Author: Elias Grigoriadis

Categories
Music

The day Led Zeppelin cemented themselves in history

50 Years Later, Led Zeppelin III is still a massive shift and it paid off massively

From the moment drummer John Bonham and guitarist Jimmy Page connected on “Good Times, Bad Times” and introduced the world to Led Zeppelin, very few could claim to have had as influential or successful a run. Twelve years and eight albums later, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones — along with Bonham and Page — have one of the most impressive discographies in the history of music.

One of the most pivotal moments was the release of their third record — Led Zeppelin III — which celebrated its 50th anniversary this year on Oct. 5. Following the successes of Led Zeppelin I and II, Plant and Page took refuge from the incessant touring in a small cottage in Wales. Once there, they fully embraced the folky, psychedelic, and — most notably — acoustic sounds they had been toying with over the past few months.

The 18th-century cottage in the Cambrian Mountains in Wales was where the majority of the album was written. The result was a collection of songs that were a sharp turn away from what came to be expected of Led Zeppelin.

The shock following one of the biggest hard rock bands releasing acoustic material was not unlike the reaction to Bob Dylan going electric just five years earlier. It was vitriolic, with many people accusing the band of selling out or “going soft,” when in reality the signs were already there. They had already experimented with some of the sounds found on their third record and it should come as no surprise that they built on it.

Their previous record, which was appropriately named Led Zeppelin II, had a much more blues-based sound, so they were willing to experiment with other sounds and techniques. The writing was on the wall for a massive shift in style.

Plant — along with the rest of the band—went from high-flying, rock-n-roll sex gods to hippie farmers and they seemed perfectly at home in those roles. While “Immigrant Song” was all you would expect from the hottest band in the world at the time, the record’s opening track was the only hard rock song in the album.

Even though songs like “Since I’ve Been Loving You” and “Out on the Tiles” have electric instruments, the same sound that runs through the entire album is still incredibly present. While the entirety of the project wasn’t written during Page and Plant’s Welsh vacations, it’s impossible to deny its influence.

This record was a massive commercial risk. From an artistic standpoint, however, it seemed almost inevitable. In more than one interview Page and Plant explained how the band had been experimenting with similar sounds for some time and a full-length project seemed more and more like a natural evolution of “Zep’s” style and aesthetic.

One could write a series of novels on Led Zeppelin III. It’s a groundbreaking album that both stunned and divided fans in a way that only cemented their legacy as one of the most technically proficient and versatile bands of all time.

Categories
Music

Take a load off, Fanny

How The Band went from supporting cast to legend

On Friday, the documentary Once Were Brothers: Robbie Robertson and The Band was released, cataloguing the rise to frame and subsequent breakup of The Band—one of the most influential bands of all time. Despite their status, they still remain relatively unknown compared to artists of similar scale, so sit back and get ready to learn about how The Band cemented their place in history.

In March of 1965, Bob Dylan released Bringing It All Back Home and changed popular music forever. Splitting the album between acoustic and electric performances for the first time, this felt like a betrayal of the folk roots that earned him the title of “voice of his generation.” His electric performance at the Newport Folk Festival that same year only cemented that fact.

Now a pariah from a large part of not only the folk music scene, but his very own fans, Dylan embarks on his first electric tour across the country. Before he takes off, he needs a backing band and his search takes him to Friar’s Tavern, a small club on Yonge Street in Toronto. There—for the first time—Dylan hears Levon and the Hawks play.

Before picking up the moniker of “The Band,” they had gone through a slew of names, most prominently a series that followed the standard “name of lead singer followed by name” format with lead singers Ronnie Hawkins and Levon Helm. It wasn’t until Dylan’s famous world tour in 1966 that the name by which they would be best known began making appearances.

Touring with Bob

Marketed as “Bob Dylan and his Band,” the tour would go down as one of the most memorable moments in the history of live performances. A disgruntled fan shouted “Judas” at Dylan towards the end of the show and his response was to turn to the band and demand they “play it fucking loud.” They proceeded by launching into a wildly raucous version of “Like a Rolling Stone.”

After the tour, Dylan got into a motorcycle accident that almost killed him and decided to take some time off away from the limelight. Enter Rick Danko, The Band’s bassist and one of the songwriters who offered up a home he rented in Woodstock. Little did he know that he just inadvertently created one of the most iconic settings in rock history: Big Pink.

Affectionately called so for the pink siding on the house, Dylan and the rest of The Band confined themselves to Big Pink for over a year, creating a multitude of tracks that would end up being released as bootlegs and gaining so much praise that Dylan decided to fully release them. Off the strength of that, The Basement Tapes have been gradually released over more than a dozen volumes.

Post-Dylan

In October of 1967, Dylan left Big Pink, and this is when The Band established their legend. Over the course of the next few weeks they wrote a collection of songs that would grow into one of the greatest folk rock albums of all time. When trying to pick a name, the one they had been known by throughout the entirety of their tour with Dylan just seemed right. So they stuck with it and the group from that point on was known as The Band.

Their debut record was a stunning homage to their creative fortress and allowed them to push their own sound and rustic, folky aesthetic. Music From Big Pink was an instant classic and featured one of the greatest songs of all time: “The Weight.”

Bewilderingly poetic and consistently grounded, yet over the top with the protagonists quest to simply do good, “The Weight” is an Americana in its most distilled form. Pure, unwavering, and crushingly honest, the album as a whole served as a launching point for their magnum opus.

Side Note: If there is anyone out there that thinks it’s “Take a load off, Annie” and not “Take a load off, Fanny,” get your brain checked because it’s broken. I will not be entertaining debate on this matter. You are simply wrong.

Now, back to their masterpiece. A year later, Big Pink had lost its magic, so they needed a change of scenery. From upstate New York, they trekked to the Hollywood Hills and began to operate out of the pool house of Sammy Davis Jr.

In September of 1969, just over a year after their debut, The Band released their eponymous follow-up and, from this, would cement themselves as one of the most important groups of the 1960s and ‘70s. The record is filled with classic songs like “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down,” “Up on Cripple Creek,” “Look Out Cleveland,” and “King Harvest,” and Helm’s voice is just as resounding and attention-grabbing as it was on their debut.

The Last Waltz

On Nov. 25, 1976, after years of touring, the world of music stood still as one of the greatest farewell shows of all time went down in San Francisco. 

Ronnie Hawkins, Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton, Neil Diamond, Dr. John, Joni Mitchell, Van Morrison, Ringo Starr, Muddy Waters, Ronnie Wood, and Neil Young were all in attendance along with The Band themselves. On top of that, the concert film was directed by none other than Martin Scorsese and went down in history as one of music’s most memorable celebrations.

Beef between band mates, legal issues, and power struggles are almost as synonymous with most groups as the music they make. But through that all, The Band stands as a pillar in American music and one of the most important contributors to the counter-cultural revolution.

 

Graphic by @sundaeghost

 

Categories
Opinions

I watched Dave Chappelle’s new comedy special so you don’t have to

I love dark humour. I live in a generation raised by memes and shaped by absurd, Dadaist comedy. I also live in a more open-minded, progressive, and inclusive generation than anyone before mine. How do I reconcile the two?

It’s not that complicated. If you make a joke that’s funny, I’ll laugh. Just don’t be a complete asshole while you do it. I’m looking at you, Dave Chappelle.

While having been in the business for over 35 years, Chappelle still finished as the third highest-paid comic last year, according to recent Forbes statistics. His new stand-up special, Sticks and Stones, was marketed as this sort of celebration of all that is politically incorrect and supposedly funny. In reality, it’s closer to a fading comedian who operates in the same capacity as a Reddit troll.

He opens the show complaining about cancel culture and shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the very industry he thrives in. By mocking the suicide of Anthony Bourdain, (because apparently rich people can’t struggle from anything), Chappelle not only completely misinterpreted some of the harsh realities surrounding suicide, but belittled everything Bourdain went through.

He then moved on to practically brag about being a victim blamer and did his best impression of the shrug emoji when entertaining the fact that the allegations made against Michael Jackson might hold some truth.

“Even if he did do it *shrugs*,” said Chappelle. And then went on to explain why it should be an honour and an incredible sexual achievement to be assaulted by someone that famous. He seemed to not notice the blatant irony as he had the audacity to criticize the #MeToo movement and defend Louis C.K.’s actions.

Next up came the same old, overused, and painfully unfunny joke about trans athletes. He continued to go on about how Lebron James could just announce that he identified as a woman and score as much as he wanted. Chappelle—who is widely regarded as one of the greatest comics of all time—is now stuck rehashing the same level of comedy as idiots who yell out “bUt WhAt If i IdEnTiFy aS An ApAcHe HeLiCoPtEr.” That was just the tip of the transphobic iceberg.

Oh, by the way, this was all within the first twenty minutes. Now, I could end up writing a doctoral thesis on everything wrong with the following 40-minute shitshow, like his complaining about not being able to use homophobic slurs in his skits or referring to the LGBTQ+ community as “the letter people,” but my blood pressure can only take so much.

What Chappelle is doing right now is clinging to the last bit of clout he has in a changing world of comedy. More and more TV shows, skits, and comics are realizing that you can be open-minded and progressive and still be absolutely hilarious, all while pushing the envelope and tackling dark humour.

Dave Chappelle is one of the people that stands to suffer from that shift in comedy. He appears so dead-set on shaming you for enjoying an inclusive comedy experience that people like Hasan Minhaj or John Oliver can provide.

Chappelle tried so hard to sound edgy but he just ended up coming off as an ugly, asinine mix between your annoying, boomer uncle’s Facebook feed and an 11-year-old that just discovered what the word “dank” means.

Dave Chappelle will always go down as one of the greatest pioneers of comedy and one of the first from that field to become an international mega-star. That’s why it pains me so much to see him so unapologetically insufferable.

Did I crack a smile once or twice while watching? Sure. But it’s disheartening to see such a funny human stoop so low that they would appeal to the lowest common denominator of an audience. Instead of changing with the times and showing some range, he’s doubled down on being as unabashedly insulting to as many people and communities as possible.

 

Graphic by Victoria Blair

Categories
Opinions

The misconceptions of marijuana

Graphic by @spooky_soda

Analyzing the misplaced stigma surrounding cannabis consumption

After years of debate, marijuana is finally legal in Canada. On Oct. 17, the first dispensaries opened across the country. This is a massive step toward not only making pot safer and more accessible, but also ensuring a degree of product quality that couldn’t be guaranteed in an unregulated market. That being said, I believe significant progress is still needed in regard to the elimination of the stigma associated with marijuana use.

Certainly, cannabis is by no means a product without fault. Just like everything else, overuse of marijuana can have serious side-effects. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry noted that acute cannabis consumption at a young age has been linked with the inhibition of psychomotor skills, short-term memory, and minor cognitive functions.

There have also been studies aimed at examining and contrasting the overuse of marijuana at a young age with the development of certain mental disorders. While there is a certain correlation, it is crucial to remember that researchers have yet to find any meaningful causality. According to CBC News, Matthew Hill, an associate professor at the University of Calgary Hotchkiss Brain Institute emphasizes that we shouldn’t fall into the stereotypes about pot; instead, we should have faith in the studies being conducted which disprove them.

With all its potential side effects, the stigma around cannabis consumption still massively outweighs the real risks. We live in a world where the majority of the population is comfortable with people drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes (more or less). While people aren’t necessarily okay with others being addicted to opioids or pharmaceuticals, it’s definitely still a very common and accepted pain relief method. Yet some of the same people are still adamantly against the very thought of marijuana.

That being said, alcohol, cigarettes, and pharmaceuticals/opioids are distinctly worse for your health in every aspect and deadlier than marijuana could ever be. Unlike booze, pills or cigarettes, marijuana does not create a chemical dependency in the brain. While attitudes like psychosocial dependency can be developed, the detox period for this is significantly less painful and shorter than the detox period for chemical addiction, according to CBC News.

Another factor to keep in mind is that not a single person has ever died solely due to marijuana consumption, according to Greencamp, a website that researches cannabis use. Not a single one. Ever. According to the Canadian Cancer Society, smoking has killed 37,000 people in Canada this year alone, and opioids have taken 8,000 Canadian lives since 2016 according to CBC News. Marijuana is increasingly being seen as a viable alternative to prescription drugs with research being performed at facilities such as CanniMed and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse on the medical benefits of cannabis. This shows how invaluable it could be for the creation of effective and addiction-free treatments.

According to the Canadian Institute of Health Information, alcohol consumption also led to the hospitalization of nearly 77,000 Canadians in 2016. Yet pharmaceuticals, cigarettes, and alcohol are accepted aspects of society with no legislation aiming to ban them. Unfortunately, marijuana is consistently demonized, and will remain so for several years to come.

In his book Weed: A User’s Guide, columnist for the cannabis website Leafy and host of the Roll-Up podcast David Schmader explained that a person would need to smoke roughly 1,500 pounds of cannabis in an hour to fatally overdose. According to calculations by the peer-reviewed journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence, that would come to about 1,943,965 joints. In one hour. Good luck with that.

At its core, legalization of marijuana takes the first step toward the de-stigmatization of its consumption. Regardless of the potential health benefits or the toxic and deadly products we deem more socially acceptable, marijuana use still has a negative connotation to it. However, with the progressive steps governments are taking to not only decriminalize cannabis, but make it more accessible, one can hope this stigma won’t remain a mainstream concept for much longer.

Graphic by @spooky_soda

Categories
Sports

Stingers hold on to win dramatic game three

The Stingers will face the Montréal Carabins in the RSEQ final, the team they beat in the playoffs last year. Photo by Alex Hutchins.

Women’s hockey team books spot in finals and nationals for second-straight year

After losing game two on the road on Feb. 24 and with their season on the line, the Concordia Stingers women’s hockey team was forced to play a third game at home on Feb. 25 in their playoff series against the Ottawa Gee-Gees. The Stingers came out on top with a 2-1 win at the Ed Meagher Arena, clinching a spot in the Réseau du sport étudiant du Québec (RSEQ) final, and in the national championship in London, Ont., in March.

The first period was a tense affair with teams trading power plays and solid chances with no result. The deadlock was broken halfway through the second period when Stingers captain and defenceman Marie-Joëlle Allard put home a rebound following a hectic scramble in front of the Gee-Gees net. When Allard scored, four Gee-Gees, the goalie and even the referee were all lying on the ice.

“All the games we’ve played against this team have been really physical, so we knew that there were going to be penalties throughout this series,” Allard said. “We really worked on our special teams play building up to this series, and that definitely paid off.”

Forward Sophie Gagnon (#11) scored one goal in the series. Photo by Alex Hutchins.

As the second period was winding down and the Stingers upped the offensive pressure, a stray rebound found its way onto forward Lidia Fillion’s stick, and she made no mistake, giving the Stingers a 2-0 lead. The home crowd was buzzing with the thought of potentially going to the finals for a second-straight year.

One of hockey’s favourite clichés is that a two-goal lead is the worst lead to have, and that seemed to be accurate as the Gee-Gees came out flying in the third period. They scored just two minutes into the third period.

The Ottawa side kept up the pressure, launching attack after attack, but were ultimately frustrated by Stingers goalie Alice Philbert. The rookie made several game-saving stops, including a desperate, sprawling save with three seconds left on the clock to secure the win.

Another standout player was Stingers forward Claudia Dubois, who has been one the team’s best players this season. After leading the team in the regular season with 20 points, she had two assists in this series.

“We’re very happy with the way we bounced back after a tough loss yesterday,” Dubois said. “We really came together as a team, and we have the result to show for it. Playing against [Université de] Montréal in the final is going to be a challenge, but we’re all confident that we can get the job done.”

The pressure and intensity from this game was a far cry from the display on Saturday, as head coach Julie Chu pointed out following the win.

“The series overall was a great, and we’re thrilled to move on. A massive part of that was due to the fact that we just played with more desperation,” Chu said. “After the second game, we had to come back home and play as if it were our last game on Earth or else we would lose, because [Ottawa] definitely played with that mindset.”

The Stingers will now play against the Université de Montréal Carabins in the finals, a team they have played five times this season, with every game going into overtime or a shootout. The Stingers had a 3-0-2 record against them this season. The series will begin on March 1.

Main photo by Alex Hutchins.

Categories
Opinions

The Canadian fascination with American politics

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin.

As news consumers, our obsession with entertainment precedes the need to know

President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was indicted on Oct. 30 for 12 charges, including tax fraud, money laundering and conspiracy against the United States, according to Global News. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Even in Canada, it is difficult to find anyone who isn’t talking about this or who isn’t up to date on the drama surrounding the Trump administration. But how many people are talking about the current scandal involving Canadian finance minister Bill Morneau?

The member of Parliament (MP) from Toronto was just fined under the Conflict of Interest Act
for failing to disclose economic ties to his businesses, according to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s website. While it has dominated national news for the last two weeks, all anyone seems to talk about is the dumpster fire of a government currently in place south of the border.

That shouldn’t come as any surprise. According to Abacus Data, a Canadian polling and market research firm, 26 per cent of Canadians get their news directly from social media, while another 14 per cent get theirs online. Given the president’s near constant presence on social media—seemingly more than any other head of state in office—those stories receive more coverage and have more traction online than local stories.

In fact, local media has been hurting in general. According to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), half of all local Canadian TV news stations could close by 2020. This shows a trend toward using national and international news as our source of information, especially regarding politics.

In my opinion, that is because of one simple reason: Canadian politics is boring. In theory, that’s exactly what citizens should want—a boring, stable, scandal-free government. The only problem is that regular, boring local politics now has to compete with daily Washington drama.

I believe the main reason for Canada’s relatively mundane politics is the way we elect our officials. Now this is in no way a piece about election reform, but our first-past-the-post system favours moderate candidates who appeal to the “centre” of their constituencies. That’s also why Canada has so few significantly right- or left-wing MPs. It also makes for (occasionally) bipartisan legislation and, often, a relatively boring, controversy-free House of Commons.
In the United States, however, many states often elect their representatives based solely on party rather than on a candidate’s merit or ideas. In fact, 24 states and the District of Columbia have voted for the same party since 1992, according to the fact-checking website Politifact. This means candidates can be as far-right or as far-left as they want and will likely still get elected by their loyal constituencies.

Since the distance on the political spectrum between Republicans and Democrats is much wider than the Conservative-Liberal divide, arguments and differences in opinion are much more explosive and scandal-prone.
Not to mention President Trump and his staff now give international viewers a daily dose of mishaps, blunders and general incompetence that people just cannot look away from.

We can’t blame the Canadian government for not capturing the public’s attention—our politicians are just doing their job. It does, however, say a lot about our country when our “scandalous” political news stories are about Justin Trudeau pulling someone by the arm or MP Michelle Rempel saying the word “fart” in the House of Commons.

With this contrast in mind, why wouldn’t Canadians prefer to read about the craziness happening in Washington and the Trump administration’s absurdities rather than hear about their own boring local government? It’s like C-SPAN trying to compete with MTV—at the end of the day, people just cannot get enough drama and scandal.

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

 

Categories
Opinions

Mass shootings: Why does this keep happening?

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth.

Las Vegas massacre highlights the deeper problem of gun control in the U.S.

Fifty-eight people lost their lives when Stephen Paddock opened fire from the 32nd floor in his Mandalay Bay hotel room in Las Vegas on Oct. 1. This was the 273rd mass shooting of 2017—also the deadliest in modern American history, according to Time.

Various conservative news sources have reported that no one could have seen this tragedy coming. It was totally out of the blue. That’s strange given the fact that Paddock bought a total of 33 guns in the last year, according to CNN. In February, President Donald Trump signed a bill into law that forbade the U.S. Social Security Administration from submitting the names of people with mental illnesses to the national background check system. I believe this has no other purpose than to get more guns into the hands of more people.

When a man like Paddock can amass nearly 50 guns throughout his lifetime, the main problem isn’t mental illness or hotel security. The real culprits are the gun laws (or lack thereof) currently in effect in the United States, and the people unwilling to change them.

Even though assault rifles are illegal in the United States, Paddock had bump stocks—small pieces of hardware attached to his guns that help semi-automatic rifles fire nearly as quickly as full automatic ones. The kicker? They were purchased legally. Why are they legal?

The answer is the NRA (National Rifle Association). The answer is always the NRA. For decades, they have pushed for increased deregulation of firearms and even opposed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The group has so much power through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts that it’s literally undemocratic. They have spent over $200 million in the last 20 years promoting their agenda, according to the U.S. Federal Election Commission, and that somehow seems to drown out the fact that nearly eight out of 10 Americans are in favour of implementing the most basic gun control laws, according to the Pew Research Center.

Even the majority of Republicans (82 per cent) advocate for barring people on the no-fly list from getting guns. More than half of Republicans (54 per cent) approve of background checks for private sales or gun shows and a database that will track gun sales across the country, according to Pew Research Center.

Many Americans will argue that it is their constitutional right to protect themselves. In reality, nowhere in the American Constitution does it say people have the unalienable right to own a gun just because they are American. Word-for-word, the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Notice a very curious group of three words that is often left out of the NRA’s and many Republican’s speeches: Well. Regulated. Militia. That means if the freedom of the United States is under threat and militias are brought into action, their right to have arms will not be infringed. It does not say anything about private citizens. I imagine the beginning of the Second Amendment is often left out because “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” sounds a whole lot better for gun advocates.

In my opinion, the NRA has ignited this pro-gun fervor by convincing millions of people there is a secret, totalitarian super-government hell-bent on taking away their guns and freedom. Truthfully, what gun control advocates are trying to do is simply make sure gun owners don’t misuse them or put anyone in harm’s way. Like, you know, the nearly 100,000 people who have died in the United States since 2014 from gunshots, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Right-wing media and politicians have a go-to tactic when a mass shooting they can’t politicize occurs. They avoid talking about the real problem at hand. Take Fox News’ Sean Hannity, for example. He spent more time talking about how he would have been able to help the people of Las Vegas had he been there, rather than discuss the serious ramifications of the lack of gun control. These commentators and politicians give their thoughts and their prayers, and that’s it. However, they had no problem politicizing shootings when they happened in San Bernardino, Fort Lauderdale, Brussels or any other instance of violence that fit their anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Every time we say “never again,” people seem to think doing nothing will solve the problem. What really needs to happen is a significant overhaul of the current legislation and a bipartisan effort to limit who can obtain firearms to avoid more senseless deaths.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Sports

Frustrating forwards is more fun than scoring goals

Olivier Georges prefers stopping goals rather than scoring them. Photo by Alex Hutchins.

Stingers captain Olivier Georges was turning heads even before his time at Concordia

I had the pleasure to get to know Olivier Georges, the centre-back who has captained the Concordia Stingers men’s soccer team for the last two-and-a-half years.

I spoke to him after a team practice, and the first thing that struck me was how different he was compared to when I’ve spoken to him after matches. Constantly smiling and very laid back, he didn’t seem like the same guy who’s so focused and intense during games.

My first time watching Georges play was at CEPSUM, on the Université de Montréal campus, where the Stingers faced off against the Carabins, a top team in the Réseau du sport étudiant du Québec (RSEQ). The game did not go Concordia’s way—the Carabins won 7-3—but the first thing I noticed was the centre-back wearing number 20 who was in control of his team even before the game started. He pumped his team up by vocally encouraging them before the game, and was directing his teammates on where to position themselves during the game.

His style of play and control of the Stingers back line was everything one could hope for from a defensive leader. Despite constantly being vocal and organizing the play, he always managed to calm his team down when on defence.

The more I watched the Stingers, the more he became one of the most consistent and entertaining players on the field.

Off the pitch, Georges is anything but the fiery and passionate defender who seems to be everywhere at the same time during the game. He is smiling and always willing to chat, even after a tough loss or a grueling practice.

At a young age, when most players wanted to score goals, Georges never really expressed a desire to play as a forward. He preferred defending his goal rather than attacking his opponent’s.

“Coaches would always ask me to go up forward because I was so fast, but I never really got into that,” Georges said. “I could always see the whole play from defence, and I always enjoyed frustrating forwards more than scoring goals.”

Olivier Georges right where he belongs: in front of his goalkeeper, defending his net, during the 2016 season. Archive photo by Alex Hutchins.

He isn’t afraid of stepping up to help his team attack, as he is good in possession of the ball. He embodies the newer generation of defenders like Real Madrid’s Sergio Ramos, who are rising in the professional ranks because they can shut down any attacking forward but could also score goals themselves.

Regardless of how comfortable with the ball or how quick he is, Georges always preferred playing defence. And he’s quite good at it too. Georges was named a RSEQ Second Team All-Star in 2014 and 2015, and a RSEQ First Team All-Star in 2016. The RSEQ All-Star teams consist of the best players in the conference from a given season.

For Georges, who also ran track and field and played varsity volleyball, soccer has always been his favourite sport.

“When I had to choose between [other sports] and soccer, there was no choice to make,” he said. “I’ve always loved being active, but my hand-eye coordination is terrible so it just makes sense that I play a sport where you’re not allowed to use your hands.”

Despite getting an offer to play for the semi-pro St-Hubert Soccer Club last summer, Georges is uncertain about his future career in soccer.

“I was way too busy, but maybe after I graduate I can think about playing there. But I have no definite plans for the future of my career,” he said.

Georges is currently studying Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL). It offers a lot of opportunities to teach abroad and that is something he wants to do.

“That’s definitely been a dream of mine,” Georges said. “I’ve always been fascinated by travel and to be able to go abroad to teach would just be a dream come true.” Teaching also requires a lot of leadership and direction, which is what Georges shows with the Stingers right now.

Having been an integral member of the Stingers since his freshman year, Georges has experience with the hectic and perpetually busy life of a student-athlete.

“It’s definitely demanding. I have to take a bunch of evening courses since we practice every day from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. so I have to plan my schedule accordingly,” Georges explained. “But there’s no way I would ever give it up. I would be way too bored without this part of my life.”

Georges added that being part of the soccer team was also a great way to begin university. “Starting off with 23 new friends was a really good part of my first year.”

Although he will be saying goodbye to the Stingers jersey at the end of this year, he has left behind a lasting impression with the team. And I’m sure opponents won’t forget his ability to defend against attacking players either.

Main photo by Alex Hutchins

Exit mobile version