem like the same thing as “building affordable housing,” like the article suggests. But then again, did the Olympic committee promise to do this?
I completely agree with you Joe. I don’t agree with this organization and I think this clause is really fucking shady. I do. But do I feel bad for Feist because she gladly took money from a shady organization without even bothering to read over the basic elements of the contract and it happens to restrict some of the things she can do? Fuck no. Here’s a good rule of thumb. If you want to speak out against harmful organizations/government entities, don’t take their money and sign a contract that essentially makes you spokespersons for their organization. Because it’s hard to make money off the very thing you claim to hate.
The article talks about the fact that this turns artists into propaganda machines. Umm, isn’t that the whole point of selling your music for commercials? Isn’t that what commercials are? Listen, I get it. Artists don’t make enough money and I have no problem with them doing whatever they can to make ends meet. But when Phoenix’s “1901″ plays during Cadillac commercials, it’s not playing to inspire you to help the homeless or give blood, it’s playing to inspire you to buy a Cadillac. That’s why Cadillac pays Phoenix for it. That’s what propaganda is: trying to convince the person watching to do whatever is in the best interest of the group providing the propaganda. That’s all well and good, because I’m pretty positive Phoenix is fine with that (and so am I), but if Phoenix suddenly came out and complained about what a terrible company Cadillac was, my first instinct wouldn’t be “Oh you poor victims, how could they do this to you?”, it would be “If you knew they were this bad, why did you take their money?”
Even if this clause wasn’t in there, the music of these artists is still playing you inspire you to “join the side” of the Vancouver Olympics, an organization that doesn’t seem to have its people’s interest at heart and the very problem here is nothing surprising or new (it was the same reason so many in Chicago hated Barack Obama for campaigning to bring the Olympics there). That IS what they signed up for. Again, I don’t think this is right and I think this organization should be ashamed of itself. But these artists deserve far more blame than sympathy and claiming that the artists are the real victims here is ridiculous.
Yeah, this blog’s about music and the music biz. Contracts are – alas – part of the biz, because – again, alas – yiou can’t trust a lot of people to keep their word, particularly when there’s a huge heap of cash at stake. In this instance, it’s money, basic rights AND personal integrity; the latter two of which, VANOC knows not.
This article is about contracts and it was part of VANOC’s contract for the Olympics to provide several hundred affordable-housing units. Lo and behold, they didn’t. When you look at who the members of VANOC are you will find an extraordinary number of property developers and their ilk. So the fact that when funding choices between more glitz to impress potential investors vs buuilding what they were contractually obliged to, guess which came out second? Hopefully, the likes of Feist, Laurie Anderson, Steve Earle, et al will feel as obliged to keep to the contract as VANOC has.
I don’t know how much pull the winter Olympics has but considering how the 1996 Olympics revitalized Atlanta, it isn’t hard to understand the rationale for putting money toward the games rather than housing since it could potentially benefit a wider circle of people in the long haul.
But I’m having trouble understanding what the big deal is. The only thing these bands are being asked is to not bite the hand that feeds them. I would think if they disagreed with the principles of Vancouver, they would show it by opting out of performing. When one of these bands is actually denied their paycheck after voicing their opinion, then I’ll care.
I believe that the Olympic Village is traditionally turned into affordable housing.
That is not entirely true. Due to the location of the housing, it will not be cheap. They certainly wouldn’t let the homeless of Vancouver inhabit them when they can sell them.
The so-called “athlete’s village” is already on the market. It’s high-end real estate in a desirable location. It is NOT being turned into social housing. It is commercial real estate being sold for a profit.
I live in Vancouver & I’ve spent the better part of the last week looking at flights out of town during the Olympics. Anyone in San Fran know any good places to stay?
because you like to see homelessness and drug addiction?
If you can’t understand the ramifications of this situation and/or why people have a problem with it, then you seriously need to go back to ninth-grade English class and re-read Fahrenheit 411. The author’s point, at least as I understand it, is that the VANOC has essentially preemptively censored government-subsidized artists (being as VANOC is heavily funded by the Canadian government). I don’t care whether the musicians, or anyone else who signed off on the contracts in question for that matter, did so willingly or not – the fact that such a clause even exists should be cause for concern.
Lily, most corporations have similar privacy clauses that are designed to protect their interests. If you’re working in public relations, or managment, or marketing, or philanthropy, etc. and you make adverse public statements about your parent company, there are almost always contractual repercussions. A crude example: Rasheed Wallace was recently fined $35,000 for criticizing NBA referrees in an interview shortly after a basketball game. Wowza, contractual censorship at work! Should we pass out copies of Farenheit 451 (I think Farenheit 411 is about burning directory assistance?) to the audience at NBA games?
Apples and oranges, man. Yes, I’m well aware that such clauses are commonplace in private organizations. And going by your example, yes, the NBA had every right to penalize Mr. Wallace if he violated his contract with them. However, the NBA is, as you pointed out, a private organization. Though VANOC seems to be a private organization in practice, like most Olympic organization committees they have requested and received quite a bit of money from their government – and that’s why I have a problem with what they’re doing. I don’t see how a statement like “the artist shall refrain from making any negative or derogatory comments toward the Olympic movement generally” written into contracts by a government-subsidized organization ISN’T disturbing (especially considering that “the Olympic movement generally” encompasses not only VANOC but Canada itself). As far as I’m concerned, a government-funded organization writing gag orders into its contracts is government-sponsored censorship, period.
Fahrenheit 411? LOL
i have a good idea for an olympics protest. we all go out and gear up in the lamest VANOC gear we can find. a big group of like 50 of us. THEN we go out into the center of olympic events (obviously this is DURING the olympics) and just start cursing, spitting, fucking, doing drugs, shitting in the street. but the whole time we’re smiling and promoting the olympics. we’ll have signs that say, “hoorah for the olympics!” , “VANOC is kinder than Christ!” , “2010 made this city!” and “Go Olympics GO!”. Is there anything in their stupid fucking contracts or by-laws about irony?
FROG EYES FUCKING RULES! And Sadly should shut the fuck up.
Hi all, I am happy to see some dialogue here!
The 6 billion figure doesn’t actually represent the total estimated cost of the games. This is just the amount of tax dollars that the government will inject into this event. The total amount is estimated at around 12 billion dollars, according to the Trotsky-Leninist website 2010watch.com A large portion of the rest of that 12 billion comes from corporate sponsors.
Given that money isn’t infinite, it stands to reason that this 6 billion figure is drawn from all kinds of sources. It is up to you to draw a causal link between this tax-gash, and the subsequent slashing of the following public services:
-homeless and women shelters (read David Eby’s open letter to the Olympic organizers on their absolute failure to live up to their promise to provide social housing)
-arts funding (this is ironic given all of the back-patting over the cultural olympiad).
-public school sports events (the funding here for tournaments, etc, was totally eliminated. Is this ironic that it was done the same year as the olympics?)
-education (special education slashed, operating costs slashed, etc.)
I haven’t even addressed the heavy-handed and likely unconstitutional policing tactics being employed in our festive province in the name of “security”.
The Olympic Committee actually is responsible for providing affordable housing. This was one of the promises made to the city of Vancouver, a city that actually had to vote on whether or not to host the games. The outcome of the vote was a response to many of these promises.
Thus, it is my assertion that having a 6 billion tax-dollar elite party, while the rest of the locale and its poverty-line inhabitants shiver and watch their schools and their social programs wither, is sick and medieval.
And for an artist to not to be able to draw this causal link, whether or not they are participating in the cultural olympiad, is very wrong. I do agree that it is a bit reckless to have signed any olympic contract without a fine-toothed comb, but maybe these artists’ fatal flaw was trusting that, in a “free and democratic society”, any public corporation would not attempt this kind of pre-emptive restricting of expression. I am not sure if the artists can actually respond here, given the clause.
And lastly: David Eby makes a very important distinction here about “not biting the hand that feeds you.” If Coca-Cola asks me to produce a jingle for them, and my lyrics contain a line like “Coca-Cola is actually the blood of the oppressed workers, so drink up, you first-world pigs”, then it will probably be rejected and I will be asked to return my money, right?
But VANOC is not a private corporation, it is funded by tax dollars, and they haven’t asked for a specific commission. They’ve asked vital, relevant, “cutting-edge” artists to be part of their cultural olympiad. This is really key as to why this clause totally sucks.
So: a visual artist has been commissioned to create a work that celebrates their community and the cultural olympiad. But, like many Vancouver artists, he or she lives in East Vancouver. He or she sees the lack of social housing, the lack of addiction counseling. He or she is impacted by their immediate environment, and, like many artists, wants to reflect this environment through his or her work.
The artist cannot afford studio space. Artist grants have been slashed. So he or she accepts the commission, but is unable to draw a causal link, a linkbetween the conditions that make his or her immediate environment so unbearable, and a public agency that has vampirically siphoned billions of dollars from the agencies that could provide a remedy to this situation.
It’s just really ugly to ask these artists to take part in a public work, then announce to the world what a great thing is this “cultural olympiad”, and then place serious and restrictive limitations on what they can and cannot express.
That was very eloquently stated and supported! Thanks!
“Given that money isn’t infinite”
It isn’t? Someone in Washington might disagree. He is printing millions everyday. Soon we’ll all be rich!
That was a little annoying to read.
That was a little annoying to read.
So was this.
And get rid of that Goddamn picture, you creepy crash test dummy!
Thanks, Carey. I’m interested in seeing how long it will take Vanoc to address the manipulated logo attached to this story. The Crying Room recently had a a billboard up that represented the five interlocking circles of the Olympic logo as four spray-painted sad faces and one happy face. The curator was asked to take it down, and did.
I just think it’s really cool that a genius like Carey Mercer would take the time to post on lil’ ol’ Stereogum.
Seriously nobody is going to mention how terrible that Swan Lake record was? Talk about forgoing artist integrity and trying to cash in..that piece of garbage sounds like it took a week to conceive, write and record.
It’s like Jesus said, For the poor always ye have with you; but the Olympics? Ye have not always.
Or, for that matter, Hal Willner’s Neil Young Project. SUCK IT UP ARTSIES.
“The 6 billion figure doesn’t actually represent the total estimated cost of the games. This is just the amount of tax dollars that the government will inject into this event. The total amount is estimated at around 12 billion dollars, according to the Trotsky-Leninist website 2010watch.com A large portion of the rest of that 12 billion comes from corporate sponsors.”
What a load of shit. I live in Vancouver and I can take or leave the Olympics but this is just a gross distortion. The highest published tally for the Olympics was $6B in the Vancouver Sun and that was a bit sensational. It took the highest estimate for security costs being floated around ($800 million) and then rolled in the cost of the new highway to Whistler ($1B) which was long overdue, the cost of a new SkyTrain (subway) line to the airport ($2B), also long overdue and a new Trade and Convention Centre ($1B and ridiculously over-budget). Another ~$800 million was for the Athletes Village which will be sold as market housing after the games are done.
Can and should three infrastructure projects that will have shelf lives of 30-50 years and a market housing project be included in an Olympics cost analysis? Guess the Trotskyites think so! Kinda glad they’re not running the show though.
And how does a private company paying VANOC for a sponsorship deal end up on the cost side of the ledger? It’s revenue coming in, like ticket sales, ya donkey.
Yes, VANOC have made cocks of themselves over a number of issues but the opposition to these Olympics have come across as petulant cry babies time and time again and continue to float these ridiculous financial claims.
As for ‘totalitarianism’, they are being offered a contract. If they don’t like the terms, don’t sign it and criticize VANOC all you want. Lots of people are criticizing VANOC. No one’s been shipped off to Prince George yet (our Siberia). Try live in the grown up world instead of throwing around first year PoliSci jargon that doesn’t hold up.
“And how does a private company paying VANOC for a sponsorship deal end up on the cost side of the ledger? It’s revenue coming in, like ticket sales, ya donkey.”
They still use that revenue to pay for the event production, so it still contributes to the total cost of actually putting on the event, ya donkey.
I’ts poorly written and ambiguous (for a ‘genius’). I read it as saying a large portion of that extra $6B in costs comes from corporate sponsors. The sponsors are not contributing to the cost. The sponsors are contributing to lowering the cost by offsetting expenses by paying for sponsorhip packages.
It’s also a ridiculous statement that corporate sponsorship deals are anywhere CLOSE to $6B. From VANOC’s budget:
IOC International Sponsorship 196.4
Domestic Sponsorship 756.8
Marketing Royalties (197.3)
So net sponsorship, after royalties, is about $756 million.
Bottom line, including highway construction, SkyTrain lines, the Trade and Convention Centre into the bottom line is misleading. These are public and civic amenities that will exist long after the games and would have built in the near future whether we had the Games or not.
G is not a jerk for questioning my figures. Depending on who you read, and how you tabulate it, it seems that the total tax cost can run between 2.5 and 6 billion dollars. 6 billion dollars was the highly-publicized figure from the Vancouver Sun. I obviously chose the more sensational figure. So I say sure, pick the paltry 2.5 billion dollars in tax dollars–plus 800 million in security! I still feel that 2.5 billion spent on fun and games and ultra-necessary “Trade and Convention centres” while Hastings remains Hastings is tough to swallow. But that’s just my predictably left-leaning boo-hoo opinion.
More germane to the essay is this assertion: artists contributing work to a publicly-funded arts olympiad should have the freedom to express whatever sentiment they wish to reflect. Publicly funded entities should not dictate the content of art, because this practice has a very ugly track record, and also because “the public” is not a singular monolithic entity, but a fractured mess of ideology, ethos, belief and taste, and as such the public cannot functionally endorse any critical vision, be it for or against something like the Olympics. I am sorry if I was not clear enough. Thanks.
How come no one has asked if these figures are Canadian dollars or real money? Oh and can we get an indie rock festival to bring back the Montreal Expos? Let’s talk aboot the real issues
If were gonna call out the ‘lympics can we call out the real bullshit of censoring all signage visible to the public? If the IOC deems as sign “non-celebratory” they can go into your house take it, and fine you.
I wonder if Mr. Mercer is cool with me discovering his music through TPB and BT junkie
Don’t be an Ice-hole VANOC.
Carey Mercer is absolutely correct (though I would suggest that he was thinking of Manhattan rather than Vancouver when he mentioned the “Lower East Side”– it’s usually called the Downtown East Side. But I digress). The Olympics is a criminal waste of public money dispensed freely to profiteers and developers. While the Olympic forced cheering starts to get to fever pitch (and people are trying to figure out how to cope with the city basically shutting down for two weeks in February) city treasures like the Bloedel Conservatory are being shut down for the sake of a trivial 300K annual funding. Arts funding is slashed, libraries are closing, the homeless and mentally ill are on the streets facing another winter, and for what– so that a bunch of power and money grubbing assholes can hold a party and get rich(er).
The “Olympic Village”, which was supposed to be a model of “green” planning, and would be a development that would include middle and low income housing is now a billion dollars over budget, and the apartments will now be sold off to the highest bidder in order to try and recoup the losses. The city has taken the fall for this entire clusterfuck. I could rant further, but I’ll leave it at that. The Olympics is the worst thing to happen here for a while.
i like the backhanded compliment about feist.
‘i like listening to her…WHEN I’M IN ZELLERS!’
We can only speculate as to why the clause really exists:
The olympics are a global event drowned in bureaucratic processes and any bureaucracy needs to recognize even the most minute threats to the predetermined structure so that someone somewhere doesn’t get shit on for an artist who says something “controversial” about any nation.
Because the olympics are global there are many nations involved. I’ll’ bet the clause exists to in there to cover the ass of the host country(in this case, Canada). It’s probably nothing more than a preventative measure for the worst case scenario of an artist saying something that rubs a participant nation the wrong way. So yes, in principal it is a ridicules thing to censor, but the world is full of ridiculous places and governments. In the grand scheme of things it keeps the “show” running smoothly.
Man that Vampire Weekend apartment must be sweet. How about some info about it? Stereogum?
sorry this is way over our heads
Everything Carey writes is pure gold in my opinion. The man has a way with words, be sure to check out his blog (http://cloudofevil.blogspot.com).
It should also be pointed out that not only are the artists being forced to keep their opinions to themselves, but it is also the residents of Vancouver and it’s suburbs. Anyone wearing, or displaying anti-Olympic insignia or signage on their cars, homes etc can be charged and fined for pretty hefty sums. Now you tell me how the government can get away with this. It’s clearly a violation of our rights to freedom of speech and I don’t care if they think that this law falls within the “reasonable limits” of the Charter; what will they ban next?
I was actually quite surprised some of the artists performing are actually doing so. Perhaps most not being from Vancouver do not understand how great the homelessness and mental illness problems are. Wilco, for example is performing and they support the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Chicago Coalition For The Homeless… now like I said maybe they don’t know enough about Vancouver’s specific situation, but it just seems a little strange that they would support such an event. The Downtown East Side is littered with homeless people, most of which are mentally ill due to the deinstituationalization of mental institutions years ago, and the lack of support they received when released. Now don’t quote me on this but I have also heard that the police are allowed to detain some of these homeless people during the games in order to get them off the streets… because of course hiding them from the public eye and then throwing them back on the streets once the games are done is really going to solve the problem.
I live just outside of Vancouver and I personally will not be going near downtown Van during the games. I don’t plan on attending any of the sports events (not that I could even get any tickets because firstly, they are grossly overpriced, and second of all, they have all been saved for politicians and other “important figures”). When I saw that all these bands were coming I was a little disappointed they were affiliated with the games… with that being said when I saw Phoenix was coming I caved…. I’m pretty sure they have never been to Vancouver and I don’t know when they will be coming back and they are one of the bands that I have wanted to see live in a long time. I feel like a bit of a hipocrite but I couldn’t help myself.
Phoenix have indeed played in Vancouver before… in fact almost every time they tour they stop in Vancouver.
Yeah, you’re right actually. I rememeber them coming when they were touring to support It’s Never Been Like that. I think they played RIchards on Richards or the Commodore? Either way, I wasn’t 19 yet, so I couldn’t attend.
I don’t listen to Frog Eyes and have never heard of Carey Mercer, so I guess I’m missing out on his “genius”. Now if the Olympics were held somewhere else and all of that 6 billion dollars could be used on housing and mentally ill people, that would please Mr. Mercer. But if that were the case I would never care about Vancouver, Frog Eyes, Homelessness in Vancouver, and a Canadian Constitution. So, all in all, this post is pointless. The artists signed their rights away, and as Stephen put it, it’s just preventative. And how much money will the Olympics bring to Vancouver? I don’t know the answer but seems like a lot. I come to this blog for music news and this is about 6 degrees of separation from music. Sorry
this post isnt pointless… i think it’s good to get people talking about stuff like this. better to talk about real issues in the world than battle over our own opinions as to what band is overrated, and what band sucks etc. if you don’t want to read about stuff like this, then don’t read the post, plain and simple
AC > Dirty Projectors > Homelessness in other countries then I guess?
This post reeked of hippie farts.
Also very surprised that Steve Earle would sign that clause, seeing as he has always gone so far out of his way to regard himself as such an activist for left wing causes. what an asshole…
Beyond that, I hope that everyone who hasn’t heard Frog Eyes should take this opportunity to check them out. Carey Mercer is absolutely incredible, and has written some of the most compelling and original music of our time. I have been visiting this site for a while now, and can’t really understand the enthusiastic coverage of bland and uninspired “indie” music when there is a band like Frog Eyes out there. Please, less Dirty Projectors/Grizzly Bear/Animal collective and more Carey Mercer & Frog Eyes!!!!
Homelessness is a major problem in Vancouver, and our city’s leadership has failed spectacularly in dealing with it. While this has spoiled a lot of my potential enjoyment of the Winter Olympics, I won’t let it stop me from supporting artists whose music I enjoy independent of their signing of a silly contract.
There are far too few all-ages concert spaces in Vancouver, so I will take advantage of the fact that for a week or two this winter I will be able to see bands that would otherwise be playing 19+ Venues (I’m a minor). Vancouver has a lot of issues on its plate, and we will have to wait and see until after the Olympics to see how they are dealt with.
How about this scenario:
What if the Chinese insisted that the media in Beijing 2008 only write positive reviews of the game and those who didnt would have their visas revoked?
Why wouldnt that have been ok?
If the media wanted to have access, they would have to respect the deal or just not go to the games.
Saying ‘they didnt have to sign’ wouldnt have made the hypothetical demands any better.
There are many ways you can back someone in a corner when you are trying to control the message, public opinion and dissent.
We seem to think that its somehow ok because they are given a choice.
I’m sorry I haven’t read all the posts subsequent to your original post, Carey, so forgive me if I repeat anything. But one thing that jumps to mind is that the major problem with this whole deal is the blurring of line between ‘private’ and ‘public’ in the endeavors that our government (both provincial and federal) is embarking upon.
I think even the most enthusiastic proponents of private enterprise would agree that the private system allows for businesses, corporations etc. to operate in accordance with an essentially ad-hoc system that lies outside of the (albeit often flawed) morality-based code of conduct enforced by civil and criminal law. One only need glance at the practices of corporations like Walmart to see how this works. But when there is a blurring of ‘private’ and ‘public’ enterprise (IE. The Olympics) the private aspect is supported by public rhetoric. So this leaves marginalised peoples (who speak to the public aspect) essentially voiceless lest they be perceived as “enemies of the public good”. To put it more succinctly, VANOC purports to speak for the public good. So to speak against their policies puts a person in the category of “Public Enemy”. It is a false dichotomy which represents nothing more than a brilliant advertising campaign.
I really want to thank you for speaking to this issue. You are obviously a truly good person. And you have some amazing things to say. Please do not be discouraged by imbeciles. Keep your voice alive—in your music and writing and your internet ramblings. You make a difference and you make me feel better about being human.
Emilie Rhone
So here’s the thing: I won’t be seeing any of the shows put on as part of the Cultural Olympiad, whether it’s Phoenix, Feist, Stars or whoever. I don’t support the Olympics (sure didn’t vote for them), thus I don’t support any of the shows that are related to them. I didn’t go to the shows associated with the Cultural Olympiad LAST year either (Chad VanGaalen, I”m looking at you). If these guys didn’t read their contracts, that’s their problem. I get that artists would like to make a living, but so long as they’re playing shows of this nature, they’re not making money off me.
Any attempts to “clean up the city” made by any Olympic Committee (in Vancouver or in other Olympic cities) are made purely for the purposes of putting on a good face for the rest of the world. This is done in order to encourage tourist spending, attract foreign business, etc. Social responsibility does not factor in, in any way. Some of Vancouver’s homeless may be taken off the street, temporarily, but make no mistake, this is not done for the good of the homeless — it’s done so the tourists don’t have their Olympic experience ruined by ugly reality. The Olympics are big, big business, and only the oblivious rely on big business to make the world a better place. Expecting VANOC to address social issues in Vancouver is like expecting McDonald’s to cure cancer.
Too many of us are too inclined, IMHO, to view the Olympics as they once were (or were intended to be, at least), a gathering of the finest athletes from around the world transcending political boundaries. I suspect this applies to otherwise well-meaning artists, too. Unfortunately the Olympics has become nothing more than a corporate hand-out that has destroyed cities and countries. (It was no coincidence that war broke out in the Balkans just months after the Sarajevo Olympics. There were a slew of geo-political factors, but the Olympics was a huge catalyst.) Chicago and the U.S. should count our lucky stars that Chicago lost the most recent Olympic city contest (although woe to Rio) and it pains me that a president I voted for was so ignorant of the problems (even after the fiasco that was SLC) that he actually went to lobby for the damn things. They have become an extension of the same mindset that has caused the global economy to implode, and are akin in a world being destroyed by unsustainable greed-driven corporate practice to Hitler’s 1930′s European con job. And, no, I am not exaggerating. This latest mess in Vancouver is a nightmare, and the corporate greed-meisters know it, which is why they are clamping down on free speech across the board. When Amy Goodman goes to Vancouver to promote a book that has NOTHING in it about the Olympics in Vancouver or elsewhere and is detained just because she’s Amy Goodman and she MIGHT say something critical about the Vancouver Olympics, then you know this whole thing reeks of evil. The only silver lining I can see is that evil often reigns for a time as paradigms shift, so perhaps we are shifting the paradigm, and the evil ones know it and are trying to stop us. I hope they won’t (history tells us they rarely prevail for long), but I also worry that we won’t be in time. As George Carlin aptly said (paraphrasing), it’s arrogant to think we humans can destroy Mother Nature, because if we even attempt to, Mother Nature will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. Unless of course we stop acting collectively like a bunch of terrible two-year-olds. Thanks for the piece, it’s timely and an important aspect to a chillingly horrible evolution in our society. All the more chilling because it’s been so subtle even the Steve Earles and Amy Goodmans haven’t fully realized the implications. (Although I think Amy does now.) And, please, please, please, if you aren’t already, plan to boycott anything and everything associated with the Vancouver Olympics, including YouTube. I’m sorry we’ll miss some of our favorite musicians, but the stakes are just too high. And to you naysayers out there, “stakes too high? for the Olympics? are you on crack?”, I say, yes, yes, and absolutely not. I am as DEAD serious as the homeless in Vancouver.
I’m pretty sure Live Nation would have the same sort of thing in their contract?
Great article, equally sensible commentary. Not one mention of Montreal, which took 38 years (or something ridiculous) to pay off!
I am dead against the Olympics and what in now represents. True, IF it was only about bringing elite atheletes together to compete then I could understand some of the investments our government has made with our tax dollars, however it has what the Olympics will leave behind that worries me. I do beleive the Calgary Olympics left them in debt for years AND in an economy that was flourishing at the time. What does that mean for BC’ers? I live up north and I know that I will see nothing but of the Olympics except years of deficit to come.
i wanna give a shout-out to my man Peter Kropotkin and the beautiful idea of Anarchist Communism…WOOT WOOT!
Its sad that VANOC finds this necessary. Instead of putting a clause in the contract, which was only gonna create bad publicity, why not simply interview the artist. It must be easy enough to figure out if they are pro or anti-Olympics. Already a should-be-glorious event is soiling itself
One thing you have to understand is that VANOC is a corporation. It has nothing to do with the fascist government agendas you seem to compare it to (and really, I was with you up to that point; thinly veiled Nazi-comparisons are so passe). Blame the 1980s corporate boom for this sort of thing. Corporations don’t want to be painted in a negative light so they will fold into the fine print anything that risks their sales revenue.
It’s not “propaganda” because it doesn’t require the bands to speak HIGHLY of them either. Of course VANOC would like to, but they can’t require it unless the artists have agreed to sales promotions. They don’t have to like it. The negativity gag order is nothing new. That doesn’t make it right, but understand that it’s more of a corporate thing, not a government thing.
Hi MSP,
VANOC is a corporation, but it is not the same as Bell, or Coca-Cola, and that is why I made the perhaps sophomore comparison to the actions of totalitarian states. I think I made the point that the ramifications of this gag order are very different than writing an anti-capitalist jingle for Coca-Cola, and then being shocked that they rejected my song, wanting their money back.
The difference is that private corporations are autonomous, privately-funded entities that answer only to their shareholders. VANOC is directly and publicly funded by our tax-dollars. David Eby makes this point; I’m just picking up on it–it’s very different than if Bell had commissioned a sculptor to make a private statue for their lobby. It’s more akin to FACTOR demanding that none of their touring grant-recipients ever criticize or make negative statements about the Canadian government or recording industry.
The reason that this makes “us” angry is that, in Canada, our politicians do not dictate the form and content of art. The reason for this is varied; politicians don’t know what art is, etc., etc., but the reason is also partly historical. There’s a bad precedent. Thank you for giving me a chance to hopefully clarify–I don’t mean to say that this clause is in any way equal to the actions of totalitarian regimes, but that it has the ugly whiff of a state dictating artistic content. But this argument of mine hinges on the premise that VANOC is a public corporation, right? It might become a really pressing question.
And as for the clause not requiring the bands to speak highly of VANOC: remember that when these artists will be performing, the stage will be decked out in olympic icons and images. Their very presence is a tacit, visual boost. They don’t have to say anything positive, as the venue and the context of their performance says it all.
Here is a list of government sponsors for VANOC:
http://www.vancouver2010.com/more-2010-information/about-vanoc/sponsors-and-partners/vancouver-2010-government-partners/
So what is VANOC? If it receives direct government funding, then isn’t it a public corporation?
And if so, then should it be allowed to use tax funds to shape artistic expression? Please remember that arts-funding has been so thoroughly decimated in BC that accepting an arts grant in 2010 essentially means accepting olympic money.
Thanks to everyone for commenting. One of the comments here actually tipped off Marsha Lederman, the reporter who first wrote about this clause, to write this article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/vancouver-orders-removal-of-anti-olympic-mural/article1396541/
I couldn’t help but be a bit proud that our collective discourse tipped her off, and also a bit cheery about discourse in general. So thanks!
I believe almost all corporate entities have similar clauses in their contracts. Conan O’Brien, for example, was recently forbidden to speak about the details in his buyout from NBC. It’s not unreasonable to request (legally) that a promoter (which, in this case, VANOC essentially is – providing a platform for these artists to perform on) not be publicly shat on by those it is promoting.
Stop whining, already.
Carey,
Huge fan of your bands and your music.
Mix government with art and music, and eventually, inevitably, this what you get, I think. With the good (subsidies), comes the bad (speech codes). If one gets on the gravy train, the conductor’s going to *want* something.
Further, not everyone cares about principle, which is why others crank out shlock, while you deliver to us “Warlock Psychologist.”