 |
Schiels
Website:
-
|
Comments
Oops, before I ruin any credibility I had left, I realize I put, for some ungodly reason, “When I Disappear Completely”, when I meant “How To Disappear Completely”. Embarrassing.
In regards to that Rolling Stone list, here’s my question: how the hell did those two Radiohead albums get on there? I mean, the rest of the list makes sense for RS readers: they are all hugely popular Top 40 records supported by hugely popular Top 40 singles (except for The Boss, but you know, he’s The Boss). It’s the records that will fill a VH1 “I Love The 00s” someday. Then you have Kid A and In Rainbows just wedged in there. In Rainbows, maybe, because Radiohead played at the Grammys the past year, but Kid A at #3? What?
Are you honestly telling me that the majority of RS readers listen to “When I Disappear Completely” in between all those tracks by Avril Lavigne, Green Day, and Beyonce? It doesn’t make sense. Radiohead has had plenty of accessible singles, but none on Kid A. And if enough hipsters invaded the site to get those 2 near the top, why wasn’t, say Funeral or Kala able to knock off a middling Mariah Carey record? That list seems to represent a demographic that I can’t, for the life of me, see existing in the real world.
Yeah this is really old, but more recognition for The Gaslight Anthem is always welcome. The ’59 Sound is one of my favorite albums of the past few years.
Is it just me or does this whole thing seem fake? It seems like this kid is just trying to pretend he’s some Axl Rose figure, rather than actually being one. For one, I’m pretty sure most people with drug problems, especially people in the public eye, don’t go out and broadcast the exact combination of drugs they did before they performed, unless they want to be known for those problems. Drug problems seem to be things bands push under the rug until long after the band has split up. And the on stage fighting seems to be too choreographed to be real, again, as if they were trying to fake some big Axl-Slash riffs in the band. To me this whole thing just seems like young, over-privileged kids pretending their big, self-destructive rock stars, instead of actually being ones.
Well, first off, agreeing to perform with a band and then making t-shirts bashing them (Which he obviously thinks was the Cleverest Thing In The World because he spelled sucks with two xxs, when its less clever and more something a jealous 12 year old would do) is one of the most pointlessly elitist, conceited things you could do. Not only is it basically a cheap bully tactic, but basically requires him to think of his own talent as something along the lines of more talented John Lennon. Which he is far from.
Secondly, pulling the “I make music for me, I don’t care about anyone else” (otherwise known as the Billy Corgan tactic) is not only insulting to anyone that actually likes his band (It’s basically saying, “I don’t give a shit about the fans, I just show up as a favor to them because I’m too good to keep my music to myself”), but it looks really pathetic in an interview smothered in bitterness over people liking other bands over his.
I fear another angry letter from Kevin Barnes coming. Remember kids, next time a favorite band of yours scalps their own tickets and and charges you 20 times the face value, if you complain you are just “confused young people running around now polluted by this alloyed version of the tenets of the punk rock manifesto”.
Sorry Kevin Barnes, your entire pathetic anthem just got torn apart. If artists are exploiting their own fans in order to skim off the top, selling out is indeed still possible.
Ummm……who else has a sinking suspicion that Billy Corgan and Smashing Pumpkins are one of the bands that participate and share in Ticketmaster’s charges (what Bruce Springsteen denied doing during the last Ticketmaster fiasco)?
I really don’t understand this program. It seems so anti-Fox News. I mean, like you pointed out, this is a station that flipped the fuck out during the day over Britney Spearsjust spelling the word out……and then they have Fucked Up on at night?
You could say the main idea was “No one that actually watches Fox News is up at this hour”, but then I’m guessing no one who listens to Fucked Up ever asks the question “So what’s on Fox News?” in a serious, non-let’s-turn-it-on-to-mock-it way. So whose the audience here?
No one comes to Cleveland. Ever.
I’m beginning to think Kevin Barnes and Billy Corgan would be best friends if they ever got together.
They’re both pretentious snobs, they both want to sell their songs to everything possible and still be seen as the absolute pinnacle of artistry, and both love to attack and degrade their fans if those fans happen to disagree with them in the slightest. Seriously, read KB’s “Selling Out Isn’t Possible” letter and BC’s “I Want to be Nickelback” interview back to back. They are like 2 parts to one big dickhead manifesto.
Something missing here? I find it strange that they don’t mention that it’s THOM YORKE OF RADIOHEAD at the beginning (or Thom Yorke of Radiohead, You Know That Band Who Had The Song Creep in the 90s?). I mean how many CBS/Grammys watchers even know who Radiohead is, much less Thom Yorke, much less can identify him by simply his voice and face?
And if the reason for that is to appeal to a different audience, won’t the inevitable “LIVE PERFORMANCES FROM KENNY CHESNEY AND THE JONAS BROTHERS” commercials counteract any goodwill this thing creates? Is the answer as simple as: The Grammys think we are all idiots?
People questioning how they made this list obviously don’t watch a lot of VH1 (That would be a compliment). This is VH1′s rules for making these types of lists:
1) “Hard Rock” is defined as every piece of guitar-based music that wouldn’t fall under the category of “Soft Rock”, which by VH1′s definition, means Phil Collins and everyone who could draw comparisons to Phil Collins.
2) Recognizable to the average VH1 viewer (meaning either a Top 10 hit or a piece of music that is frequently used as a pop culture reference joke on one of the other VH1 programs)
3) A large chunk of which must come from the 80s, particularly Hair Metal because VH1 refuses to give up the notion that the 80s weren’t both awesome and hilarious, no matter how much evidence to the contrary (The Horribleness of the 80s is to a VH1 viewer what evolution is to a Creationist).
Under these rules, this list makes perfect sense.
I completely agree with you Joe. I don’t agree with this organization and I think this clause is really fucking shady. I do. But do I feel bad for Feist because she gladly took money from a shady organization without even bothering to read over the basic elements of the contract and it happens to restrict some of the things she can do? Fuck no. Here’s a good rule of thumb. If you want to speak out against harmful organizations/government entities, don’t take their money and sign a contract that essentially makes you spokespersons for their organization. Because it’s hard to make money off the very thing you claim to hate.
The article talks about the fact that this turns artists into propaganda machines. Umm, isn’t that the whole point of selling your music for commercials? Isn’t that what commercials are? Listen, I get it. Artists don’t make enough money and I have no problem with them doing whatever they can to make ends meet. But when Phoenix’s “1901″ plays during Cadillac commercials, it’s not playing to inspire you to help the homeless or give blood, it’s playing to inspire you to buy a Cadillac. That’s why Cadillac pays Phoenix for it. That’s what propaganda is: trying to convince the person watching to do whatever is in the best interest of the group providing the propaganda. That’s all well and good, because I’m pretty positive Phoenix is fine with that (and so am I), but if Phoenix suddenly came out and complained about what a terrible company Cadillac was, my first instinct wouldn’t be “Oh you poor victims, how could they do this to you?”, it would be “If you knew they were this bad, why did you take their money?”
Even if this clause wasn’t in there, the music of these artists is still playing you inspire you to “join the side” of the Vancouver Olympics, an organization that doesn’t seem to have its people’s interest at heart and the very problem here is nothing surprising or new (it was the same reason so many in Chicago hated Barack Obama for campaigning to bring the Olympics there). That IS what they signed up for. Again, I don’t think this is right and I think this organization should be ashamed of itself. But these artists deserve far more blame than sympathy and claiming that the artists are the real victims here is ridiculous.