i don't see anything at all wrong with this. if my band were planning a special release-party performance event at a small venue, had an aesthetic/theme in mind, and were planning on filming the show for release, i would consider doing the same.
i'm open to being wrong about this, or changing my mind, but none of the angry commenters here have explained why they feel so strongly about it, it's all just "fuck these guys"... what specifically do you see as being problematic? why does wanting folks to dress nicely when they come to the party you're planning make you a pretentious dick?
"what the hell is this band doing??"
evolving, trying new things, experimenting, and pissing everyone off who just wants them to never do those things and stay stuck in 2004, i guess.
jeez, i seem to be the only person around who is really digging all three of these new songs. it's not hitting me emotionally on the level of Suburbs, but damn if i'm not feeling the grooves and where they're coming from. i like that he's jacking Debbie Harry's flow. i'm not interested in hearing this band try to make another Suburbs or Funeral, i'm interested in seeing how they evolve and keep trying new things.
which is exactly where U2 lost me: not when they made Pop (which, full disclosure: i love), but when they then backtracked on that commitment to exploring new things and doubled-down on trying to please their audience.
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/870016356195983361/NpqOnD0a.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/PopMart_Tour.png
i'll just leave these here..
saw them this wednesday eve., listening to the record all day today. how many bands can reunite 20yrs later and make the best record of their career? live, the new songs were as powerful and well-received as their classics - also unheard of. their live show is such an amazing, positive vibe; i recommend it to anyone. so happy to have Slowdive back :)
this was my first thought. there are good, talented people out there who work their asses off for years to get anywhere in the music business. this person got famous for being very unpleasant on a talk show and now gets sessions with big-time producers?
i'll say this again: i really don't understand how a stubbornly-independent, take-no-shit legacy artist like Moz, in 2016, needs a "record label" to release a record. he's like the last person in the world who should want to deal with a label, right? will someone call and tell him that he can do this shit himself now?
i'm so happy Britney's team listened to their gut and went back to the writers room to craft a more compelling story for that second video. sure, it was a lot more work and money spent, but their dedication to pursuing the purest, most refined expression of Britney's vision is nothing short of inspiring. i was on the edge of my seat the whole time, wondering if more dudes were going to take their shirts off.
"when she approached Bon Jovi before the ceremony, he said he did not want to sing"
that seems pretty straightforward. what the fuck is wrong with this woman? i have nothing but disrespect for her decision to taunt him with this shitty fake-book reading of his song.
yea this seems like a pretty obvious case. even if it's not a direct sample, they certainly lifted the vocal riff. it's immediately recognizable. i wonder if they're going to use the Vanilla Ice defense, i.e. "but our riff has one extra note at the end!"
Edge is one of my guitar heroes, and does indeed have an amazing voice. but. dude. when you're invited to be the first rock musician to play in the Sistine Chapel, and you put on a nice suit, maybe that's the occasion when you should remove your damn hat for a couple hours.
"oh! wait! so you're FAMOUS black people? why didn't you say so?? my sincerest apologies sir.. i really thought you guys were just regular black people there for a second."
absolutely agree, bloc! but to clarify, i didn't point out the intolerance of Republicans as a given - i pointed out the ~stereotype~ of the "Good Ole Boy" mentioned in the Guardian piece as being both Republican and racially intolerant, and simply noted that Don's answers, and his past, seemed to indicate opinions that are opposite to those stereotypes.
also, because i was thinking of it all night, i need to go on-record as saying that The End of the Innocence—the album, not just the song—is fire.
folks - i'm talking to the author and those arguing about bigotry, etc. - did anyone actually bother to read the Guardian article?
first of all, Don Henley does not use the term "black music" - that term was used by the article's author.
second, there's a part that addresses the fact that he's a democrat, and discusses his audiences and their perceptions: he says "I can get along with good old boys – as long as we don’t talk about politics or religion.”
taking his past into account, i interpret all of that to mean that he's a fairly liberal guy who doesn't agree with the political or religious beliefs of the stereotypical "good old boy" in his audience, i.e. Republican, racially intolerant, etc.
all of this is to say that i think this whole "Don Henley is obviously a bigot" argument is being blown way out of proportion and is based on a complete misunderstanding of the source material.
he's still being a dick about Frank Ocean, though.
so, after hearing that he publicly called someone—a very talented someone—a "talentless little prick", i couldn't help but think of this:
Don Henley Laments the Death of Common Courtesy
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/don-henley-common-courtesy/
which i now think should be more accurately headlined "Don Henley Laments the Death of People Showing Him Common Courtesy"
can't stop thinking on this. really though, imagine you're a guitarist who has for their whole life/career idolized and been inspired/influenced by Keith Richards. how pissed would you be to finally meet your ~guitar idol~ and he wants to talk about ed sheeran?
Comments