When the story about this parade came out, I made some snarky comment about how "This seems to be more about Arcade Fire than David Bowie." I haven't watched this video, but I feel terrible about being so cynical and ghoulish. They clearly are in mourning and I hate myself for being so stupid and mean earlier.
LCD Soundsystem did not change my life, nor are they one of my absolute *favorite* bands, so perhaps I have a certain luxury when it comes to the amount of cynicism I feel about this decision.
He doesn't HAVE to release the record at all. He could write the songs, record them, and then just keep them. His description of how he should put the music out glosses over the fact about whether or not he should at all, or has to. So I feel like there's some posturing here about wanting to do right by the fans and apologizing for releasing new music. Maybe they just shouldn't have framed their last concert and album as the end all, but rather just like a graduation party or something. Meh - I'm not the literary guy so I'll leave the details to you.
I can understand people feeling betrayed, and I can also understand why it's silly to feel betrayed. AND I appreciate the enthusiasm expressed in the comments here. But I think they're just banking on that optimism and enthusiasm to cash in on the "LCD Soundsystem break up long con."
I guess what I'm saying is that this all looks like transparency from the band you love, but because I don't love them, I smelly something a little fishy and disingenuous about it.
Imagine you're in a park on a lunch break, just trying to eat a nice sandwich you made for yourself and forget (for at least an hour) that you have to work to live. Some kid comes up to you out of nowhere and starts complaining that some other kid pushed him. Then THAT kid comes up to you and says he didn't. You've seen these kids before because it's a small neighborhood and you frequent the park a lot. But you never really paid attention to them because they weren't your kids and you just didn't care. But now they're up in your grill whining and you're just trying to eat your sandwich. They leave, arguing to anyone and everyone in the park. You return your attention to your delicious sandwich when one of the kids is back, tugging on your shirt sleeve. He tugs so persistently, you drop your sandwich. You look down at him and he's like "We're not fighting anymore," and skips away with the other kid (wearing a weird fedora/pork-pie hat). You look down at your ruined sandwich. You wonder where their parents are.
I'm not sure that Alaska or Sharon are really genderfuck queens. Alaska's really glamorous (Brittney Spears meets an alien) and Sharon is really spooky and high fashion (now).
Owl City is not good - I think we're all more or less on the same page with that. But to claim that he "hijacked" the Postal Service, as if he is the ONLY OTHER musician to make poppy electronic music, is disingenuous. That complaint lodged against Owl City ignores so many other artists that do similar sounding things (Her Space Holiday, Nuuro, Mister Lies, to name the three I could immediately think of in this moment).
And I bring it up because I can't tell if anyone actually believes that or if it's just a joke. Is it a joke? Because he's not the only one, and it seems like a strange and incorrect thing to charge him with.
I have a hard time taking this seriously. I believe Third Man and Jack like all this attention, as the obligatory follow-ups to what amounts to nothing more than misunderstandings just KEEP him/them on our radar. It smacks of faux-outrage and disingenuous "over-it" attitude. "We begrudgingly participate in damage control because we know it's the cool thing to do." How about just don't participate in it at all, if it really is such a drag?
Change the words "girlfriend" to "boyfriend", "pickup truck" to "hatchback", and "Walmart" to "Target" and you have an accurate description of my life right now.
I love (not really) the revisionist history on Daft Punk people try to pull off. Maybe that's not the right term, I kind of just wanted to use it. Either way, this album was critically panned. It was thought to be bad. Flat out bad. And suddenly people were eagerly anticipating the new album and bending over backwards to celebrate iterations of stuff they (the reviewing entities, and perhaps not the people themselves) HATED when it came out. And they're like "Yeah this is gonna be great because we LOVE Daft Punk." No you don't. At least not a few years ago.
This is just a comment on Daft Punk in general and NOT the post about the remix collection.
One can't pirate transportation to New York and tickets to a musical, which has nothing to do with Iggy Azalea and everything to do with being broke as fuck.
Whoever would consider any of the bands Shinoda listed as "rock" music are probably sticking to a music store method of categorization ("Pop/Pop Rock", "Metal", "Hip-Hop/Rap/R&B", "Soundtracks", "World/Jazz"). And NOT being a rock band is not a bad thing.
Shinoda sounds bitter that no one cares about his band using samplers and shit when other bands that use samplers and shit are much more interesting to more people.
I'm a drunken plant though, so what do I know.
I'll admit to searching "mime crime" and finding nothing.
But I still think this is true: mimes (or other non-Juggalos) commit crimes but the crime is not attributed to their being a mime, hence not being part of a large "mimes commit crimes" compendium. Juggalos commit crimes and it's attributed to their Juggalo-ness, and a large record of Juggalos that commit crimes can be found in an internet search. But that does not mean that being a Juggalo makes you violent, as much as it means that people that play video games are more violent, or people that read crime novels or watch tv shows about police officers or whatever.
I don't know, I think adding "crime" to any search on google would likely give you results that include, well, crime. And because they're all people, and people commit crime, then there are bound to be some Juggalos that commit crimes.
If you're nervous around folks that conceal their faces, you must be nervous about non-rap-enthusiast clowns, as well as cold people, Muslim women, Shredder-impersoators, mascots, etc. etc. etc. the joke continues.
Didn't The Ataris change the lyrics from "Deadhead sticker" to "Black Flag sticker" in their cover? I guess if they paid for it it doesn't matter? But can you pay an artist to go into a museum and paint a mustache on their painting?
Being grateful is one thing. But when an attempt at being supportive is so misguided as to perpetuate dangerous stereotypes and continue the pattern of looking over trans actors for trans roles... well what is there to be thankful for? "Thank you for continuing to make us look like damaged, predatory freaks."
I'm down with not being down with this video.
Yes and no (in my opinion): to call this "pro-LGBT" might be slightly off, given the amount of push back from trans folks on it. Also, L's, G's, and B's (and all other Q's) aren't really represented here. Sexual orientation and gender identity are often conflated (understandably so given their link) but are not actually the same thing. For me (as a G) saying I relate to the trans experience would be wrong - not morally, just factually. So were I an editor, I would suggest changing the title to at least say "pro-trans", with a lot of question on the "pro-" part.
I think we just disagree. I don't read his comments and think, "He could have put that differently," or, "Gee there's got to be a better time/place to say that." I read them and think that they are calculated attempts at appearing to have sharp edges, thus distancing themselves from their like-it-or-not contemporaries. And I'm not saying this in defense of Bieber or MJ necessarily, as I have no love or hate for the music of either, nor am I on to put down popular bands based solely on their popularity. I think I see his comments for what they are - transparent attempts at "badititude" - but our differing opinions on that alone is why I don't think this conversation can really continue.
But I will ask (in general) do you see something wrong with someone (any musician) doing what I claim the Black Keys and Patrick Carney are doing (letting their attitudes speak for or define their music in some way)?
You don't think that's just a disingenuous way to live, though? Or that it's at all calculated? Where's the danger in saying what we're all thinking? If we're all thinking it, then what risk do you run by saying it out loud? It just APPEARS to be subversive or dangerous because it's presented that way. But these are popular opinions being touted as novel, anti-establishment, (dare I invoke the "p-word") punk things to say. If you have to tell someone you don't fit in with society, you obviously do and are just trying not to DESPERATELY. Their music is not that different from the pop music they disparage (in that it's poppy and poplar and supported with money) so THIS is the way they're going to try to distance themselves. And so they "stir the pot" instead of making different and (arguably) more interesting music. So FOR THAT REASON - not only is it "Fuck Patrick Carney" but "Fuck both of them."
Comments