youth are awesome.com

I wasn’t planning to attend Sled Island this year due to the financial costs but the great people at the Kids Up Front Foundation kindly gave myself and some other youth the opportunity to check Sled Island.  The Kids Up Front Foundation provides children and youth the opportunity to attend events that they wouldn’t normally be able to attend.  I know my friends and I wouldn’t have been able to attend because of the costs and many of us are trying to save up for school.  Thanks to the Kids Up Front Foundation for this amazing opportunity.  For more information or to donate your unused tickets please check out their website.

The headliner for the first night of the 2010 Sled Island main-stage was simply one man playing two laptops. Despite the dull mental picture that description promotes the performance was phenomenal. Girl Talk is one of the most involving live music experiences I’ve had the pleasure of attending.

Gregg Gillis, AKA Girl Talk exists within of subgenre of electronic music called mashup. What this typically entails is taking usually two or more pre-existing songs, sampling them, cutting them up, and mixing (or mashing) them together into a completely new song. A mashup you may be familiar with is “United State of Pop 2009” by DJ Earworm which surfaced near the end of 2009, mashing up the top 25 Billboard hits. DJ Earworm has also created mashups for the hits of 2007 and 2008.

Girl Talk inhabits a lot of the same territory as DJ Earworm, using lots of songs with high radio play. But perhaps what helps distinguish Girl Talk is that his use of sampling material isn’t limited to hits. Moments after a Lil’ Wayne or Beyonce cut you might hear a sample from a Radiohead or Yeah Yeah Yeahs song, and then some Jackson 5 or Isley Brothers or might be thrown in. And that’s what makes the live show so compelling. Particularly with an indie-oriented Sled Island crowd, you’re part of an audience that knows the whole spectrum of Girl Talk’s material. Everyone sings along to the nonsense sounds in Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance, recites the verses of Jay-Z’s 99 Problems, and vocalizes with the choral arrangement in Arcade Fire’s Wake Up.

In addition to the music, plenty else is done to make the performance a party. Audience members are invited up on stage to dance alongside Gillis as he mixes, pop-able inflatables containing confetti are used, and toilet paper is shot over the crowd through use of a modified leaf blower. Everyone in a five meter radius of the stage is dancing wildly, though space is very limited. Crowd surfers are not uncommon.

If you’d like to check out Girl Talk’s recorded you can download his most recent album Feed the Animals at his record label’s site. It’s ‘pay what you want’, and $0.00 is an option.

On April 23 of this year, the ‘Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act’ (AKA Senate Bill 1070 or SB 1070) was signed into Arizona state law. The new law has been called the US nation’s toughest on illegal immigration and has raised widespread criticism and outrage.

SB 1070 makes it an offense for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents with them. It also gives police the power to stop those suspected of being illegal immigrants and demand proof of citizenship. Opponents of the law say it encourages racial profiling and constitutes state sanctioned racism while supporters say it only helps enforce pre-existing laws. The controversial nature of this bill has roused many into action including many artists and musicians.

The Sound Strike, partially organized by Zack de la Rocha of the very politically active band Rage Against the Machine, is a organization of over a hundred artists who have committed to boycott playing any live shows in the state of Arizona as long as the law remains on the books. Among the artists who have joined the protest are Kanye West, Nine Inch Nails, Rise Against, and Serj Tankian of System of a Down. An up-to-date list of all the participating artists can be found on the Sound Strike website. However, while so many have joined the Sound Strike not all opponents of the bill are united in their opinion on the best way to protest.

Back in April, the Montreal band Stars were one of the first musical groups to boycott playing Arizona. On their twitter Stars posted that “until [Arizona’s] racist new immigration law is repealed, stars (and many others) will boycott this state”. Damian Abraham of the Toronto based band F**ked Up, via his own twitter account, responded to Stars with this post.

“Don’t get me wrong, I think the AZ immigration bill is horrible and must be repealed but I also think that indie bands boycotting the state is inane. Do Stars honestly think that by denying the state their brand of dreamy pop that they’re going to force the governor’s hand? All this does is not give the people that like your band enough credit and assumes that they are in someway supportive of the bill.”

Abraham then suggested to “keep playing Arizona, using the shows as an opportunity to engage the people there to get involved (they are the ones after all capable to affecting change in the state)…” to which Stars politely reaffirmed their faith in the power of the boycott.

Others are also in agreement with Abraham. On June 24^th Charlie Levy of Stateside Presents, an Arizona promotion agency, published an open letter to all the artists boycotting the state. Here is an excerpt from that letter.

“The truth is, a boycott is an easy gesture that doesn’t require much more than a statement and removing a date from your tour schedule. However, if you truly care about the effects of the controversial immigration law that was passed, this is an opportunity to use your unique position as an artist with the ability to reach thousands of people to inspire, educate, and motivate your fans to actively be a part of the change.”

What do you think about SB 1070 and about the various forms of protest that are being employed? Let us know your opinion in the comments.

The weather is warming (ignore the random dumps of snow), green is beginning to return to the trees and those with allergies are making sure they have plenty of their favorite antihistamines in store. Spring is here and with it is a host of fantastic new record releases I’m very excited about. Here’s what’s coming out May 11th.

The National:
High Violet

What really gets me about this Brooklyn-based band is the voice of Matt Berninger, their lead vocalist and lyricist. He lacks range but he makes up for it in personality. His lyrics are delivered in a deep baritone, in an almost monotonous voice. While the use of the words ‘personality’ and ‘monotone’ together sounds like an oxymoron, Matt’s style is perfect for conveying the contemplative nature of his lyrics.

High Violet is the follow-up to 2007’s phenomenal Boxer, one of my favorite albums of that year.

All of High Violet is streaming over at The New York Times where you can also find a fantastic article which provides a lot of insight into the dynamics of the band and their recording process. The album is also being streamed by NPR’s previously featured First Listen. Make sure you take a listen to the first single off the record (and my favorite song so far,) Bloodbuzz, Ohio.

Spring has sprung and this year’s season has been blessed with the release of some fantastic records that I am personally looking forward to quite a bit. So take a peek at what’s coming out May 4th – a new Broken Social Scene album.

Broken Social Scene:
Forgiveness Rock Record

I love Broken Social Scene because they represent the coming together of a very large chunk the Canadian independent music. Members of Broken Social Scene are also members of Apostle of Hustle, Land of Talk, Metric, Stars, The Weakerthans, etc… Their sound is characteristically layered, featuring orchestrations of several guitars, brass instruments and horns, woodwinds and strings. It all comes together to create this amazing texture of sound that builds up and rolls over you like a wave.

Dropping tomorrow, Forgiveness Rock Record is the first (official) Broken Social Scene release since their eponymous third album in 2005.

The entirety of the new album, Forgiveness Rock Record is streaming at their site. Make sure you check out the first track, World Sick.

I recently came across an interesting blog which makes it its mission to objectively review animal species and award each a letter grade.

Here’s an excerpt from the jellyfish review.
(Important preliminary knowledge: Jellyfish don’t have brains.)

Not only have they traveled the world and done fairly well despite their brainlessness, jellyfish also manage to kill and devour their prey and deter predators.  Now, one probably wouldn’t be very afraid of a shark that didn’t have a brain. Or a snake without a brain. Or a bear. Indeed, it might be entirely hilarious if a brainless bear was trying to attack you. There’d surely be a website called watchthisbrainlessbear.com and it would be ‘dedicated to providing the most recent videos of brainless bears trying to do things.’ But yet we all intuitively sense that a jellyfish – even a brainless one – is a different matter altogether. And that intuition turns out to be completely correct.

‘Animal Review’ is a very entertaining and surprisingly educational read. Written with a wonderful wit, the authors always take into account the conventional awesomeness of each species as well as the biological facts. Check it out and find out why the panda was failed and why the great white shark was given such a high grade.

Since September of 2008 the fantastic American public radio network, NPR, has been offering early listens to select upcoming records on their website.  It’s called First Listen.

For a period of time (up to the date the album is officially released) you can stream an entire album from NPR.com.  It’s a pretty awesome service.

Available for a listen at this moment is MGMT’s upcoming album Congratulations.

Many of you will no doubt remember the hits Time to Pretend, Electric Feel, and Kids from the duo’s debut record, Oracular Spectacular.  Despite the success these singles brought the band, MGMT set out to make a single-less album.  This is an idea that really appeals to the hipster in me who shakes his head at those who only know a band for “that one song.”  The band is presenting the album as-is, without trying to direct the attention of listeners to a specific part.  They’re trying to get you to find out what you like most about the album yourself.

Anyways, give Congratulations a listen right here and see what you think.

And how about that trippy album art?

I  recently read an article by Douglas Hopper which made me revisit some thoughts I’ve had on Lady Gaga and her role in popular culture.

I’m not a fan of Lady Gaga’s music.  Her brand of pop-dance isn’t my thing.  But beyond her music, there is something I can appreciate about her.  She’s a determinedly different pop star. No one else on the radio is comparable to her in wardrobe, in bizarre music videos, and in eccentricity.

Her most recent video “Telephone” (certainly too NSFW to be linked to here) finds Gaga in an extremely promiscuous prison for women performing racy dance numbers then being bailed out by Beyoncé.  The two commit a mass murder at a diner then flee from the police.  Please note that there’s much about this video I’m not mentioning in order to ‘keep it PG’.

Who else could be behind “Telephone” besides Lady Gaga?  She is an unapologetic rebel.  Totally out there – unwilling to conform to anyone’s expectations. I don’t even think I know what Lady Gaga really looks like, whenever I’ve seen her she’s in extensive costume.  A disco ball textured dress and mask, covered in stage blood, wearing a hat made out of her own hair – Gaga is impossible to pin down.

If there were an individual to compare to Lady Gaga I would have to point to Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs.  The fellow New Yorker has a wardrobe almost as insane as Gaga’s and (especially in the early punk-rock days of the YYYs) is just as animated in performance.

Even if all her over-the-top imagery – the androgyny, the ultra-eroticism – is merely meant to shock viewers and sell records rather than actually deliver a message, I’m glad there’s a figure in the mainstream that is able to make that imagery happen.

Back when I was junior high school I remember Gorillaz making quite an impact on the radio and amongst my classmates, particularly the hit “Feel Good Inc.”  What I don’t remember is ever really listening to them – just a group I never bothered to get into.  So when their third LP (Plastic Beach) dropped earlier this month, I figured it was as good a time as any to start listening.

If you’re as ignorant as I am about the group, the first thing you need to know is that Gorillaz is a virtual band composed of animated characters.  Created by former Blur frontman Damon Albarn – who handles most of the music – and comic book artist Jamie Hewlett (Tank Girl) – who give gives the band a unique animated aesthetic – Gorillaz are the most successful virtual band of all time (Others include Dethklok, Prozzäk, and Alvin & The Chipmunks). Members include 2D (vocals and keyboards – centre), Murdoc Niccals (bass – right), Noodle (guitar and vocals – lower left) and Russel Hobbs (drums – upper left).

While in music videos and live performances you’ll see the four animated bandmates singing and playing their instruments, in reality the instrumentation and vocals are provided by Albarn with a revolving door cast of musicians.  On Plastic Beach, contributors include Snoop Dogg, Bobby Womack, and Lou Reed. Previous collaborators include De La Soul, Bootie Brown, MF DOOM, and Tina Weymouth & Chris Frantz of Tom Tom Club and Talking Heads.

The music of Gorillaz is difficult to categorize into a specific genre – pop, alt-rock, hip hop, etc… their music refuses to be labeled.  Throw in some surprisingly intellectual lyrics with themes based on Damon Albarn’s observations of society and you get something very different and intriguing – I’m a bit surprised a band based on such a bizarre concept became popular enough to sell 15 million albums worldwide.

In any case, the music is quality and strongly recommended. Go buy it.

Check out the video (featuring Bruce Willis) for the new single “Stylo” here.

A recent article by author Jonah Lehrer (Proust Was a Neuroscientist, How We Decide) in the Wall Street Journal discusses the connection between youth and scientific innovation.  Check out my summary below…you might learn something new!

Young Scientists & Innovation

• James D. Watson, at age 25, co-wrote Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid in 1953. Proposing the double helix structure of the DNA molecule, it is one of the most important scientific papers in history.
• At 23, Isaac Newton began inventing calculus, which he used in the formulation of the laws of motion and gravitation.
• Albert Einstein wrote his first scientific work at 16 and published lots of his most important papers at age 26.
• The German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg was in his mid-20’s when he pioneered concepts of quantum mechanics.
• Often called the father of modern science, Galileo Galilei wrote his first paper at 22 and was in his late 20’s when he started experimenting on the speed of falling objects.

The Inverted U Curve

“One theory of this relationship suggests that creative output follows a predictable pattern over time,” writes Lehrer – a steep rise and a gradual fall of creativity, represented by an inverted U curve.  Performance tends to peak after a few years of work and decline in middle age.

This pattern was first observed and studied by the 19th-century French mathematician and sociologist Adolphe Quetelet. Quetelet graphed the number of plays produced by French and English playwrights over the course of their life spans, discovering that a peak in creativity always seemed to happen when the writers were between 25 and 50 years old.

A psychologist at the California’s UC Davis named Dean Simonton has expanded on Quetelet’s groundwork.  He has analyzed tons of historical data looking for patterns in creative output.  His research has shown that “physicists tend to make their first important discovery in their late 20’s,” Lehrer writes. 

Simonton says that, surprisingly enough, poetry is the only field that peaks before physics does.

Why?

So why are poets and physicists more creative in their younger years?  Simonton says that they are partialy benefiting from a willingness to try out new concepts and embrace different ideas. They haven’t become influenced by too much experience.

However, this is not true for every field. While physics, math and poetry tend to be dominated by the young, other disciplines seem to benefit from more experience. Simonton “suggests that people working in fields such as biology, history, novel-writing and philosophy might not peak until their late 40’s,” as Lehrer points out.

Pretty crazy, huh?

Read the original article by Jonah Lehrer here, and feel free to leave your comments below!

Reviews of Martin Scorsese’s psychological thriller, Shutter Island, have been mixed.  The film is of the sort where only the last act brings to light the true understanding of the story you’ve been watching unfold for the last hour. (Read: twist ending.)  The thing about telling stories this way is that the build up to the finale still has to be engaging, or else, who cares what happens in the end?  Whether or not Shutter Island’s first hour is worth watching will likely depend on your personal taste.

It stars Leonardo DiCaprio¹ and Mark Ruffalo as U.S. Federal Marshals Teddy Daniels and Chuck Aule, who have been called to Shutter Island to investigate the mysterious and inexplicable disappearance of an inmate from Ashecliffe Hospital for the Criminally Insane.  The year is 1954 and as the two detectives begin their investigation they discover that (as you might have guessed) nothing is as it seems.

What the film does exceptionally well is create a thoroughly Gothic atmosphere which invites comparison to the fiction of H.P. Lovecraft and Mary Shelley.  Shutter Island is a dark, craggy, foreboding place constantly bombarded by heavy rain and strong winds.  There is a fortress on the island constructed during the Civil War that has been converted into a mental hospital.  Shortly after being introduced to the film’s setting you begin to wonder what’s really up with this island.

Shutter Island should also be praised for its excellent performances. DiCaprio possesses an unparalleled gift of looking extremely severe.  His character is troubled by his past and its strange connection to the island and DiCaprio does and excellent job of conveying this hardened-exterior/tortured-interior convincingly.  Also note-worthy is Ben Kingsley as the head of the Ashecliffe staff.  He is positively chilling as Dr. John Cawley and sends shivers down your spine when he smiles.

What audiences may find alienating and bizarre, however, is Scorsese’s dream sequences, flashbacks, and hallucinations.  They occur frequently, intricately complicating the plot and purposefully leading the film’s viewers into a state of confusion.  Some may find it frustrating spending the bulk of the movie only asking questions while receiving no answers. Others (myself included) will enjoy letting Shutter Island take them on a dark journey through Ashcliffe Hospital and the human psyche.

1. Shutter Island is the director’s fourth film with DiCaprio, including Gangs of New York (2002), The Aviator (2004), and The Departed (2006); the last of which was awarded best picture at the Academy Awards.

In the 1970s, two Israeli psychologists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, performed an experiment by asking sets of two slightly differently worded hypothetical questions to large sample groups. Their most famous set of questions goes like this:

The United States is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill six hundred people. Two different programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows: If program A is adopted, two hundred people will be saved. If program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that six hundred people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved. Which of the two programs would you favor?

When this question was tested with a large number of physicians 72% chose program A, and only 28% chose program B.  This is to say that the majority of physicians would rather save a certain number of people for sure rather than risking the possibility of saving no one.  However, consider the following adjustments to the above question:

If program C is adopted, four hundred people will die. If program D is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that six hundred people will die. Which of the two programs would you favor?

When asked this version of the question, even though programs C and D are identical to A and B, 22% chose option C and 78% chose option D.  Physicians completely reversed their previous decisions, rejecting a guaranteed gain in order to participate in a risky gamble.

The options are the same, yet the sampled group responded very differently depending on how the two options were presented. When the question was described in terms of survivors the physicians made the rational choice and went with the safe strategy, but when the two programs were presented by describing deaths, physicians were suddenly willing to take risks to avoid four hundred deaths, even though it is the same as saving two hundred lives.

What this demonstrates is a concept called loss aversion.  In short, the pain of a loss is more powerful than the pleasure of a gain. We are willing to go to great lengths to avoid losses –much farther than we’ll go to get an equivalent gain.

Loss aversion is an innate flaw rooted in the emotional brain.  When facing a situation where loss seems imminent we experience strong negative emotions which compel us to make irrational decisions to try and avoid the loss at almost all costs.  You might see loss aversion used in marketing and advertising to exploit the emotions of consumers.  For example, an offer may describe avoiding a $10 surcharge rather than gaining a $10 credit.

So how can we avoid being tricked into making illogical decisions by loss aversion?  Everyone who experiences emotions is vulnerable to its effects – the only way to avoid loss aversion is to know about the concept. (“Knowing is half the battle!”)

Last week, the nominees for the 82^nd Academy Awards were announced. By the looks of the nominees, it seems that the Academy (of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) is making an effort to appeal to the general public more than in previous years. James Cameron’s Avatar is tied for the most number of nominations (nine categories) and the list of nominees is full of other high grossing blockbusters such as District 9, Star Trek, and Inglourious Basterds.

Following the 2008 Oscars I remember reading an opinion piece somewhere which supported such movement. The writer complained that the dullness of 80^th Academy Awards was due to the fact that the films nominated were those that nobody really cared about – movies on the more obscure side. Critical darlings like Michael Clayton and There Will Be Blood. I suppose the author of this article wasn’t down with the 2008 Oscars going indie.

This year promises to be a different story. With such high profile nominees the awards show is bound to attract the interest of TV audiences and perhaps help the Oscars distance itself from its undesired reputation of being mind-numbingly boring.

The 2010 nominees for Best Motion Picture of the Year:

• Avatar
• The Blind Side
• District 9
• An Education
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire
• A Serious Man
• Up
• Up in the Air

For the last month Avatar has been the movie virtually everyone has been talking about.  In the first week since its release my Facebook news feed lit up with glowing reviews in the form of status updates.  Almost everyone told me they loved it.  Initially uninterested in the film, my curiosity eventually grew to the point where I had to see it for myself.  And so this weekend, that is what I did.

As the Empire Theatres employee took my ticket to rip off the stub she asked me how many times I had seen the movie thus far.  When I said I hadn’t seen it yet, she told me she planned to see it at least twice more. “Sooo good…” she added for emphasis.

James Cameron’s Avatar released in Canada on December 18th, and nearly an entire month later the theatre was so packed I ended up having to sit in the second row from the front.  After the movie was over the lineup for the next showing was startlingly long.  The moviegoers patiently waited in line, at least 30 minutes before their showing was scheduled to start.

When this happens, when so many people insist that a movie is just fantastic, I become determined to hate it.  I walk into the theatre trying my best to keep an open mind, but as soon as the movie starts to play, I unconsciously start looking for things that are wrong with it.  I start scoffing at clunky dialogue; I sneer at the slightest sign of cliché and I begin to ignore parts of the movie which I might have actually called good if I had truly sat down with an open mind.

All of Avatar’s characters appeared to me as shallow variations on clichéd archetypes.  I saw the plot as cheesy and predictable.  I perceived the underlying message and the film’s themes as insincere.  Even Avatar’s action sequences (which I must admit, got my heart beating), I dismissed as special effects fluff.

That said, even with all the effort I put into trying to hate it, after the credits rolled I still couldn’t call Avatar bad.  It just didn’t ‘wow’ me.  In many ways I went looking for a verification of my own preconceived judgments, but I would like to think that I wanted Avatar to be good and that I wanted the movie to live up to the hype.  I had just set the bar too high.

But that of course would be untrue.

Guy Ritchie has essentially been making the same film since Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998), his feature film debut.  With the exception of his romantic comedy outing (Swept Away, which was awarded the 2002 Golden Raspberry for Worst Film), his films have been very similar to one another.  Ritchie’s directorial style is characterized by quick cuts, complex plots, humor, and lots of action.  When you see Guy Ritchie’s name attached to a movie you know, more or less, what to expect.

That said, when I heard he was directing Sherlock Holmes and that Robert Downey Jr. was to star I was apprehensive.  I usually enjoy Ritchie’s films and I’m a big fan of Robert Downey Jr.’s, but I wasn’t sure they were the right people to bring the brilliant detective to the big screen.  In the novels and short stories, Holmes is a skilled combatant, but rarely employs his knowledge of self-defense.  He carries a revolver, but rarely finds himself using it.  He doesn’t seem like the kind of character that would appear in a Guy Ritchie film or the sort of role Robert Downey Jr. would be recommended for.  However, that was all before I had seen the film.

While some of my worries were well placed, the film actually did a much better job of translating Sherlock Holmes into an action movie than I thought it might.  The characters of Holmes and his assistant Dr. Watson (played by Jude Law) are presented as over-the-top, action-hero versions of themselves, but they work.  The relationship between the two is always entertaining to watch as Jude Law’s Watson struggles to keep his temper with his genius, but childish companion.

Certain aspects of Holmes’ character are kept intact quite well.  I was particularly pleased with the way the detective’s signature method of deduction is handled.  Holmes deduces a shady character to be a professor, citing the chalk dust he spotted on his lapel and a quick shot of the white powder on the apparent professor’s jacket is shown in accompaniment.  You quickly make the mental association; the detective makes his point and comes off sharp as a tack.

All in all the film can be described in one word; entertaining.  Gripping action sequences and grand set pieces (the film climaxes atop Tower Bridge in the middle of its construction), it’s fun from start to finish.  You’re bound to find yourself on the edge of your seat more than once.

Last summer, I had the good fortune to peek into a garage sale while walking home and find a record player for the excellent price of $10.  When I brought it home, my dad asked why I was interested in playing records.  My answer was somewhere along the lines of, “Dunno… they’re cool.”

Later that summer, I was in Vancouver visiting relatives and I was able to score my father’s and aunt’s old record collections.  Returning to Calgary with 185 newly acquired LPs, my dad again asked me why I even wanted the records and why vinyl LPs seemed to be coming back into style.  Good question.

The vinyl LP (long-play) is indeed selling more now than it has in decades.  The Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA) year end statistics report that the amount of vinyl records shipped in the year have more than doubled from 2007-2008; $56.7 million USD worth of vinyl LPs and EPs were shipped in 2008.  An enormous increase from 2007’s $22.9 million USD, 2008 boasts the highest dollar value in vinyl shipped in a long while.   Although in comparison with other mediums of distribution these numbers are minuscule, they definitely provide evidence of an alleged comeback.

The closest I can come to explaining this statistical increase and answering my father’s question is through speculation.  I believe it may have to do with the popularity of indie music and hipster culture movements.  Indie rockers and hipsters tend to have a certain nostalgia for music and fashions of the past.  Perhaps the rise of independent music and of hipster culture has helped sell more vinyl.

Another possible contributor is the generally accepted fact that vinyl has superior sound quality over CDs and MP3s, making it a favorite of audiophiles and devout fans.  In CDs and MP3 files, sound is recorded digitally, which means the recorded sound is sampled at intervals at a very high rate (usually 44,100 times per second) and little bits of the original sound wave are lost in the conversion process.  Vinyl LPs record sound in a loss-less analog format.  They have a groove carved into them which exactly mirrors the original sound wave.  No information is lost.  This results in a richer, fuller sound.
I cannot really verify the claim that records have better sound quality due to the fact that the speakers I received with my turntable badly need replacement (but for $10, how can you complain?).

In any case, the comeback vinyl is making is an interesting twist towards the technology of the past and something to watch as time passes.  Perhaps the trend will continue or perhaps in a year or two vinyl records will be forgotten again.  I suppose we’ll have to wait and see.