Friday, December 17, 2004
Doop doop doop, sitting here waiting for Zakk Wylde to call me so we can go over lyrics. He's at Dimebag's house, helping out his family with everything. Doop doop doop. This is kinda surreal. Times like this I wish I was more of a metal fan so this would be more exciting. But I more wish I could curl up somewhere with a cookie and a video game. Ooh look, a cookie.
Did I mention Zakk Wylde sent us a huge basket full of cookies? Like one of those big baskets medium-sized dogs sleep in? I like that guy. Also, he signed our piano. For reasons that are unclear. I guess when you're Zakk Wylde you just sign things. Cool.
I have a good story about Zakk Wylde and designing cover art, but it'll have to wait. Duty calls. Or, um, will call shortly.
UPDATE: "'Walk through the flames that eat your flesh, drowned in the waters that know you best...' Yeah, another one for the ladies."
Zakk endorses the crazy-asshole-angry-about-breaking-up-Pantera theory, FWIW.
posted by Mike B. at 3:49 PM
0 comments
RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE FACT THAT NATIONAL TREASURE IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE BY ANYONE ANYWHERE EVER as drawn up by the Comittee for Colloquial Bathetic Enthusiasm (CCBE #1131)
SEEING AS HOW we recently got a chance to see the new Jerry Bruckheimer-produced National Treasure; and
SEEING AS HOW it was totally fucking awesome; and
SEEING AS HOW we would like people to be aware of this (the second thing, not the first thing) ; and
SEEING AS HOW this could maybe be acheived by running down a few of the things that make this movie the pinnacle of motherfucking goddamn;
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that:
RESOLVED, it shall be observed that the first explosion in a Jerry Bruckheimer movie has this immensely satisfying quality to it, like the first violin note at a Dirty Three show, or like when your head hits the pillow after a long day, or (I am told) like the first cigarette after awakening, or getting off a plane. It's like, ah, here we are. This is how it's gonna be. As it turns out, this is the only real explosion in the movie, but that doesn't matter, somehow.
RESOLVED, that Harvey Keitel is both awesome and meta-awesome, evidenced by the fact that the audience laughed when he first appeared onscreen as the head FBI agent.
RESOLVED, that Bruckheimer is at the absolute top of his game right now, that he could do anything, that as such he's doing sort of formalist action movies, one stop short of meta. This is evidenced by a number of things. For one, he's clearly setting these sort of challenges for himself, one of which here is the lack of violence, admittedly dictated no doubt by the fact that it was a Disney film (recall the similar sort of formalist challenge Lynch set for himself with his Disney film The Straight Story), but at the same time kind of awesome. Viz: none of the heroes fire a shot or even touch a gun at any point, but they still beat the bad guys in satisfying ways. The only violent thing Nicolas Cage does is hit one of the bad guys with a map tube. Let us repeat that: the only violent thing Nicolas Cage does is hit someone with a map tube. This is awesome. Also observe the way the obvious romantic interest does not even try and hide being perfunctory, but actually celebrates it: they're walking through the tunnel in what will obviously be the last setpiece of the movie, and Cage simply spins her around and kisses her, which she perfunctoraly enjoys, and it comes off not as crass or lazy but as a combination of hilarious and satisfying. Bruckheimer has mastered the language of action movies to the point that he gives us the syntax without bothering with the grammar, has discarded pronouns and articles, leaving only nouns and verbs, a sort of Spike TV tone poem. It cuts to the heart of what makes action movies satisfying, celebrating it in a ridiculous way because it refuses to shy away from the pleasures of the ridiculous.
RESOLVED, that you can call it a "third-rate Indiana Jones," but you are missing the point entirely. They are doing two totally different things. Indiana Jones movies are all about cool old planes and Nazis and exotic locations in the wilderness, the jungle, premodern India, etc. It's all about deserted places. What makes National Treasure awesome is that, aside from the opening sequence, it takes places solely within the confines of huge cities on the east coast of the US: NYC, Philly, DC. We're not exploring some forgotten temple, we're below the financial district of Manhattan. We're not taking a submarine into a desert base, we're galavanting around the National Archives, or climbing into the belltower of Independence Hall in Philly. In other words, we are exposing the mysteries of the places we see everyday, the concealed tunnels and the cities below and the still-present ghosts of the old town. It's steampunk, if you like, but more than that, it's not concerned with imaging the distant, it's concerned with reimagining the commonplace, and that is wonderful.
RESOLVED, that it makes a very neglected form of nerdiness look totally cool, while also preserving the nerdy essence (see "the pleasures of the ridiculous" above). Almost everything in the movie has something to do with early American history, which is a deeply nerdy concern. But if you are concerned with it, there's a real thrill to see these settings used, to have this sort of fantasy of what could go on in the unspeakably boring National Archives played out onscreen. It's for people who really do get excited about the Declaration of Indepence, who have a kind of reverence for it, because when that thing gets imperiled, when at one point a car almost runs over it, I found it geuinely stressful, more tense than anything else I've seen on screen for a long time. Plus, it rewards intelligence. Nicolas Cage's character (which, to give you some idea of the nerdiness at play here, is named "Benjamin Franklin Gates"--no, seriously) is not so unlike us. Instead of fighting the bad guys, he runs away, or hides, or outsmarts them. It's a dumb movie, but it's smart about it.
RESOLVED, that you should totally go see it, and
RESOLVED, that I might name one of my kids "Franklin Roosevelt." (Miss Clap wants to name one "Madeline Albright." Also, Miss Clap knew what the security precautions were for the Declaration of Independence already. Which are awesomely portrayed, by the way, filmed in this hyper, jump-cut, sound-effect laden sequence, which would fit seemlessly in Mission Impossible or any other movie of that type--except they're real! There really is that vault! Fucking awesome.)
posted by Mike B. at 1:27 PM
0 comments
It's been saddeningly cold and glum in New York lately, but yesterday it brightened up a bit, so after my in-office lunch I took a little stroll. Standing for a cycle on the traffic island beside Union Square, looking up Park Avenue, I became charmed and transfixed by some sort of in-progress building a few blocks up, which has been happening with an odd frequency of late. The half-finished building near 2nd and Houston, the curvy one at Astor Place, etc. Something about the sky passing through the concrete windows, the outline of something massive. Or maybe just a break in the valley wall, like the strange feeling of wilderness the only time I visited the pit.
At any rate, so here I am, staring north, half-assedly enraptured with this building, when I look slightly to the right and see the windowless south face of a building across the street. My unfocused eye spies the color on it and it seems to be a very old ad, for dry goods or something, except then when I focus on it, it's actually a very new ad for a very new movie: Ocean's 12. And I experienced one of my very infrequent spurts of Annoyance At Advertising.
Now, there are people who seem to spend their whole lives in the midst of such a spurt, or at least experience such annoyances more frequently and more intensely. (Mine was along the lines of "Damnit, that would be all pretty if that weren't there. Oh well. What's for dessert?") I'm not really interested in critiquing that here. Instead, what I want to ask is: what would a world look like with advertising, or consumerism, under control? It can't look like that momentary glimpse of an ad-free-because-incomplete building I had, because turn your head a little and there's s'more. So what would it actually be like?
Perhaps because it's been saddeningly grey and cold lately, I've been playing a lot of Spiderman 2. (Which is pretty good, incidentally, but that's for another time.) In this game, as in most of the ones on the GTA3 model, the playing area is a fairly believable model of an actual city, and in the case of this particular game, it's explicitly New York. It's actually remarkably accurate, all things considered--you can even go over the Queensboro Bridge and stop off on Roosevelt Island! The thing that's jarring about it though, that makes it unreal (aside from the fact that everything above 135th street has been swallowed up by the Hudson, of course) is that there are no signs and no ads. It's creepy. You go down Broadway and instead of the usual run of green Chinese food awning -> yellow dry cleaner awning -> blue bodega awning -> orange chinese food awning -> Starbucks -> lightbulb-ringed bodega awning -> black car service awning, it's just...nothing. Blank buildings. Because advertisers (er, "Brand Owners") decided that, stupidly, video games have to pay them to use their ads, they're just not part of the environment. Sure, maybe in GTA you'll get made-up ads, but even then it seems unreal because there aren't that many of them, they just repeat, and they're not all-pervasive because that would get tiring. It's very insular. And then, of course, there's the Spiderman model, which is to just not have anything at all that's not directly related to Things You Can Do. And so there's actually very little.
What does this imply? For one, it says that an ad-free environment does not exist, because an ad-free environment looks unreal. I don't think this is limited to New York. Driving through a landscape without ads would just seem creepy. The world has changed along with the rise of advertising, and it all seems of a piece. Would it look good? Bad? We don't really know; we just seem to dislike what we have now, which, I dunno, seems a bit odd. Withou an ad, that dumpy forty-year-old building with a Bacardi ad would just be a dumpy forty-year-old building.
The other thing it implys is that the vision of an ad-free "public space" is a kind of utopianism. If it is acheivable only through creating an artificial environment (and even then sustained only though, ironically enough, market forces!) then it is unreal, an ideal, a pipe dream, or more kindly, just a dream. I guess you could say, yes, well, it is just an ideal, there's no need to eliminate all advertising or commercial speech, just a lot of it. Still, having utopianism at the heart of your hard-to-articulate desire seems worrisome. I think a lot of my love for commercialism comes from the particular humanity of it, the little variations behind it, the randomness, the infinite variety, the way it stinks with the heady scent of other people who I don't know. But maybe this is a kind of utopianism too.
posted by Mike B. at 1:17 PM
0 comments
Matthew sends me the link to this interview with James Murphy with the suggestion that it could provide a lot of fodder for the blog. It probably could were my neck not now permanently disabled from the amount of nodding I did whilst reading said interview. Handclaps! Intensity without agression! Writing everything in your head including technical setups! Hating scenes! I am so with him.
And so, consequently, I don't have a lot to say about it right now. Read it, consider it backgrounder, and I'll come back to it later.
posted by Mike B. at 1:10 PM
0 comments
Two revelations.
1) I've never found Kim Deal particularly attrative. (Contra Dave.) She's nice and all, and certainly cute as a bug's ear, but attractive? Eh.
2) I am slowly falling in love with Mary J. Blige. Right now I am halfway between "Oh, this is why people love her" and "One day perhaps I will write her a song good enough that she was deign to give me the tiniest of smiles." It is less that she is attractive (see revelation #1) and more the beginning of the chorus of "I'm Going Down" + the end of the chorus of "I'm Going Down."
posted by Mike B. at 11:37 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Five new reviews in Flagpole. Actually, one's from last week, but who's counting? We've got Le Tigre, the Donnas, Dykehouse, DFA, and Cake, but focus on the first three if you're short on time or whatevs.
I also want to get into a bit more detail on a few of these, so, with no further ado...
Le Tigre
Let's apply the Eminem argument to Le Tigre, i.e., there are some horrible things being said, but they are nevertheless accurately reflective of a certain culture, so you are less criticizing the things being said and more the culture itself, and do you really want to do that? Because there's no question but that there's a nearly 1:1 concordance between the worldview and sense of style being presented in Le Tigre songs and Williamsburg dyke culture (WDC).[1] Now, there is a chicken-egg question here, given the strong relationship between the two--did Le Tigre create WDC or did WDC create Le Tigre?--but I only moved to New York 3.5 years ago and Le Tigre was released 5 years ago, so I'm not really equipped to say.
So when I'm criticizing Le Tigre, who I do genuinely find terminally grating, am I actually in turn criticizing WDC? I hope not, because I really like WDC. OK, admittedly they've stuck with the mullet thing way too long, and they're sort of painfully insular, but we can all get together and dance and drink and have a good time, which is more than I can say for a lot of people. (Indie rockers, I'm looking at you here.) They're good people as someone's else's grandmother would say. But it's undeniable that this particular culture is at the forefront of Le Tigre's music, and is a large part of what I find so annoying about them.
I implicitly try and excuse this in two ways in the article. One is by saying that the difference with Le Tigre's songs are that they concentrate this cultural personality or divide it in such a way that it's particularly offensive. I can go for weeks without having a particularly political exchange with my WD friends, and even then it's usually something along the lines of "Bush sucks" or me being bemused at this charmingly nutjob position on gay marriage, which I won't get into now. (Cultural-political speech along the lines of "we're going to this rally" doesn't count.) And obviously it's in the political arena that my disagreements with both Le Tigre and WDC are most pronounced: we both like video games, dirtbikes, hanging out, getting drunk, dancing, dance music, being silly, sleeping with girls, falling in love too easily, and talking too much about our relationships. But it's that sliver of a wedge between us on the political spectrum that ultimately becomes a divide. The difference is that with WDC, this isn't actually a problem, whereas with Le Tigre it is. I think I express my reasons for this pretty well in my comment about "Punker Plus," i.e. that it would be a great song if it focused on the personal and cultural elements rather than the political ones, because the latter is obvious and boring where the latter is interesting and vital. Re-divide it and it's fine, but as is, the annoyance at the political issues triggers my annoyance at the cultural ones as well.[2]
The other work-around is sorta solving the chicken-egg problem by placing Le Tigre first and saying it's their particular influence that's responsible for the annoying elements. Of course, I say that they're influencing the younger generation, and I have no way of knowing if that's actually true, as the set of teenage lesbians, or even, hell, female feminists[3], I know is kinda small. (They're all in college now--they grow up so fast! Bless.) So it's sorta a cop-out, but I also think it cuts to the heart of why Le Tigre annoys me and WLC doesn't. Somehow it's far more understandable to be like this when you're younger; what I'm worried about is less that this will influence the ladiez and more that it'll be the ne plus ultra[4]. Hate them though I do, I will admit that there are certainly worse things you could come across as a teen than Bikini Kill or Le Tigre. But this is reflective of a core belief: that foolishness when you are young should not only be excused, but encouraged. I don't expect anyone to really jump straight from Time magazine to Rawls--you do have to have that repulsive Chomsky stage in the middle there, and good for you for doing it. Hell, I'm sure I'm in a phase right now that I'll regard with horror and repulsion in as little as 10 years, or at least I desperately hope so. Life's not interesting if you're not moving through a series of absurd but totally comitted positions. But you also have to move out of it. Le Tigre does not wear their attitudes well; they seem, quite simply, too old to be saying what they're saying. Maybe this is unfair, but it's still true. Le Tigre are sending the message that you can still be a dumbass when you're they're age, and that's what worries me.
Uh, well, this went on for much longer than I meant it to, so Dykehouse tomorrow.
[1] For all I know it could be an accurate reflection of Silverlake dyke culture too, but let's stick to what I can personally verify.
[2] And like I said, there genuinely does seem to be a difference between this album and their earlier stuff. There's just nothing as playful and fun here as "My Metrocard." Nothing's really totally serious here (even "New Kicks" is at least a little silly, and not even unintentionally) but somehow it's not really, eh, Bis-y enough either. It's leaden and tired. Where before we had a verse like "OH FUCK Giuliani HE'S SUCH A fucking jerk SHUT DOWN All the stripbars WORKFARE Does not work" which at least acknowledges its banality and stupidity in a way that actually validates it, here we have attempts at more substantive political speech, except they're really only a notch or two elevated, which doesn't actually make them smart but does make them self-important, and that's no good.
[3] I'm not really very good at being friends with guys who aren't feminists, whether we use the word or not. Somehow we just don't click, you know?
[4] Dude, I don't believe that I'm using that correctly. Go me!
posted by Mike B. at 6:51 PM
0 comments
Big fan of this NYT article on (deep-)frying at home. (They never use the word "deep" for reasons that are unclear to me, other than that they are pussies.) It makes a lot of good points, and while Miss Clap has banned deep fryers from the home, maybe this will talk her into it.
That said, I do have a few objections. First of all is the complaint about old oil. There's no denying that really old oil imparts even the freshest dish with a burnt flavor, and I can't deny that there's a certain very specific appeal to the first thing to come out of a fresh pot of oil--it tends to have a super-light, almost bready quality--but the simple fact is, you get your most robust frying flavors from middle-aged oil, and for that reason I strongly support saving old oil. Look at the food pictured in the article--you can tell it's done with too-fresh oil, because it looks flaccid, unfinished, thin-skinned. Those sweet potato fritters look barely singed, the fish flaky and clear rather than crispy. This is not good. While you do, of course, want to filter your oil after every use, the simple fact is that you'll get a much better dynamic contrast (so to speak) with an oil that's been around the block a few times. Your exteriors will be crispier and it will be far better at sealing in everything. The valuation of new oil is for people who don't really like frying, I think; you get much better browning with mid-period oils. That said, the point at the end about flavors getting in the oil is well-taken, and you want to apply the same philosophy to saving oil that you do to cast-iron frying pans: you want to flavor them consistently. So you might have one fish jar, one chicken jar, one veggie jar, etc. And then cook some french fries in the fish oil--mmm!
The other objection I had was to the use of oils. Really, olive oil is fine, but there's simply no beating corn oil 90% of the time. Plus it's cheap. I'm interested to try grapeseed, but I dunno, corn oil loves me and I love it back. But this is only among the vegetable oils. Where's the mention of lard? And it didn't even get into bacon fat. Hmpf.
That said, the Indian fish recipe does sound delicious, and I wouldn't mind doing some beer-batter fish as well sometime.
posted by Mike B. at 4:50 PM
0 comments
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Man, if there was ever a perfect time for my MP3 player to spit up the Pixies' "UMass," this was it. Hearing them play that the last two nights made me realize how long the first verse is, and how relatively short the second one is! It's like 32 lines to 4.
posted by Mike B. at 4:13 PM
0 comments
"These are the parts of our terrible past. These are the things we can live without."
Joe has a post on LCD Soundsystem's "Movement" which has, besides making me focus more on the song, triggered certain thoughts and related tangents. I'll present some here.
Thought 1: based partially on that Guardian article, the narrative arc of Murphy's compositions seems less about the progress from cynicism to idealism, as Joe thinks, and more related to the Friedbergian concept of music-as-failure [tangent 1] --the word "failure" even appears in the Guardian's headline! LCD Soundsystem's songs tend to start with a sense of righteousness but inevitably reach a point of realization that the sentiment itself deserves scorn, and from this realization (synthesis, you might say if you wanted to be pretentious [tangent 2]) comes a release, not a movement, and that's where those ecstatic finales stem from. In other words, the explosion comes not from idealism, but from overcoming idealism, from realizing that the particular idealism available to you [tangent 3] contradicts everything you want to do, everything you find pleasure in. The release on "Yeah" falls into no category aside from maybe trance [tangent 4] which, as we know, is not exactly held in the highest idealistic regard by, well, anyone. And I think this short-circuiting, this disconnect, is built into the composition, whether as it goes along or in retrospect (editing being a key componant of LCD Soundsystem's compositional technique), specifically as an acknowledgement and expression of failure, of the way any pursuit of musical idealism is destined to fail. They are, to be pretentious yet again, Shinto songs, not only in the pop sense of being deliberately short-term and disposable--more concerned ultimately with providing the most effective present-tense thrill than in creating something durable and ageless--but also intended to decay as they go along, to break down [tangent 5] in real time. To produce, in other words, ecstacy via erosion, via subtraction, the aging process sped up 100 times. There is no morality in music; its removal results in freedom.
[tangent 1] Strongly in evidence on the guitar outro on "Blancheflower," which I think I'm starting to understand. It's just a horrible, horrible solo, not pleasurable to listen to on any level, and something that no one in the world would have allowed to remain if they had any say in the matter. Which they don't, of course, but the valuative point remains. And it goes on for a minute and a half! There are bits that are sort of OK, but overall it sounds exactly like someone whanging along at random, both melodically and rhythmically--just a lot of vaguely chordal runs and fast picking without any particular reason or rhyme. Structurally, the best contemporaneous comparion would be the long outro to Wilco's "At Least That's What You Said" (still the only Wilco song I'll listen to and holding strong!), except there the solo is well-structured, thrilling, and over an independently compelling chord progression. For "Blancheflower," the backing is listless and plodding, and while the little speed-up noise breaks are sorta fun, but as I suggested in my write-up, they're also pretty clearly there to cover up the lack of drumming skills. In other words, there's no aesthetic justification for this section.
But there is a theoretical one, which is actually delicious and richly rewarding, and it's precisely these sort of meta-arrangements, if you will--choices made for purely thematic reasons, that actually undermine the aesthetic impact--that I think offer the appeal that might make you able to overcome and even embrace Blueberry Boat's flaws. There is work required to fully enjoy this album, but it's a more poppy varient on the modernist concept of difficulty, one that certain writers I Do Find Wonderful embrace as well, which offers you an embarassment of hooks, of little nuggets of pleasure, while witholding enough (which mainly fall in the category of expected pleasures) to illuminate the path to a more rewarding understanding of the whole. Embracing the concept of failure, in other words--accepting that you're going to fail at your stated mission outright and admitting this--allows you to choose where you fail, and use this failures as successes, sort of. If you're going to do a just OK guitar solo, why not do a horrible one instead? Why not really fail? "Blancheflower" is ample example of all this, if you want, from the out-of-beat randomized oscillator and the wholly beatless vocals in the first section to the tripping-over-itself duet near the end. Whereas the storybook, past-tense sections are smooth, well-structured, and sensical, the closer the song gets to the present, the more chaotic it gets, the more the decay sets in. This seems not a comment on modern life so much as a reflection of the failure stylee.
[tangent 2] Synthesis! I mean it here in the Hegelian sense, of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, which I've always found a bit bullshit quite frankly--this has been you clap clap blog snap dismissal of a really compicated concept of the day!--but a) this is a pop song, and b) what do you expect from the 19th century? Heathens. So, yes, not only in that nerdy sense, but also in the equally nerdy sense of synthesized sounds, which I feel like originated with an intellectual European as well, but honestly I'm too lazy to check and it's handy for my purposes so let's say it is. Taking, say, a Moog bass patch as your synthesis, the thesis might be the oscilator and the antithesis might be the envelope and high-pass filter, and then, bing bam boom, you've got a phat bassline dawg. I like the idea of a noise as the result of an argument, or even, hey, a rational discussion. It's something your keyboard discusses with itself and then comes to a conclusion in the form of a waveform.
And but so anyway, these are gifts to us from these wacky europeans that we've synthesized in our own ways to produce things like the Fiery Furnaces and LCD Soundsystem. Electronic music has obviously undergone a very odd transformation over the course of its history, but the influence of various only-vaguely-past-tense European musicians on the sounds on offer here is clear, as well as (arguably) the influence of a particularly European kind of modernist and adventure writing on the Furnaces' album. You could also make the argument that particularly European manifestos are a big influence on Murphy's lyrics. And so here we have Europe as the kind of antithesis to American culture (going back to Joe's original post), a sort of giant subculture or source of resistence where artists can find another nodal point of view to set against what they're used to in order to ease creation through the ol' cultural uterus. And it works both ways, too--Europe often uses American culture as an antithesis, in both the Hegelian and conventional sens eof the word--but what I'm interested in here is this idea that these opposition ideas Joe see in LCD Soundsystem songs come not from within, but from an outside source, as Murphy more or less acknowledges in "Losing My Edge." The disillusionment with culture is tempered by a sense of its possibilities partially sourced by an assessment of your own possibilities, but also with a view toward what others can do with the same source materials. The music, in other words, is a constant; the variations you put on it, the attack time or oscillator speed or amount of high-pass cut and res, is what's at issue.
[tangent 3] Caveat should be highlighted as an admission of the ways Joe and I agree here. The problem is not so much idealism qua idealism as it is the particular idealisms readily available to or pre-installed in an "indie studio rat." Part of what makes LCD Soundsystem so great is that it doesn't come from an original e'd-up gangsta; Murphy came to this particular idealism in a late stage, when it was dilluted and wholly discredited, and so to revitalize it he had to combine it with elements of his existing ideology. There seems to be in no way an abandoment of indie ideals here, just a shift, a modification. Idealism here can productively serve as thesis or antithesis (incidentally, I'll stop using these terms after this post is over) but never as synthesis. What results is not an idealized state but an ecstatic non-utopianism. In the present context, I don't think it would work if it were otherwise; there's simply no way we can believe that rave morality is a productive tool in today's world. You can make an ideology out of LCD Soundsystem--indeed, I myself kinda did--but it itself does not express an ideology.
[tangent 4] Due, in my humble opinion, for a massive reevaluation, but that's for another time and place. I haven't finished analyzing a friggin' indie-rock opera yet; am I really about to embark on tracing and rehabilitating European dance-pop from the early-90s chart rave alternatives ("happy rave" etc.) through to the global trance sound that's so universally loathed by anyone with taste? Considering I would be embarking on a Marcusian making-up-my-own-story-and-totally-ignoring-the-actual-history task, no I am not. But maybe later.
[tangent 5] See tangent 2, except instead of Hegel think poets of decay and instead of emusic think James Brown.
posted by Mike B. at 2:36 PM
0 comments
Miss Clap pointed out that apparently the Pixies have decided to take turns dressing like high school teachers during their NYC run. Examination of the evidence seems to indicate that this is correct.
Here's Saturday's show, with Frank in the sweater vest looking like my 6th grade math teacher:
(from here)
And here's Sunday's show, with Kim looking like my 7th grade science teacher:
(from here)
I don't have a pic from Monday's show yet, but David was wearing khakis, a button-down white shirt with a red tie, and a beige baseball cap, and looked exactly like my 9th grade social studies teacher. Link when I get it.
So, uh, if you're going tonight, look for Joey to be wearing shorts and a whistle, presumably.
posted by Mike B. at 11:30 AM
0 comments
|
|