Fiery Furnaces

They're ugly!

There's another, enormous, picture here.

I remember who she reminded me of. emily perkins! the little sister from 'ginger snaps'. I love that movie. more now.

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.)

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?

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.

they were exceptional. the looks she was giving us!

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.

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."

to me, judging eleanor on her attractiveness is routinizing (if that's a word).

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.

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)

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).

the loss of enchantment!