Wayne Coyne's Record Store Tour - San Diego, CA

Kliph Scurlock, who played drums in the Flaming Lips for 12 years, recently parted ways with the band. And last week, after a great deal of online speculation, Scurlock gave his side of the story, claiming that frontman Wayne Coyne had been verbally abusive and threatening for years, and that the final breaking point came when Christina Fallin, the daughter of Oklahoma’s conservative governor, Instagrammed a photo of herself in a Native American headdress, an act of cultural appropriation that rankled many. Fallin and Coyne are friends, and when Scurlock called her out on social media, Coyne quickly ejected him from the band. The story has been all over the place for the past week, and it makes Coyne look really, really bad. And now Coyne has finally responded to those allegations, mostly by calling Scurlock an awful person.

In Coyne’s first interview since the story broke, he tells Rolling Stone many, many bad things about Scurlock, though most of it just amounts to name-calling. According to Coyne, Scurlock is the following things: “a typical cowardly Internet hater,” “a lazier and more close-minded musician,” “not creative,” “an abusive, compulsive, pathological liar that will do anything he can do get attention,” “a horrible, hateful person,” and “a bully.” He also claims that Scurlock called Fallin “a cunt” on social media and says that the band won’t be any different without Scurlock in it. Yee.

One of the main criticisms of Coyne in the past week has been the way he dealt with the whole headdress controversy. By way of defending Fallin, he posted a photo on his Instagram of some friends and a dog wearing headdresses. And when Fallin’s band Pink Pony played a recent music festival in Norman, Oklahoma, they mocked protesters, doing fake Native American war dances and flipping them off. Coyne was at the festival, and there are stories of him laughing at the protesters. And for all that stuff, Coyne apologizes in the interview. Sort of.

Here’s how Coyne phrases that apology: “
I would say that I’m very sorry, to anybody that is following my Instagram or my Twitter, if I offended anybody of any religion, any race, any belief system. I would say you shouldn’t follow my tweets; you shouldn’t even probably want to be a Flaming Lips fan because we don’t really have any agenda. We go about doing things through our imagination. And I would say that if we wrongly stepped on anybody’s sacredness, then we’re sorry about that. That was never our intention.”

Coyne also, bizarrely, defends the dog in the Instagram photo from any charges of racism, saying that this dog is “a famous Instagram dog.” And he offers this piece of information: “I don’t publicly ever say it, but I live in a neighborhood that was predominantly Native American in the late ’70s and ’80s. I haven’t done it publicly, but there’s cases of me helping Native Americans. It’s all just Internet hate, you know?” The interview is a fascinating, disturbing read, and you can check it out here.

Well, internet: Is this all just internet hate? Or is Coyne pulling the classic celebrity move of confusing “I’m sorry if you were offended” with “I’m sorry”? Is this a classic case of he-said/he-said, or is it another example of Coyne showing troubling, erratic, detached-from-reality tendencies. In the comments section, the floor is yours.

[Photo by Daniel Knighton/WireImage.]

Comments (78)
  1. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

  2. if he didn’t know he was being disrespectful, he’s a moron. fuck this band, they’re done in my book.

  3. Wayne lost

  4. Speaking of fact checks: the mom is Mary Fallin, but the daughter is Christina. Totally different people. Apparently VERY different.

  5. Links are not going to Rolling Stone but to a Q&A from 2013.

  6. Wayne Coyne just sounds like a total butt.

  7. Glad Wayne “headdressed” this issue head on. OWWWOOOOOOOOO!

  8. To their face, he would say, “You guys were great” and then 20 minutes later he’d get online and say, “These people are a bunch of fakes. They suck.”

    Oh man, you mean like what Wayne totally did to Beck.

    • Listen, man, you can’t hold him accountable for that, he’s just a conduit for imagination and free flowing words and creativity, it’s just the magic that comes out of him, you know?

  9. Well, remember, The Flaming Lips is not just Wayne Coyne. Steven Drozd really brings much of the music, and along with Dave Fridmann’s ground-breaking productions, you can’t throw them aside just because of this squabbling.

    That said, Wayne’s dealing with this headdress nonsense is no good.

    • Steven Drozd IS the Flaming Lips. Period.

      Without him there is no band.

      • He’s definitely the musical genius of the band, but they made great music before that too with the help of the guy from Mercury Rev and what is possibly my favorite album of theirs came even before he joined the band. I don’t think they could go on without him though and I doubt anyone would be willing to suffer Wayne without Drozd making the music.

  10. I think Wayne is just fried.
    Love the Flaming Lips, but there’s something about Wayne that doesn’t quite sit right lately; enough so that when people like Kliph say things about him (and Wayne then responds like he does here) I believe it.

    Heh, it still won’t taint my love for Embryonic though…

    • Amen to that. Kliph’s drumming makes that fucking record. It wouldn’t have had the same feel if it was just another “Steven plays everything” production. And THAT isn’t significant enough for Wayne Coyne? Fuck that asshole! Yeah, I’ll be a hater too, because Kliph is right and Wayne is wrong.

  11. ‘Hater’ is such a terrible comeback response.

    Wait, does this comment make ME a hater?

  12. Last time I bought one of their records I used it as an ashtray after I enjoyed some Flaming Lips on my WHAMMY!

  13. “We’re not being offensive, it’s just like, our imagination, man! “

  14. Favorite part: “The dog isn’t our dog, the dog is a famous Instagram dog that we happened to be in the presence of – Mayor B is an Instagram dog. And he wears everything. He only wears things that obviously his owners must think are cool. One of them is a John Lennon New York shirt with glasses. I don’t think Mayor B is saying, “Look how stupid and hateful I am” to John Lennon. I got the feeling that Mayor B was wearing [the headdress] for the same reasons that Gwen Stefani or anybody else would wear it, because it’s cool-looking.”

    That really might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read from a public figure.

  15. Wayne’s been off his rocker since day one. This behavior is not surprising and I’m sure it’s not new. Can we move on from this band already?

    • I will not move on from this band, but Wayne is totally fucked up in the head. Dude’s done every drug know to man and I’m pretty sure he’s never NOT on something. That said, all the hallucinogens they’ve done may have contributed to some of their best music…

  16. We’ll never know all the details about the whole affair but surely it must have been painfully hard to share 12 long years of musical partnership with someone who is: “a typical cowardly Internet hater,” “a lazier and more close-minded musician,” “not creative,” “an abusive, compulsive, pathological liar that will do anything he can do get attention,” “a horrible, hateful person,” and “a bully.”

  17. I first saw the Flaming Lips open for Beck (and be his band) on Beck’s Sea Change tour during my junior year of high school when I didn’t really know much about the Lips and was, obviously, completely blown away. SO much insanity happening onstage. Shortly after that, they released Yoshimi and I saw them play a couple small Dallas venue and really thought they might be the greatest live band in the world. The summer after my sophomore year of college I went on a month-long road trip of concerts and festivals, going to about 4 where the Lips were playing. I believe the first was Coachella, where they unveiled the hamster ball thing for the first time and I left thinking they still had it, even if it was a little bizarre how little their shows had changed (minus the awesome hamster ball addition) over the past few years. By the end of the summer, I could not stand them due to having heard Wayne’s nearly identical ramblings that, at that point, were lasting several times as long as each song. If his personality is bad enough to drive away super fans, I can’t imagine actually having to put up with that guy in real life. Anyway, I’m gonna go put on In a Priest Driven Ambulance, my strange and objectively wrong choice for a favorite Flaming Lips album.

  18. The interview might be full of self-aggrandizing, delusional, farcical nonsense, but there is some good advice buried in there. I would take Coyne’s recommendation to not be a Flaming Lips fan to heart.

  19. so which one of these two are going to apologize for their atrocious sxsw show they “played” last year?

  20. Did Wayne Coyne just give the longest #sorrynotsorry of all time?

  21. “And for him to say that all the other guys loved him, they would never come out and talk about how much they despise Kliph. They’re not like that.”

    Oh, they’re not like that, but you can come out and say they DESPISE him? Holy fuck that’s the most wicked shit. Wayne acting like he’s the good guy, giving Kliph multiple chances, “Maybe he’ll change!” Then saying that the other silent, kinder, quieter band members actually loathed the guy? What a crock of shit.

    So to make him look like a good guy, he throws the rest of the Lips under the bus? You kick out Kliph because you can’t have haters in The Flaming Lips, but according to Wayne, everybody in the band BUT Wayne DESPISED Kliph? Can someone please explain how that works to me? Because I can’t wrap my tiny raptor brain around it.

    IN OTHER NEWS: You hear Oklahoma is getting a Satanic monument? They just finished the preliminary sketch:

  22. naw but fuck wayne coyne so much though.

  23. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for those of us who have no personal relationship with any of the people involved to know exactly what happened here. Wayne may very well be the ugly character he’s been painted as recently. Public opinion has certainly swung that way, although public opinion is a notoriously poor litmus test for anything resembling truth. (And maybe Kliph is an asshole who twisted Wayne’s lapse in judgment and taste into something more sinister as a means of petty revenge–both seem reasonable from my vantage point.) It certainly doesn’t help that Stereogum reports this shit with glee and little in the way of objectivity. Then again, seeing as the initial article about this spat has been the most viewed this past week, it makes sense from a financial point of view to stoke the flames for that sweet advertising cash. And I imagine the thrill of putting a spin on something and watching all your readers follow is a bit intoxicating. Eh. Tom? I said it last week and it bears repeating, this current iteration of the American music press bears a frightening resemblance to the manipulative, petty, tabloid-esque antics of British music rags like the NME. We all hate on Pitchfork here, and while they’re just as guilty of this stuff in their own way, at least in their news articles they don’t suggest what the reader ought to think. Compare this article to theirs.

    So yes, Wayne seems a bit fried as of late. (Is anyone actually shocked by this?)
    And that headdress stuff? Totally insensitive.
    But this site is disappointing me more and more. Can someone point me to music writing with less of this shit and more substance?

    • No, actually, I don’t like writing about this stuff at all. And the music press has covered intra-band beefs and shit-talk since there was a music press. And I’m really, really trying hard not to go all editorially overboard when I’m writing this stuff up. You’ll not that the phrase “fuck this dude” does not appear in the post once.

      • I apologize for that personal jab. You’ve written a lot of pieces for this site that I’ve enjoyed and I don’t know you personally and cannot speak to your character but I respect you as a writer. With that said, you could do a better job of refraining from going “all editorially overboard.” No, you never said “fuck this dude,” but between the condescension of “mostly by calling Scurlock an awful person” and “though most of it just amounts to name-calling,” the inclusion of “yee,” “sort of,” and “disturbing” as well as those questions (“is it another example of Coyne showing troubling, erratic, detached-from-reality tendencies”)… it’s like, damn dude, just tell us what he said and if he hangs himself let him hang himself. I get your point of view in this instance–all evidence suggest Wayne has become (or simply is) an unpleasant person in some ways. But I’m seeing more and more of this sort of writing and it bothers me. These are real people, not simply characters in a grand narrative you help weave, and the things you write about them can and do have consequences on their careers and their personal lives. And you are fallible as a writer. The way things seem aren’t always the way they are. Just remember that.

        • these are real people who chose careers in the public eye, therefore they are subject to the public’s praise and/or ridicule. coyne has used his place in the spotlight to exploit and manipulate the public perception of him on multiple occasions (for better and for worse) and is now embroiled in a controversy that is subject to public debate. what is so wrong with having an opinion? nobody will ever know all the facts about the man (or about kliph), but how he chooses to engage with the public is fair game, and this has become a public controversy. sometimes people need to be put in their goddamned place. coyne’s response in the RS article is utter shite, and i don’t believe a word of his trite apology. he is merely backpedaling and on the defensive because he realizes what he stands to lose (and rightfully so). he has been defecating on our collective consciousness for far too long and is now reaping what he has sown.

          • Yes, these people have careers in the public eye and are subject to public opinion, and having an opinion is fine, but the media has a responsibility as a mediator between the two to relay information as objectively as possible. When journalists inject their own feelings into stories and pass them off as news, it ceases to be quality journalism. They are the lens through which we view public figures and they ought to do everything in their power not to distort that view. I would venture that most if not all of the people commenting on this article have zero knowledge of these events except for what they’ve read on sites Stereogum and Pitchfork. I imagine few took notice of the controversial photos before this became a news story, fewer witnessed the protested performance, and fewer still have had any significant personal interaction with any of the parties involved. Nonetheless you have commenters, foaming at the mouth and entirely sure of themselves, calling his behavior “putrid,” saying he ought “to be put in [his] goddamn place” and that “he has been defecating on our collective consciousness for far too long.” Strong words (perhaps justified, but who the fuck can actually say) for someone whose only engagement with these events is these news stories! So yes, the tone of these articles really does matter. Because, to address your statement in another comment that I “shouldn’t be heading to an article series on Stereogum entitled (sic) ‘Where’s the Beef?’” if I want objectivity, there aren’t a lot of other sources out there reporting specifically on this realm of culture and entertainment. Stereogum, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork… these are supposed to be our top-tier sources for music news. If they can’t maintain a professional lack of bias then artists are fucked, at the mercy of the whims of a few publications.

          • I actually know for a fact that the Flaming Lips’ confetti budget for a single show is more than I make in a month. The Flaming Lips are not at the mercy of my whims. And if you are looking to Stereogum for objective music news, you are looking to it for the wrong reasons.

          • @mouthwash jukebox: “If they can’t maintain a professional lack of bias then artists are fucked, at the mercy of the whims of a few publications.” To this, I say: sometimes artists fuck themselves. And no, I don’t know Coyne personally, but I’m pretty tired of hearing about his antics. They can’t all be lies. The incidents that are in question happened in the public spotlight. I don’t know what Coyne and Scurlock’s relationship was like behind closed doors, but Coyne has been acting like an utter buffoon publicly and there are consequences to that.

          • @Tom Breihan @garbonzoalfonzo My criticism has been about the way Stereogum covers these types of stories in general. As such, though The Flaming Lips and Wayne Coyne are the subject in this specific instance, the amount of money the Lips spend on confetti or the fact that Wayne’s antics have been frequent are irrelevant. I didn’t say these stories have been lies or that Wayne’s actions don’t deserve the consequences coming his way. Garbonzo in particular is participating in a completely different discussion than the one I am trying to have, because he thinks this is about condemning or defending Wayne. It has nothing to do with Wayne. It has to do with the quality of writing on this site. For another example, see the story from a week or two ago wherein Tom calls Titus Andronicus’ Patrick Stickles “troubled” after his tweets about Courtney Love and Lily Allen and including the remark that he (Tom) doesn’t agree with Patrick “on any of this bullshit.” Or see Stereogum’s coverage of the most recent Lily Allen faux-controversy to which Stickles was referring.

            “And if you are looking to Stereogum for objective music news, you are looking to it for the wrong reasons.” Well, at least you admit what’s becoming increasingly obvious to me. I’ll begin seeking my music news elsewhere and encourage others to do the same. Sad to see you embrace sensationalism.

          • @mouthwash jukebox i hope you find what you’re looking for elsewhere. it’s going to be hard to come by (as you previously stated). i was going into the defending/condemning of coyne as much as you were, though. your original post brought up a lot all at once and now your claiming i’m going off-tangent.

          • @garbonzoalfonzo I didn’t mean you were going off-tangent as much as I meant you were failing to recognize the point I was trying to make, which was not about Wayne but about Stereogum (and other popular sites, too). And that may have been because I can be wordy. Wayne was the example in this instance. I think a lot of these stories about controversies and beefs are written in a sensationalistic and biased way–though I will stop speculating as to the reason–and these sites do wield power. Have you seen the term “the Pitchfork effect” thrown around? BNMs and low scores can have drastic effects on bands’ careers, particularly those of younger, unestablished bands. Similarly, the manner in which these sites report about artists has real effects. Even if objective music news is not the intended point of Stereogum, when a site like this has the effect on public opinion that it does, playing fast and loose with stories is irresponsible and deserves the disdain reserved for supermarket tabloids and sites like TMZ.

        • So, going off of your assessment of journalism in general, I have no right to criticize the Iraq War and its subsequent handling because “…who the fuck can actually say”.

      • for an example of going off-tangent: see that NPR discussion below.

  24. Coyne deserves everything he has coming to him, and this article feels pretty well balanced and reasoned to me, considering the response Coyne gave in the RS interview to recent allegations of his putrid behavior. Fuck him and the Pink Pony he rode in on.

    • Look, Wayne’s been involved in enough controversy as of late that it’s clear he’s not all there, and I’m certainly not in his corner. But this article is not well-balanced and reasoned. Well-balanced is: “Wayne has responded, this is what he said, read the whole thing here.” If his response is troublesome or disturbing then this article shouldn’t have to tell us it is. This is why newspapers have Op-Ed sections. Wayne vs. Kliph is news. Tom’s take on the beef is not.

      • This seems pretty well reasoned to me: “Well, internet: Is this all just internet hate? Or is Coyne pulling the classic celebrity move of confusing “I’m sorry if you were offended” with “I’m sorry”? Is this a classic case of he-said/he-said, or is it another example of Coyne showing troubling, erratic, detached-from-reality tendencies. In the comments section, the floor is yours.”

        If you want 100% objective news, you shouldn’t be heading to an article series on stereogum entitled “where’s the beef?” I, for one, enjoy a little of the author’s perspective thrown in and feel that that is more honest than most supposed “objective” news sources, anyways.

        • (ie: NPR–totally nauseating to hear them wax hypocritical, day-in and day-out, about how they are all about the “facts.” most of it is pure propaganda.)

          • “pure propaganda”??? Examples? Propagating what?

            Well I guess they *do* have a pretty pro-on-air fundraising bias …

          • Sorry, but you’re not going to get a totally unnecessary and unsubstantiated swipe at NPR in unchallenged, at least not as long as I’m scouring the comments sections!

          • NPR was leading the way with the warmongering of Iraq and Afghanistan from 01-05, when it was popular to do so. In fact, whenever they cover a military-based operation, or war, they give almost exclusive coverage to high-ranking war generals and precious few interviews with dissidents. Noam Chomsky has been routinely denied interviews, even going so far as to grant him an interview and then pull out at the last second (which is deplorable for a professional news organization). Do your homework and listen with open ears and pay attention to what NPR is paying attention to, and you’ll discover a SHIT TON of bias. They get pawned off as liberal by the conservatives, but from my liberal ears, they sound pretty damn conservative. And don’t get me started on their economics programming (what’s it called? “your money” or something?) It’s atrocious.

          • I guess the swipe at NPR was off-topic, as their music news section is not all that bad. I was just trying to give an example of a news organization that loves to tout their “objectivity,” when all they ever do is the classic journalistic “here is what this group is saying and here is what the other group is saying” method, which never actually comes off as objective to me. More often than not, NPR will give more time to one group over the other and paint a picture in which one side is their idea of the apparent loser in the situation (it’s all about how the piece is edited). Pure objectivity is impossible to attain, which is why it’s actually more honest and straightforward for the journalist to acknowledge their own tendencies and explain the vantage point of their coverage. (This stuff is taught in journalism school nowadays, so I’m not just making this up to suit my own fancies.)

          • I know that journalism school nowadays teaches that pure objectivity is impossible, but stating up front that you’re an activist promoting your own agenda is not the only way to address it. One can certainly attempt to minimize bias, which I think NPR does a pretty good job of. Airing every single viewpoint, on the other hand, would also be impossible.

            I’m sure NPR does often exclude some of the more radical political views, but I’ve also heard interviews with anarchists opposed to the entire capitalist system and pacifists opposed to any use of force and foreign policy based on pursuing the U.S.’s national interests. But resources are always limited and I think it’s totally understandable that views held by a very slim minority unlikely to affect actual policy decisions are not given the most weight on their programming.

            It truly sounds like you would dismiss any “news” organization without a clear, up-front ideological agenda, which sounds more like propaganda to me than what NPR does.

            Anyways, that’s neither here nor now–I have much lower expectations (if any at all) for objectivity amongst music journalism than current events journalism and I think it’s rather naive to expect anything else, so I agree with your original point. I just have completely different expectations for music vs. current events news.

          • I suggest you read Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent. To answer your original question, NPR is propagating the viewpoint of the pentagon, white house, congress, and supreme court, to the exclusion of a large majority of people. I’m no radical, but there is a huge gap in the amount of questioning our national media provides of our authority figures, and if you cannot see that for what it is, then they’ve got you where they want you. NPR is a propaganda machine.

          • @Derek Dobachesky: You asked for specific examples of NPR’s bias and I pulled this up on FAIR’s website (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting): http://fair.org/topic/npr/

          • @garbonzoalfonzo: While I don’t entirely disagree with you on the fact that NPR is out to promote the aims of the American government, you could also be perceiving their reportage as more biased than it actually is. Look up research on cognitive dissonance. Generally, we try to fit the world into the context of what we believe. Those at the far ends politically speaking will always tend to view centrist or center-whatever their belief is as being farther to the opposite direction than it actually is.

            NPR does lean left, but it’s left-center. It’s economics aren’t conservative so much as they reflect social democratic principles (not to be confused with democratic socialism). Basically, they’ll side with socially-liberal causes while promoting the free market. That is the new liberalism today, for better or worse (but mostly worse).

            As for giving preference to generals over dissidents, that has as much to do with the credibility of the speaker as it does their position in power. They frequently do give time to dissidents…when those dissidents are academics, scholars, politicians, etc. It’s a matter of credibility. You can’t just pull a demonstrator in off the street and use him/her to buttress the facts in your story because listeners are conditioned to the issue of speaker credibility from a young age. We’re naturally skeptical of anyone without some of official title and that military rank affords credibility, because who the fuck knows why.

          • @rskva: Here is another good article on NPR’s conservatism: http://fair.org/press-release/npr-responds-to-fairs-npr-study/

            NPR is subject to their corporate and foundation donors, which makes up about 32% of funding (most of the corporation and foundation donors lean heavily to the right–take a look for yourself: http://www.npr.org/about/annualreports/NPRSponsorsDonors08.pdf)

            I am going to disregard your comment about cognitive dissonance, although I probably deserve the underhandedness after some of the comments I’ve been making on here. Bottom line is this: if you look at corporate media in the U.S. compared to media in the rest of the developed world, it looks veeeery conservative and veeeeery agenda-driven. Ever watched the BBC in England (ie: not the American, watered-down version)? It’s night-and-day with the amount of highly credible, acutely critical stories of government, corporate, and military wrong-doings. There is a reason there has been a near shutdown in the press in the U.S. with regards to Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning.

            I am not looking for more interviews with political activists off the streets, I’m looking for a news media that can pull of something like the Watergate scandal in the ’70s that took down Nixon. Those days are gone forever due to corporate media consolidation of UNPRECEDENTED levels. I am just looking to the press to do their jobs, which is to be a watchdog of unethical and criminal behavior and to investigate scandals that the public has the right to know about. I said it before and I’ll say it again, I’m no radical, just a highly critical citizen (which used to be considered a patriotic duty). We are living in times of incredibly rampant corruption and the public deserves to know the truth.

            What is considered center or center-left politics in the U.S. is actually center-right to right-wing politics. I’m not going to get into that here, though, that’s another story for another day. Hey, I listen to NPR too, mostly due to lack of choice on the bandwidth (and I feel dirty afterwards and need to shower thoroughly). I feel Democracy Now! does a good job of putting their ideological cards on the table and also remaining as objective as they can (considering most of what they cover is op-ed’s). I also look to the guardian and truthout, as well as indymedia and other independent, corporate-free media.

          • Look, the cognitive dissonance thing wasn’t a personal attack. We all filter our experiences through the prism of our beliefs, it’s something we all do. We readjust experiences to fit our beliefs. Someone who is far-left is going to view a more moderate liberal as conservative even if they have certain points they agree on. Relative to where most of America is, NPR skews liberal.

            That said, I realize the American brand of liberalism is a conservative one. It’s always been as far back as the American Revolution where the colonists gave Britain multiple chances to reform before throwing up arms; even the rallying cry of “no taxation without representation” is a conservative mantra that brings to mind accountants before it does freedom. Compare that to something like the French revolution, with its violence and cries of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” or the Bolsheviks, who also gladly shed blood. That you’re arguing an American form of media is too conservative when you acknowledge American liberalism is conservative just seems odd.

          • i’m arguing that npr’s form of media hides under the guise of liberalism when it actually is conservative. my comments about the american political spectrum coincide with that argument quite tidily, as npr can claim that they have centrist coverage, when centrism in the u.s. today equals conservatism in other parts of the world. now, as to the definition of conservatism today (versus during colonial times), i’m sure we have plenty of disagreements on. however, i’m not really game to get into all that. my original point was that npr is highly biased, and i stand by it.

          • american “liberalism” = conservative and american “conservatism” = fascism

            there is no room on the mainstream (corporate) political spectrum in america today for truly progressive stances.

          • I can always count on Glenn Greenwald to have my silverback when it comes to the debate over subjective vs. “objective” journalism. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/opinion/a-conversation-in-lieu-of-a-column.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1&adxnnlx=1400087468-oYyxSLVnYUM1it4SCshFbA&

  25. Wayne seems like a real dick

  26. >But if I really am all those things, how can I have these guys in my group? Wouldn’t everybody leave? But people like crazy stories.

    Like … 4 guys?

  27. I do think Wayne comes off as a dick in the interview, but there were a couple parts not quoted in this write-up that I think should be recognized.

    About the Instragram feat. dog in headdress: “I understand now that if I’m a spokesperson for any kind of behavior, I shouldn’t have done it, and I regret doing it now. I am sorry. I realize now that it goes deeply to the heart of some Native Americans. And I definitely regret it.”

    He denies making fun of the protestors at the Norman Music Festival and then says about Fallin’s band: “I thought [Pink Pony] making fun of the protestors seemed stupid. I thought their music was stupid. I thought their attitude was wrong.”

    Is Wayne kind of an asshole? Probably. Did he mistreat Kliph? Maybe. Is he an unrepentant racist? No. As far as I’m concerned, the worst thing about Wayne to come out of this story was that he chose to work with Ke$ha instead of Deerhoof.

  28. time to sell my yoshimi t-shirts on ebay. 2014 – The year the flaming lips died in my heart.

  29. You guys have Wayne all wrong!! He stands for peace and love, which is why the next Instagram pic he posts will feature his dog smoking a ceremonial peace pipe.


  31. i’m not gonna defend wayne at all, he’s being a total dick. that being said, i’m gonna continue enjoying the flaming lips. i can dislike wayne coyne and love his band at the same time.

  32. Eat shit and die, Wayne Coyne.

  33. Ugh. “I don’t publicly ever say it, but some of my best friends are black.”

  34. The Lips have represented happiness and open-mindedness to me. The fact that this BS is going on with them of all bands makes me extremely sad. It’s going to be a while before I can listen to a Lips record again. Maybe Wayne should start doing acid again to help see the errors of his ways.

  35. Since this article is really about an interview posted on another website, I’d have to say that without the “editorializing” there would be nothing to post here, so I have no problem with the characterizations made by the author. Also, there is a reason why the remarks about the dog seem particularly strange and incoherent: he isn’t defending the dog for the offensive picture, he’s trying to blame the dog.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.

%s1 / %s2