― lauren (laurenp), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:04 (twenty years ago) link
― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:05 (twenty years ago) link
I remember who she reminded me of. emily perkins! the little sister from 'ginger snaps'. I love that movie. more now.
― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:08 (twenty years ago) link
― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:09 (twenty years ago) link
To downplay or ignore this frame, to claim that it's all about the music, man, is one/my definition of rockism. (the fact that Basement Jaxists on ILM are so exclusively, post-Reynoldsianly, focused on the 'text' is one reason I think of them as slightly rockist [or at least nerdy] themselves.)
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:10 (twenty years ago) link
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:11 (twenty years ago) link
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:13 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:13 (twenty years ago) link
i'm not arguing that. it's of supreme importance. but i just find it depressing that where women in bands are concerned, the level of discussion sinks to "oog, she's purty!" or "ick, i'd never touch that!" very quickly. how exactly does this help me engage with the world of the fiery furnaces?
― lauren (laurenp), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:14 (twenty years ago) link
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:18 (twenty years ago) link
I just resent that the discussion here has shifted from talking about the records to deciding whether or not the band is worthwhile based on how the FEMALE singer looks. That's pretty sad.
― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:20 (twenty years ago) link
― N. (nickdastoor), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:20 (twenty years ago) link
― anode (anode), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:23 (twenty years ago) link
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:23 (twenty years ago) link
― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:24 (twenty years ago) link
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:24 (twenty years ago) link
they were exceptional. the looks she was giving us!
― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:26 (twenty years ago) link
― N. (nickdastoor), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:27 (twenty years ago) link
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:28 (twenty years ago) link
― N. (nickdastoor), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:30 (twenty years ago) link
then discuss it complicated terms.
some of these comments remind me of people saying "hey Blondie is a BAND - just ignore that incredible film noir femme fatale singing the songs!"
blondie specifically set themselves up ("blondie is a group" campaign notwithstanding) with debbie harry as a focus of attraction. i don't think that one can argue that because a band has a female singer, they need to follow this model.
― lauren (laurenp), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:30 (twenty years ago) link
I hate the implication that someone shouldn't be a performer because they don't look right. That's what it comes down to, when I read certain comments. It just translates to me as "if she isn't hot, she should get off the stage." Or, "she's so hot, she's such a great performer because of that."
― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:32 (twenty years ago) link
to me, judging eleanor on her attractiveness is routinizing (if that's a word).
― lauren (laurenp), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:34 (twenty years ago) link
― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:34 (twenty years ago) link
― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:37 (twenty years ago) link
― anode (anode), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:38 (twenty years ago) link
I don't understand folks who go to see bands live without knowing their records, unless they are an opening act. I'm not saying that's totally wrong or bad; I just don't get the logic of it on a personal level. I'd rather really know the songs and then watch them be translated to stage than watch performers and hope that translates to record. The latter seems less reasonable.
― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:41 (twenty years ago) link
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:41 (twenty years ago) link
― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:41 (twenty years ago) link
― N. (nickdastoor), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:42 (twenty years ago) link
Hey Lauren we are discussing it in complicated terms here! And Matthew I don't think anyone was saying they should get off the stage!
I think this conversation is interestingly precisely in the ways that performance enriches and complicates our pleasures in pop. This cuts both ways - I love the fact that the Pixies looked like some kind of Lynchian ID Parade of misfits, it somehow enhanced the music that they didn't look like, say, The Strokes.
I think what people - well RJG initially - were responding to on this thread was less 'pin-up good looks' or not, but a charisma, a quality of performance. And people who had only seen pictures were doubting this.
It seems slightly censorious to suggest that if people have seen a band they shouldnt talk about the performers, just as it would be to suggest people seeing a film should abstain from talking about the weird presence or charisma of the actors.
(BTW: 'routinization of charisma' is a phrase from Max Weber)
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:43 (twenty years ago) link
― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:43 (twenty years ago) link
― N. (nickdastoor), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:45 (twenty years ago) link
Live show is something to do on a Saturday night, when I'd be out spending money anyway. Buying a record is a completely different thing to me (plus, unless you're talking about singles, it is a lot cheaper anyway unless you're seeing some big name act).
― N. (nickdastoor), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:46 (twenty years ago) link
― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:47 (twenty years ago) link
― N. (nickdastoor), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:48 (twenty years ago) link
the loss of enchantment!
― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:48 (twenty years ago) link
― N. (nickdastoor), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:49 (twenty years ago) link
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:50 (twenty years ago) link
― anode (anode), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:50 (twenty years ago) link
I think there's just a different subtext to the "she's ULGY! like a mom UGLY! Ick!" comments, and that has nothing to do with the performance or the music.
― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:55 (twenty years ago) link
― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:56 (twenty years ago) link
In any case, this is a tempest in a teapot. None of the "hot or not" posts even mentioned how looks have bearing on music until the tempest started. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
― anode (anode), Sunday, 22 February 2004 20:59 (twenty years ago) link
― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Sunday, 22 February 2004 21:02 (twenty years ago) link
― anode (anode), Sunday, 22 February 2004 21:03 (twenty years ago) link
This is actually a perfectly sensible, consistent position. If overall value = music + image. Looks can add to music but they can't take away, because hey, they're not music.Not that I actually see things that way. It's all an interaction, for me.
― N. (nickdastoor), Sunday, 22 February 2004 21:03 (twenty years ago) link
Of course all of it is moot, as the environment surrounding our listening experience is vital to it. John Cage showed this before most of us were born, why bother trying to refute it?
― anode (anode), Sunday, 22 February 2004 21:06 (twenty years ago) link
― N. (nickdastoor), Sunday, 22 February 2004 21:07 (twenty years ago) link
― anode (anode), Sunday, 22 February 2004 21:09 (twenty years ago) link