Posts by bmk
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Some Year, in reply to Russell Brown,
But pop's never been about "just the music". Part of what's interesting about Lorde is that she's no part of the Disney-trained world of Britney Spears and Selena Gomez. She looks different and she sounds different when she opens her mouth. When teenage girls respond to those things, it makes a difference.
And this is important too. There is the potential there to change pop-culture, whether this will happen or not remains to be seen. Tying it back into Nirvana, they changed not just music but fashion, hairstyles the very teen culture of the time, in the same way as punk did before it and so on.
It seems every 15 - 20 years there is a significant culture change (with of course smaller shifts constantly occurring within shorter periods). If Lorde replaces the current bubblegum, sickly sweet teen culture with a darker, gothier version it will certainly make things more interesting.
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Some Year, in reply to Russell Brown,
On reflection, I amended it to "slightly shifted the axis of pop music" to better reflect what I was saying. It's not a revolution, it's not the Beatles, but it is one of those records that recalibrates things a but.
Yep, that sounds about right to me.
And that article is a very interesting read, I think it's overstating the impact of Lorde a little but can see the point.
The comments get a bit bizarre. There's a lot of "but what about Eddie Vedder?" I never cared a jot for Pearl Jam. If the paradigm shifted, it really didn't shift far in their case.
Totally agree! I think that had there been no Nirvana, Pearl Jam would be nothing more than a minor foot-note (which I could think you could argue is all they are anyway). Had there been no Pearl Jam, Nirvana would be every bit as famous and influential.
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Some Year, in reply to mark taslov,
Its greatest asset is not sounding like it came from anywhere that isn’t America.
This part really struck home to me. The first time I hear NZ music it's usually on the radio and it's immediately clear to me that it's NZ music - there's just something about the sound. Whereas the first-time I heard Lorde I thought I was listening to an American; an interesting American albeit. But I'm not knocking this - I don't think there's anything wrong with it, there's a reason why this is the typical western sound and I guess it's because it's what people like.
Again I like Lorde but I just can't believe she's this massive game-changing phenomenon. To me it just doesn't seem anything like when say Nirvana first appeared where a whole musical paradigm was thrown out almost overnight.
-
Cracker: Stoned in Charge, in reply to Russell Brown,
Also, as Damian said, when both alcohol and cannabis were in the mix.
Yep, that's a bad combo.
Also could totally see how the 2-3 hours later thing would be dangerous.
-
Cracker: Stoned in Charge, in reply to Stephen R,
An argument could be made that better reactions do not a safer driver guarantee
I remember a long, long time watching a docu on stoned driving in Adelaide. They ran drivers through a simulation both stoned and sober. They found that on average the stoned drivers had slower reaction times but as if they (either consciously or or more likely sub-consciously) were aware of it they also drove comparatively slower. They ended up being about equivalently safe to their sober driving, slower to react but with more time to cover this up.
This would make sense to me that the brain would be running a constant feedback check and adjust accordingly. People with lightning fast reactions are probably just as dangerous as they simply factor this into their driving.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to giovanni tiso,
We don't need to imagine it: the single people I've been trying to reach more insistently during the whole thing was RadioLive, and I encouraged others to do the same. Not a peep from them. Ever.
That is really bad. There does seem to be a real management problem going on at that station. A concerned query should always be answered. And the fact that you repeatedly tried contacting them and got no replies - does make me understand why you went to the advertisers.
I expressed my concern above about contacting advertisers, I do think a better option is first to contact the editor responsible for broadcasting the offensive speech. But if (as you did) you simply get no response then going to the advertisers may be the only possible option.
Once again my thinking is turning again. I'm really unsure so maybe best I leave it to those of you who at least can have the strength of conviction to argue their point.
-
One more memory on when I saw The Smashing Pumpkins was the opening band were Garageland and they blew the crowd away - rapturous cheering. It was a case where they'd matched the opening band to the main act really well. Unlike another gig where I saw Prodigy and the opening act was called Bike (I think?) and they were so terrible you couldn't hear them above the booing.
The best performance I've probably seen was NIN in 2000 or 2001 at the BDO. It was only half an hour though so I couldn't count it as a proper gig - but before then I'd never been fan and they won me over in no time.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to A C Young,
It hasn't been done regularly though and Twitter, Facebook make it far easier for individuals rather than organisations to organise. In the past this could have been done too but it took a hell of a lot more work, effort and co-ordination which was why it was typically done by pressure groups rather than individuals.
The fact that individuals can easily also do it now is liberating but it also means I can see a world where there only needs to be a significant enough percentage to be offended by any statements for the advertisers to run for the hills. Then the next time they will be more risk-adverse placing their ads and so on.
My concern may be unfounded, but hearing the rationale of an advertiser's decision to withdraw has increased it.
-
Hard News: Friday Music: The First Time, in reply to Andre Alessi,
First paid gig was Smashing Pumpkins at the Super top in 1995 or 1996, after Mellon Collie was released. My family had just moved up from Hastings to Auckland, and I didn't know anyone here, but damn it I wanted to see them play. I remember the gig as being great: stripped back and straightforward, almost certainly because the Supertop was a dump. Jimmy Chamberlain got rained on when the roof leaked, but kept playing, and Billy Corgan just rode the wave of ten thousand kids having a great time at a rock show. Bullet with Butterfly Wings was a major highlight.
Same for me - and to me is still the best concert I've ever been too. Was nearly the perfect concert in many ways other than near the end where they got a bit carried away with Silverfuck trying to turn it into Lou Reed's Heavy Metal Machine or something.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to llew40,
Cos we can advertise where we like. And we didn't like that.
This is exactly what concerns me. I've been staying out of this conversation because I could see both sides and would fluctuate depending on whose argument I was reading (if it were one of the many people making a good case).
However, this is exactly what worries me. When people see how effective it is asking advertisers whether they wish to be associated with x (and I'm sure other people/groups have noticed the effectiveness of this). Advertisers are naturally safe and if they all choose to only advertise in concordance with something they like - everything will end up very bland and boring.
So I think I've finally been swayed - ironically by someone arguing for the other side.