Generally, I'm sympathetic to a performer who is out in front of a disrespectful crowd, but the thing was that she wasn't performing at one of her concerts. It was a damn fashion show in Tokyo, a sizable chunk of the audience probably didn't even know who she was. For a vet performer like her to not at the very least be prepared for that type of environment, it's not just foolish it's delusional.
Tom, how old are you? The Pixies do not pre-date the term "indie". Maybe in the sense that it is thought of today. But back in the 80s, they were exactly the sort of band that someone would call indie.
I know he's supposed to actually be a really nice guy, but the whole time I'm just waiting for Rollins to punch RuPaul right in the face and start screaming at him unintelligibly.
I saw them perform Kids. It sucked, but they played it. Then it was also weird because Weezer was head lining and they did a cover of Kids (which was actually better).
Good luck with that. Lawsuits like this pretty much never have any success. As long as FLAG isn't claiming to actually be Black Flag, they're in the clear. By the logic Ginn is using pretty much any cover band with a similar name would also be in breach.
To me, the only real difference between the two is that JT's video takes itself much more seriously, everything about Blurred Lines is much more in your face. The lighting is flat (and very bright), the nudity is nearly nonstop, and feels a bit like nudity for nudity's sake. I would make the argument that the content of the song and this approach compliment each other artistically, but it also makes for an easier target. Other than that, I'd say writing off all nudity in music videos or other modern forms of artistic expression as exploitation (the mocking picture of Kate Winslet from Titanic comes to mind) is extraordinarily glib.
Call me a stickler but this doesn't really at all sound like punk to me. More like lo-fi emo or early 00s college radio. I guess it could be a punk ballad, but is this what passes for punk these days? Seriously, did I miss something?
I did like the Born to Run cover though.
I completely don't understand why people for some bizarre reason feel that the writers on this site aren't allowed to editorialize at all. Of course, it probably goes hand in hand with the barrage of down votes anyone who goes against the grain of the popular gathers up.
I think this video pretty straight forward. Both characters represent classic depictions of beauty and ugliness. The song is about the singer still finding her companion attractive despite other people's opinions.
Also, the video is incredibly low budget, and not in a great looking way. The band members look dutiful and willing but confused. Song is alright, video is worse.
Who ever said a post acknowledging the release of a music video was journalism in the first place? Here we go again with this shit. Tom is simply prefacing this post with an acknowledgement that most people in the world (including the world of stereogum) know little about Suferblood beyond the DV incident and clearly it has dominated all posts regarding them since then, AS CLEARLY SHOWN BY THIS MESSAGE BOARD. Everyone loves feeling self righteous and nailing someone else to the wall. First there was the backlash, then there was the backlash to the backlash, now there's backlash to acknowledging there was backlash. This incident is a part of Surferblood, get over yourselves people. You're not leaders of the world, we're a bunch of chumps on a music site.
Also, there is the "average joe" look to Mr. Pitts that throws people. Someone see Axl Rose, and they don't feel much of a personal connection with him. He looks like a celebrity, he looks apart from the masses. But this guy, he looks like anyone you could know or see just around. That quality makes the abuse feel, in a way, closer to reality.
I think one of the big problems people have with Surfer Blood's DV incident compared to other musicians who have the same problems is how anachronistic it feels. Someone like Chris Brown, despite what his music might portray, is known in pop culture to be generally an asshole and a thug. In Brown's case his persona trumps the music. With someone like Axl Rose, the music he performed (performs) is out of control and wild. In his case, it fits our image of him. Not making it acceptable, but at least far less jarring. Also, Axl is a known crazy person. With Surfer Blood people generally don't know much about the members of the band outside of what they might see in a music video or a small write up, so all we have to go on is the music. Which, needless to say, does not feel like the sort of tunes that someone who punches women in the face might sing. It reminds me of the SNL sketch with John Goodman about the children's show performers are a bunch of anti-government militants in real life. It's just harder for a person's brain to process, making it more difficult to deal with.
Wow, you are really cherry picking what to feel self righteous and indignant about on this website. Why don't you save it for something that actually matter, just a little bit.
I hate burst your bubble, Tom. But there's nothing particularly "unstuck in time" about that roller-rink or the video (other than the fact that people often automatically associate them with the 70s). There's one in my hometown that pretty much looks exactly like it.
Comments