Pop Culture Blogging, or What an unceremonious way to begin my blogging career
Working at a record store does not mean that you meet bands, or get into concerts for free, or meet hip industry people. It means that you notice the conspicuous similarities between shitty 99 cent records by bands who now tour the casino circuit and make shoddy Photoshopped album covers, and ironic faux-metal ponces.
Just look what I found the other day. First, British blues rock band Savoy Brown's 1972 live release, Hellbound Train.
Now compare One Way Ticket to Hell and Back by the Darkness.
Yes, that's right; the Darkness chose to emblazon their sophomore release with a blatant piece of forgery. Have you no decency, sirs, no sense of shame? I have yet to hear their new single, but from the looks of the album cover they're going for a sort of dirty 70s Southern rock/Nuge thing, since they've exhausted all their Queen poses and can probably no longer fit into spandex jumpsuits. You see, part of the 70s rock phenomenon was that unattractive, overweight dudes with beards in tight jeans could be really fucking cool and lay down some sweet licks. They just end up in their 50s as recovering alcoholics with dyed blonde, thinning hair roughly the consistency of dirty straw. I have seen such specimens in concert, playing their old favorites for diet RC Cola money. And I wouldn't wish any different future for the members of the Darkness.
Just look what I found the other day. First, British blues rock band Savoy Brown's 1972 live release, Hellbound Train.
Now compare One Way Ticket to Hell and Back by the Darkness.
Yes, that's right; the Darkness chose to emblazon their sophomore release with a blatant piece of forgery. Have you no decency, sirs, no sense of shame? I have yet to hear their new single, but from the looks of the album cover they're going for a sort of dirty 70s Southern rock/Nuge thing, since they've exhausted all their Queen poses and can probably no longer fit into spandex jumpsuits. You see, part of the 70s rock phenomenon was that unattractive, overweight dudes with beards in tight jeans could be really fucking cool and lay down some sweet licks. They just end up in their 50s as recovering alcoholics with dyed blonde, thinning hair roughly the consistency of dirty straw. I have seen such specimens in concert, playing their old favorites for diet RC Cola money. And I wouldn't wish any different future for the members of the Darkness.
posted by to scranton at 9:45 PM
2 Comments:
They'll be the Jim Dandies of tomorrow. If the trend continues, by their 7th album they'll be back to the spandex jumpsuits, but this time playing Baroque harpsichord music.
by the way, hello weblog
On Feb 9, 2013, at 3:05 AM, Matt Simonton wrote:
You also know I admitted (publicly) long ago that the anti-miscegenation parallel was faulty, IF we are to take it the way you want to take it.
And as you know, and as I made it VERY CLEAR to you REPEATEDLY, the attachment of that qualification makes your concession patronizing and backhanded and not a concession at all. Interracial marriages were criminalized for the explicit purpose of keeping the races apart. Criminalization of something NECESSARILY entails the recognition of that something. The debate of same-sex "marriage" is over whether such a thing should be recognized as marriage at all. To say that the non-recognition of same-sex "marriage" is like the criminalization of interracial marriage is to say that there is such a thing as same-sex "marriage" but that the law (in most states) does not just not recognize it but actually forbids it, as if there were something to forbid. That's begging the question of the whole debate. Furthermore, the intent behind the non-recognition of "same-sex" marriage, were the anti-miscegenation parallel to hold, would have to be to keep people who are of the same sex in wholly separate categories, and that is so nonsensical that it ranks with Chomsky's “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” The anti-miscegenation parallel is false tout court.
PSROn Feb 9, 2013, at 3:05 AM, Matt Simonton wrote:
You also know I admitted (publicly) long ago that the anti-miscegenation parallel was faulty, IF we are to take it the way you want to take it.
And as you know, and as I made it VERY CLEAR to you REPEATEDLY, the attachment of that qualification makes your concession patronizing and backhanded and not a concession at all. Interracial marriages were criminalized for the explicit purpose of keeping the races apart. Criminalization of something NECESSARILY entails the recognition of that something. The debate of same-sex "marriage" is over whether such a thing should be recognized as marriage at all. To say that the non-recognition of same-sex "marriage" is like the criminalization of interracial marriage is to say that there is such a thing as same-sex "marriage" but that the law (in most states) does not just not recognize it but actually forbids it, as if there were something to forbid. That's begging the question of the whole debate. Furthermore, the intent behind the non-recognition of "same-sex" marriage, were the anti-miscegenation parallel to hold, would have to be to keep people who are of the same sex in wholly separate categories, and that is so nonsensical that it ranks with Chomsky's “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” The anti-miscegenation parallel is false tout court.
PSR
Post a Comment
<< Home