Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Entertainment

New Music you didn’t know you needed to hear… Or did you?

Published

4 minute read

Music to get you through.

Quarantine is no match for the power of music. What an unprecedented time in our history where LIVE ENTERTAINMENT  has come to a screeching halt. Sort of, I mean you can catch it Live Stream. While we are all grateful for such a platform where that can be a possibility, it simply can’t replace intimate in person Live Entertainment.

What are we left with? Well hey, thats up to us individually now isn’t it? WE WILL GET THROUGH THIS, that I’m sure of. I remember just simply listening to my favourite music until my cassettes didn’t work anymore or they were eaten every friggin time I’d try to give it a whirl. Just the act of listening to music could take up hours and hours of my day. Back then I would have done anything to have the access to music that I have now. It’s instant now. Any music we want at our finger tips. I say we start a movement where we dedicate some mental health time to listening to music. Bring back the ‘lay on the floor and stare at the ceiling’ kind of listening to music days.

Not only is it unbelievably therapeutic but there is so much NEW MUSIC right now that is so good!

Heres three albums that are sure to keep you busy, you’ve probably got them on repeat anyways:

1. Eternity Now – Big Sugar 

Plain and simple, it’s hard to argue with the signature guitar and vocal sound of Gordie Johnson. Guys like me dream of attaining it daily. The energy Big Sugar produces on and off stage is remarkable. Rock n’ Roll fused with Reggae and Blues that lights a fire in your heart. This album is fresh and relevant. It’s always amazing to see how Big Sugar stays on top of the wave. Turn it up loud, grab a chair for the deck and take a little trip down the new Big Sugar highway that is ‘Eternity Now.’

2. Dog City – Matt Mays

Ooh wee! Matt Mays is one of the best songwriters we’ve been blessed with as Canadians. Matt has a way with words that will bypass everything and hit you right in the soul. This album is a simple raw record that Matt did himself during this quarantine time we’ve been told was the “new normal.” What a great concept on a record. Through the eyes of human kinds best friend. put the headphones on and take this one in with some fresh coffee and baileys. Or whatever…

3. Notes on a Conditional Form – The 1975

Not gonna lie… The 1975 was not an instant appreciation. I mean of course I respected their work etc. I just wasn’t into it. At first. After warming up to the indie weirdness that somehow has crossed into the mainstream I really started to enjoy them and found myself paying more and more attention to their music. Needless to say The 1975 is a trip all its own. Put this on and lay back on the couch, stare up and enjoy. So much to get lost in. Something different.

Before Post

Jesse was born in the city of Lethbridge and raised to his teen years in the southern Alberta farming communities of Raymond and Fin Castle, AB. Jesse's early inspirations include the hypnotic sounds of big-name artists such as Jimi Hendrix, The Black Crowes, Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, City and Colour, Jack Johnson, Guns 'N' Roses, and Pink Floyd. Jesse is a Blues/Rock/folk/Indie performer who has done his fair share of "paying his dues" opening and touring with such acts as: The Lazys, One Bad Son, Doc Walker, The Odds, The Northern Pikes, The Grapes Of Wrath, Monster Truck, The Age Of Electric, The Wild, Holly McNarland, Econoline Crush, Coal Creek Boys, Wild T & The Spirit, Cara Luft, Carson Cole, Clayton Bellamy (of The Road Hammers), Tupelo Honey, Retrograde, The Smalls, and Mcquaig to name just a few. In 2015 Jesse was awarded the title "Master of Blues Folk Rock" for the 6th Annual Black American Music Awards. Jesse is known for his funky heavy jam style guitar. Big riffs, an impressive vocal sound all his own and the ability to captivate the crowd with ease. His fans have coined the term "no string solo" as he can be consistently found ripping strings off the guitar like they aren't supposed to be there in the first place.

Follow Author

Business

Canadians largely ignore them and their funding bleeds their competition dry: How the CBC Spends its Public Funding

Published on

 

If we want to intelligently assess the value CBC delivers to Canadians in exchange for their tax-funded investment, we’ll need to understand two things:

  1. How CBC spends the money we give them
  2. What impact their product has on Canadians

The answer to question #2 depends on which Canadians we’re discussing. Your average young family from suburban Toronto is probably only vaguely aware there is a CBC. But Canadian broadcasters? They know all about the corporation, but just wish it would lift its crushing hobnailed boots from their faces.

Stick around and I’ll explain.

For the purposes of this discussion I’m not interested in the possibility that there’s been reckless or negligent corruption or waste, so I won’t address the recent controversy over paying out millions of dollars in executive benefits. Instead, I want to know how the CBC is designed to operate. This will allow us to judge the corporation on its own terms.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

CBC’s Financial Structure

We’ll begin with the basics. According to the CBC’s 2023-24 projections in their most recent corporate plan strategy, the company will receive $1.17 billion from Parliament; $292 million from advertising; and $209 million from subscriber fees, financing, and other income. Company filings note that revenue from both advertising and legacy subscription pools are dropping. Advertising is trending downwards because of ongoing changes in industry ad models, and the decline in subscriptions can be blamed on competition from “cord-cutting” internet services. The Financing and other income category includes revenue from rent and lease-generating use of CBC’s many real estate assets.

The projected combined television, radio, and digital services spending is $1.68 billion. For important context, 2022-23 data from the 2022-2023 annual report break that down to $996 million for English services, and $816 million for French services. 2022-23 also saw $60 million in costs for transmission, distribution, and collection. Corporate management and finance costs came to around $33 million. Overall, the company reported a net loss of $125 million in 2022-23.

The corporation estimates that their English-language digital platforms attract 17.4 million unique visitors each month and that the average visitor engages with content for 28 minutes a month. In terms of market relevance, those are pretty good numbers. But, among Canadian internet users, cbc.ca still ranked only 43rd for total web destinations (which include sites like google.com and amazon.ca). French-language Radio-Canada’s numbers were 5.2 million unique visitors who each hung around for 50 minutes a month.

Monthly engagement with digital English-language news and regional services was 20 minutes. Although we’re given no visitor numbers, the report does admit that “interest in news was lower than expected.”

CBC content production

All that’s not very helpful for understanding what’s actually going on inside CBC. We need to get a feel for how the corporation divides its spending between programming categories and what’s driving the revenue.

The CRTC provides annual financial filings for all Canadian broadcasters, including the CBC. I could describe what’s happening by throwing columns and rows of dollar figures at you. In fact, should you be so disposed, you can view the spreadsheet here. But it turns out that my colorful graph will do a much better job:

As you can see for yourself, CBC spends a large chunk of its money producing news for all three video platforms (CBC and Radio-Canada conventional TV and the cable/VOD platforms they refer to as “discretionary TV”). The two conventional networks also invest significant funds in drama and comedy production.

The chart doesn’t cover CBC radio, so I’ll fill you in. English-language production costs $143 million (roughly the equivalent of the costs of English TV drama/comedy) while the bill for French-language radio production came in at $94 million (more or less equal to discretionary TV news production).

CBC Content Consumption

Who’s watching? The CBC itself reported that viewers of CBC English television represented only 5.1 percent of the total Canadian audience, and only 2.0 percent tuned in to CBC news. By “total Canadian audience”, I mean all Canadians viewing all available TV programming at a given time. So when the CBC tells us that their News Network got a 2.0 percent “share”, they don’t mean that they attracted 2.0 percent of all Canadians. Rather, they got 2.0 percent of whoever happened to be watching any TV network – which could easily come to just a half of one percent of all Canadians. After all, how many people still watch TV?

According to CRTC data, between the 2014–15 and 2022–23 seasons, English language CBC TV weekly viewing hours dropped from 35 million to 16 million. That total would amount to less than six minutes a day per anglophone Canadian. Specifically, news viewing fell by 52 percent, sports by 66 percent, and drama and comedy by 51 percent.

CBC Radio One and CBC Music only managed to attract 14.3 percent of the Canadian market. What does that actually mean? I’ve seen estimates suggesting that between 15 and 25 percent of all Canadians listen to radio during the popular daily commute slots. So at its peak, CBC radio’s share of that audience is possibly no higher than 3.5 percent of all Canadians.

recent survey found that only 41 percent of Canadians agreed the CBC “is important and should continue doing what it’s doing.” The remaining 59 percent were split between thinking the CBC requires “a lot of changes” and was “no longer useful.” Those numbers remained largely consistent across all age groups.

It seems that while some Canadian’s might support the CBC in principle, for the most part, they’re not actually consuming a lot of content.

CBC Revenue sources

CBC’s primary income is from government funding through parliamentary allocations. Here’s what those look like:

Advertising (or, “time sales” as they refer to it) is another major revenue source. That channel brought in more than $200 million in 2023:

But here’s the thing: the broadcast industry in Canada is currently engaged in a bitter struggle for existence. Every single dollar from that shrinking pool of advertising revenue is desperately needed. And most broadcasters are – perhaps misguidedly – fighting for more government funding. So why should the CBC, with its billion dollar subsidies, be allowed to also compete for limited ad revenue?

Or, to put it differently, what vital and unique services does the CBC provide that might justify their special treatment?

It’s possible that CBC does target rural and underserved audiences missed by the commercial networks. But those are clearly not what’s consuming the vast majority of the corporation’s budget. Perhaps people are watching CBC’s “big tent” drama and comedy productions, but are those measurably better or more important than what’s coming from the private sector? And we’ve already seen how, for all intents and purposes, no one’s watching their TV news or listening to their radio broadcasts.

Perhaps there’s an argument to be made for maintaining or even increasing funding for CBC. But I haven’t yet seen anyone convincingly articulate it.

Share

Subscribe to The Audit.

Continue Reading

Crime

Actor’s Death Raises Alarm about Off-Label Anesthetic

Published on

From Heartland Daily News

By  Kevin Stone Kevin Stone

A federal court has indicted and charged five individuals for contributing to the death of actor Matthew Perry by providing him with the anesthetic ketamine.

On October 28, 2023, Perry was found floating face-down in his hot tub. An autopsy later revealed his death had been caused by “acute effects of ketamine.” Perry, a star of the television show Friends, had long struggled with addiction.

Charged in the 18-count indictment are Perry’s personal assistant, Kenneth Iwamasa; two doctors, Salvador Plasencia and Mark Chavez; and two other individuals, Erik Fleming and Jasveen Sangha. Sangha was known as the “Ketamine Queen” who is accused of running a North Hollywood “stash house.”

Multiple Players Charged

Documents filed by prosecutors claim Perry’s assistant and an acquaintance worked with the two doctors and the drug dealer to provide tens of thousands of dollars worth of ketamine to fuel Perry’s addiction. Fleming coordinated the sale with Sangha, prosecutors say.

Iwamasa provided at least 27 ketamine injections to Perry in the five days leading up to his death, according to the prosecution. Chavez admitted selling ketamine to Plasencia for redistribution to Perry by falsifying information to a distributor and then using a prescription written in the name of a former patient.

When Plasencia texted another doctor about how much to charge Perry for the ketamine, he wrote, “I wonder how much this moron will pay,” and “Let’s find out,” prosecutors say. The trial date for Chavez and Plasencia is set for March 4, 2025.

Binge-Use Temptation

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic that can produce hallucinogenic effects. Ketamine is also used as a pain reliever and for the relief of treatment-resistant depression.

Some people use ketamine as a recreational drug for its ability to induce hallucinations. The effects of ketamine are short-lived, and users may rapidly develop tolerance to the drug, leading some to binge-use it.

Celebrity Power, Vulnerability

Ketamine is widely accepted as safe and effective for use as an anesthetic in a clinical setting. Off-label uses of the drug that may lead to abuse have led to rising concerns.

A recent New York Times article questioned the drug’s safety for off-label use in the wake of Perry’s death. Although ketamine ordinarily carries no more risk than other anesthetics, pain relievers, and antidepressants.

Celebrities can use their fame and wealth to circumvent effective safeguards against over-prescription and abuse, says Devon Herrick, a health economist.

“Physicians have significant leeway to prescribe FDA-approved medications off-label,” said Herrick. “Some off-label therapies later become mainstream, while others fall out of favor. What makes Matthew Perry’s situation unique was his celebrity status. Similar to the experience of Michael Jackson, Perry was able to enlist the help of physicians willing to provide him with a risky drug therapy not appropriately monitored.

“It’s unlikely a noncelebrity patient would be able to find a doctor willing to administer an anesthetic in their home,” said Herrick. “The lure of both money and bragging rights to say they’re a celebrity doctor likely culminated in Perry’s demise.”

Off-Label Benefits

Ketamine was developed as an anesthetic agent and was found to help treat some mental health conditions through off-label use, which is a common procedure, says Jeffrey Singer, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who defends off-label use of the drug.

“Roughly 20 percent of all drugs prescribed in the U.S. are for off-label uses,” said Singer. “The [Food and Drug Administration, FDA] has always deferred to clinicians and clinical researchers on how to use drugs off-label. Once the FDA approves a drug for a particular indication, it permits clinicians to use it for any other indication where clinicians and clinical researchers believe the drug can be helpful.”

This real-world experience brings important knowledge, says Singer.

“As clinical research and clinical experience continue, such off-label drug use can lead to subsequent therapeutic advances,” said Singer. “However, clinical researchers often discover over time that specific off-label uses do not work. Over time, we should learn a lot more about what conditions ketamine works best for and what are the optimal ways to use it for those conditions.”

The system is working, says Singer.

“There is no reason why the FDA should add to the already cumbersome regulatory regime by requiring further approvals for off-label uses,” said Singer. “The FDA should leave the off-label uses of drugs to clinical researchers, clinicians, and the civil tort system.”

Black Market Problem

Adding new legal barriers to ketamine prescription would probably drive those wishing to abuse the drug into the black market, where its use would be wholly unmonitored and more dangerous drugs are also readily available, says Singer.

“People are already getting ketamine in the black market, along with other psychedelics such as MDMA, psilocybin, DMT, and magic mushrooms,” said Singer. “If the FDA further restricted online sales [of ketamine], it would only intensify profits in the black market and drive people to the black market, where the purity and strength of these drugs are less certain.

“We already have seen reports of black market MDMA—“ecstasy” or “Molly”—being laced with fentanyl,” said Singer. “Further restricting online sales of ketamine—or limiting its off-label use by licensed clinicians—will only make it more dangerous for people who continue to use ketamine. But it will not prevent them from using it.”

Kevin Stone ([email protected]writes from Arlington, Texas.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X