Sad songs say so much
Published by Nick Hall on 18 January 2012.There has been much said about the song our mayor unveiled at his big breakfast last week, and from what I can gather most of it has been bad. Oh sure, there have been some positive comments, however I would hazard a guess that anyone who actually likes the song is suffering from the effects of carbon monoxide poisoning acquired while idling at the railroad tracks on Adelaide while listening to the 8-track recorder in their AMC Hornet.
The only song I have ever heard that was attached to a city is "New York, New York". This song was not written for a city, it was written for a musical, and as such it was never intended to actually brand - let alone motivate - a city. It became a song for a city through title rather than intent, and it's likely that there are many New Yorkers who wince every time they hear the song.
That's human nature, I guess.
Which begs the question, what exactly was the mayor trying to accomplish? After viewing the video, it appeared a desperate diversionary tactic. In a city with very high levels of unemployment - exacerbated even more by the corporate bastards at Caterpillar - it was certainly not appropriate to write a song that giddily focuses on opportunity (over and over).
Callous and insensitive is more like it.
But it only cost $1,800, you say. To which I reply it is the most expensive $1,800 ever spent by the city, especially when you consider what it cost the reputation of every single company trying to do business outside of London.
I read today that the Sarnia mayor wants a song now too, and I find myself cursing the additional syllable, lest he could have ours. I'm sure it's as inappropriate there as it is here, and quite frankly it would be funnier if they had it.
His quote in today's paper clearly states his ill-informed belief that there's no such thing as bad press.
I wonder if that applies to chemical spills.
