Jump to content
Wrestlevania

The Dancing Thumb (aka: music recommendations)

Recommended Posts

Most of those words were adjectives.

Oh R'leyh? (Oh gods, I hate me.)

XxScTbIUvoA

nFzdIaBnckg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you like Justice, you'll probably enjoy Teenage Bad Girl, also signed to Ed Banger.
You know, this normally isn't the sort of thing I let get to me, but that cover? I hate it. It's sexist, demeaning, and disgusting. Sorry to get on a soapbox over this, but I really didn't want to let that stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, this normally isn't the sort of thing I let get to me, but that cover? I hate it. It's sexist, demeaning, and disgusting. Sorry to get on a soapbox over this, but I really didn't want to let that stand.

I think it's quite stylized (we're talking about Teenage Bad Girl/Cocote, right?). It's possibly a bit childish, but the 60s throwback artwork shows it's aiming for something else... It's not trying to just be sexy for the sake of it, in fact it's quite ugly in many ways. Not to be contrary, but I quite like it.

I wouldn't like it if I thought it was sexist or demeaning, though.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, this normally isn't the sort of thing I let get to me, but that cover? I hate it. It's sexist, demeaning, and disgusting. Sorry to get on a soapbox over this, but I really didn't want to let that stand.

Never ever go to an art gallery, or buy any books about art. Actually, just avoid art entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why they named their album "Prostitute", but if I boycotted musicians on their values or inferences about them, my music collection would probably be minuscule.

I know at least one atheist who won't listen to Justice on account of the cross imagery, yet they've said in public that they're not Christians and it was just an exercise in branding. That has probably now offended some Christians into not listening to them. All of this has very little to do with the actual music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Are we all talking about the same thing? I was talking about this:

teenage.jpg

Which may be something completely different to what everyone else is talking about?

What upset you so, Snooglebum? Was it this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea why they named their album "Prostitute", but if I boycotted musicians on their values or inferences about them, my music collection would probably be minuscule.

I know at least one atheist who won't listen to Justice on account of the cross imagery, yet they've said in public that they're not Christians and it was just an exercise in branding. That has probably now offended some Christians into not listening to them. All of this has very little to do with the actual music.

Hell I still listen to Radiohead despite atrocious numeracy skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At bestival in the summer, my favourite new discovery was The Correspondents:

1FrbSjCXyec

The frontman is an amazing dancer live. Their whole act had so much fun energy.

lots of tracks on their myspace page

There were lots of electro-swing and swing-hop artists at the festival actually, a new genre which I've found I really like a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

Ah. That's a little weird, then. It kind of does cheapen the image, oddly enough.

Thankfully I don't know anything about those folks or their music, so it makes no difference to me. Plus, it doesn't come close to the most offensive album cover of all time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm... I didn't really mean to stir up something here, its just that something about that cover gets on my nerves. I know it's supposed to be stylized, but like Thunderpeel said, it just feels very childish. That's just my opinion.

By the way, let me clear something up. I have nothing at all against the actual music. I'm not boycotting them because I don't like the album art or anything, I just take exception with the image.

Never ever go to an art gallery, or buy any books about art. Actually, just avoid art entirely.

http://www.guerrillagirls.com/posters/images/getnakedshanghai.jpg

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/3821.jpg

Edited by Snooglebum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I don't particularly like the cover and didn't mean to defend it. I also suspect they're going for some crappy symbolism with the use of red white and blue.

I'm always conscious that there's a chance the creators of anything I like are twats. It used to worry me, but I started separating output from the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't actually buy into this stuff, do you?

I saw the full Gorilla Girls exhibition at the Tate Modern. It was interesting, but only for about ten minutes.

As for the other image... yeah, only someone who had never done any life painting would think that. It's not in the least bit sexual or voyeuristic and quickly becomes very mundane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw the full Gorilla Girls exhibition at the Tate Modern. It was interesting, but only for about ten minutes.

Tate Modern: ADHD art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should I not?

You really shouldn't.

This is like the History Channel these days;

They tend to find aliens everywhere they can. Ancient Japanese Dogu figurines, Hopi dolls, completely and utter indistinct stick-figure cave paintings. They're making a big ammount of stink about things that aren't true.

Same thing with those two things. While I'm all for feminism (though I tend to accidentally stray into chauvinism at times) there is a limit. Life painting is not perverse unless you allow it to be, as Dan said.

There's a time, a place and a medium for activism, and now, museums and art do not qualify. (Okay, what the fuck is that sentence? Leaving it anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel horrible for not saying this sooner:

7gT4OTYUS-c

I've had his Greatest Hits disks playing through-out my last couple days of World of Tanks, and while it may not fit perfectly, I enjoy it to no end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should I not?

Demonising artistic achievements by simplifying and perverting a normal human desire... that isn't even necessary present in the art in the first place.

No, you should not.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw the full Gorilla Girls exhibition at the Tate Modern. It was interesting, but only for about ten minutes.

I personally find that Guerrilla Girls stuff really... embarrassing. And I do consider myself a feminist (although maybe I'll not be considered one, after what I'm about to say...)

Here's my opinion, I'm sure people will disagree.

Let's take the Guerrilla Girls poster that was previously linked to in this thread:

"DO WOMEN HAVE TO BE NAKED TO GET INTO US. MUSEUMS?

Less than 3% of the artists in the Met. Museum are women, but 83% of the nudes are female."

Is this a valid point?

Well, according to their website, the Metropolitan Museum of Art attempts to cover a 5000 year period of human history. By my calculations women only got the vote about 80 years ago, and they only got legislation regarding equal pay about 30 years ago... and it still isn't really equal even now. (Just last month Republicans blocked a bill to help guarantee that women would receive equal pay, and some estimates say that it will take until 2050 before wages are truly equal.)

The Guerrilla Girls poster infers that, despite having little opportunity to create great art in the past 5000 years, that 50% of the artists being displayed at the Metropolitan Museum should be women. It further infers that, by not being equal, the co-ordinators of the Museum itself are sexist.

They then make the leap to talking about the artwork on display itself: 83% of the nudes (so not all artwork in the museum, just the artwork featuring nudes) are women.

The reason why there's such a huge amount of female nudity in art history (in the paintings that feature nudity) has more to do with the cultures that produced them, than it does with anything else.

In Ancient Greece, for example, it was nearly entirely male nudes -- women were almost always shown clothed, but in the past 2000 years, in most cultures, it changed towards depicting female nudes. Yes, it's unbalanced, but it says more about the society that had a taste for them, and the artists producing them, than it does about the people who run the Metropolitan Museum.

You can see that neither of these two figures have anything to with each other, or, indeed, anything to do with how present-day artists are being represented by established institutions.

They also do very little to answer the question originally posed: Do women have to be naked to get into US. museums?

Which, to me, just makes their whole argument... embarrassing.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which, to me, just makes their whole argument... embarrassing.

They are stupid, possibly ignorant people. I revel in their embarrassment, because it stops people around me realizing. . .I'm not that into art. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×