Find Me On:
What a pointless list.
I was being slightly facetious with the “macho dickhead jerks.” it was supposed to be a joke. I guess it’s just hard for me to balance the supposed humor I always intend with actual emotions. But as humor tends to come from truth (and in this case truthful feelings), phrases like “YOU FUCK WITH ME I FUCK WITH YOU HARDER.” just sound like a dickish thing to say and it reminds me of macho people in school (and hell even life) that turn everything into a competition. I guess that’s where I was going with that.
The premise of deleting files from a computer as a way to return something to iTunes not a good joke? I need to work on my shit.
I’m just mad in general.
@jizziemcguire is a really good twitter name.
But yeah, my inclination is to say HAIM sucks on this one, but besides responding with that dumb “we have a bigger show than you do” picture (which is really the only purpose that picture served, right?) and Este’s competitive baloney tweet, they haven’t said much of anything.
I kind of wish I illegally downloaded the HAIM album instead of buy it. Not because I have any sort of LC pride (though I do – “No Blues” is superior to the HAIM album), but just because HAIM seems like jerks. Like macho dickhead jerks.
If I delete the files from my computer, may I get my 8 bucks back?
Oh and Moonface “Julia With the Blue Jeans On” and Los Campesinos! “No Blues”.
Favorites of mine that weren’t on the list:
Frog Eyes “Carey’s Cold Spring”
Blue Hawaii “Untogether”
And probably others I’m missing but can’t think of.
My two cents:
The personal is not political – non-Native Americans can find this racist too, and it’s valid. Conversely, Native Americans can find this NOT racist, and that is just as valid.
It’s clearly racist and misogynistic, but isn’t it supposed to be? I mean, the depiction on the shirt is supposed to be offensive, and hopefully that will make you think about why you find it offensive, and where that comes from (from US history).
Didn’t call you homophobic, just said that you told me you weren’t homophobic. It happened a while ago. And even then I didn’t say that you were homophobic.
For someone with a brand that they seem to care about, you sure do make yourself seem incredibly unlikeable. And you have no legal recourse against my opinion of you (which you have misconstrued and twisted to suit your own needs – vilifying me as some sort of nemesis. save it for someone else, please). You can’t sue someone for saying that they’re homophobic. Otherwise Chick-fil-a would be rolling in lawsuit money.
Also I don’t care about your comparison of Lorde and the Ring girl (Lord of the ring girl – - – just noticed that). I just find your presence on this site to be polarizing and derisive and purposefully trolling.
What about burritos?
I remember that saga (which was likely the point – for people to give him attention). I think he asked Stereogum to delete his profile. There was a stint of porn gifs being posted to the comment section by him, then a lot of freakouts…. he used the “I have gay friends so I’m not homophobic” defense with me once. I’m all too familiar with his shtick.
I suppose I’m no better because it obviously affects me enough to remember his name and the comment wars we’ve gotten into. But I refuse to be sympathetic to someone who is likely trolling and or getting off on toying with peoples’ emotions (like getting us to care about him because he says he’ll kill himself, or pretending that he is offended by people not liking what he has to say).
It’s ultimately just traffic for Stereogum, so they probably don’t care. He probably works for them to get more people to visit the site with the aggressive commenting guy (which would be dumb because trying to get internet comment controversy is like trying to blink).
Michael_ sucks, I suck, this website sucks, everything is stupid and we should all be allowed to do whatever we want. And I suppose if we get to downvote michael_ we also should have to deal with the harmless entertaining rants.
I like to pretend that michael_ and isuckhard are the same person, and that michael_ has jumped off the deep end and created multiple personas to make it look like more people agree with him. I might even be michael_. Are you michael_?
Am I no fun at all? Part of me can’t help but be bothered by the fact that the director and/or band and/or actors in the Mumford and Sons video were like “Ok, and then it would be hysterical if they kissed! Because they’re guys!” And that’s kind of all I can think about.
I was trying to make a joke – - – back to the drawing board.
I liked indie music before I knew what the O.C. was. Not vice versa.
I think he’s looking for a way to wrong about his own song just so people will not think that the intentions put on this song by other people that misinterpreted it are accurate. His realization makes no sense to me. It seems simple (even without the last line, which I completely forgot until just now) – I think it’s a stretch and a hard conclusion to come by “logically” that he’s saying “these are things that you’re going through that you need to understand”. I just don’t see that.
I don’t know, his intentions are almost of no consequence because the song is out of his hands once he releases it. So his explanations mean nothing really at this point – - -someone can interpret this song however they want to (they clearly have). But responsible, careful listening is what’s required of us as the audience, and Claire Lobenfeld is guilty of listening irresponsibly (in my opinion). It’s the same thing that keeps us from saying that (for example) “John Wayne Gacey” by Sufjan Stevens is about Sufjan reenacting the Gacey murders. If you want to find the context clues that support that argument, you probably could (with some liberal interpretation). But you have to look for them really hard. And I think that’s what happened here – Lobenfeld looked for clues that suited her interpretation. She seemed to not want to let it go, that she might be wrong about it.
I don’t know – we might all be done talking about this, I just really find Claire Lobenfeld in the wrong in this situation.
According to this article’s author’s twitter, her response is to be dismissive of criticism, shrugging us all off because we just dont get it, instead of examining what we’ve pointed out as points about which we disagree with her.
Radical queers pull this shit all the time – if you don’t agree with them 100% then you don’t know what they’re talking about and aren’t worthy of listening to. It’s an annoying, close-minded way to exist.
And if I’m wrong about her intentions, so be it. I’m giving her as much of the benefit of the doubt as she’s giving James. And projecting on her as much as she’s projecting on him.
This site has gone down the shitter.
I agree with you wholeheartedly! I thought the song was about punk people ridiculing other people for not being punk enough and being a force of anxiety in a young (and genderless throughout the song) person’s life. And then these lines: “who cares if it’s right as long as it’s fun?/so if someone gets hurt and then the cops come, then / no / one / talks.” is kind of a continuation of “omerta” which he titled the second track of this EP.
I guess I can agree that this song makes for a poor attempt at trying to explain the female experience, just as “Sunday Bloody Sunday” is a poor attempt at writing a love song to a cat. It’s not a song trying to explain the female experience. It’s a song about being a man that does not buy into all of the societal expectations of a man with regards to how women are treated.
I’ve read criticisms of this song today and yesterday and what bothered me about both was that those doing the critique were doing so under false assumptions.
And it’s beyond me how any aspects of riot grrl are lost on him – or how he’s “forgotten” anything. I think here Claire Lobenfield is projecting intention on this song, saying that he thinks he’s being a pioneer or trying to acquire pats on the back for being so forward-thinking.
While I’m not completely robotic or without whimsy and forgive the largest abdomen a mosquito could ever have glowing rainbows, the entomologist in me is screaming during this video because of the lyric “He’ll suck your blood.” Male mosquitos do not suck blood. I guess it’s a criticism of the song and not the video per se – but I guess I just wanted to share this because I had a down day and need to feel smart.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that “slamming metal” was actually just part of the beat. And while it may or may not have been made by actual metal, it wasn’t really an abrupt cut. It felt more like a natural progression from synth + beat to beat to thinner beat and finally to rain.
I’ll believe it when I see it, Michael.
To answer Liz’s questions – this? This is nothing.
I feel like liking someone’s art does not make you complicit in their crimes. And the decision of whether or not to support them via buying/investing in their art is entirely up to you.
That being said, just because someone is an artist does not mean they should be exempt from having to pay for their crimes of physical abuse. And certainly how you perceive the artist, whether you like it or not, can shape how you view their art.
It’s my opinion that violence is incredibly unacceptable in all forms. And because I have this view, it has shaped how I view both Chris Brown and John Paul Pitts. Because part of why I respond so strongly to music I like is because I feel some sort of connection with the artist and I feel no connection/kinship with abusive people, I don’t listen to their music. But if I heard some of it and happen to bob my head or get some sort of acute enjoyment out of it – I mean it could happen. And, again, that doesn’t mean that I condone violence. It just means I had a reaction to a song.
But I’m sure we all have our own ways of working through these situations – navigating our morals through our enjoyments and/or vice versa.
I just said that to give him a reason to dislike me, since he seemed to already with me saying very little to be offensive.
I was also trying to be funny. Like, I thought it would be funny to use that kind of language after I wrote what I thought was pretty cool-headed wording throughout the rest of my comment. But I’m clearly no Joan Rivers.
I’m sorry if it offended you or anyone else.
Yeah I get that – but I didn’t actually say anything about my taste in music (except for liking the new Sharon Needles album). I didn’t try to defend that or anything though so his calling my taste crappy and indefensible was not really appropriate to the conversation. It was just an insult.
Sigh. I was also mad.