Permanent Historical Record: 11/01/07
Sick...
It never fails that at about this time, DNA gets sick. There are two articles DNA has written, but it will wait until DNA feels better to post.
Permanent Historical Record: 11/02/07
Everyones' A Critic...
MyuSICK REVUE
This is a feature that DNA has wanted to do for some time. Hopefully, he will make this a regular feature. After having established in this blog that logically, no music sucks, only the listener's ability to appreciate it does, he was swamped with literally hundreds of humble submissions from readers which really did suck. Hack songs, hack lyrics, terrible production, rehashed themes, blatantly ripped off melodies, you name it, DNA heard it. So, DNA might have to reconsider the concept that no music sucks. Many examples of DNA's own songs are not very likable, so DNA understands that some songs might take a lot of bourbon or weed to appreciate.
However, even music that sucks must have some redeeming value, right? Right? Well, DNA will be the judge. DNA will try to select a wide variety of music, popular, obscure, current, past, famous and not, and try to provide a critical analysis. DNA will try to be fair, to understand why something he thinks is terrible might be liked by somebody. AND, if DNA disses a band you like, then DNA will print your critical rebuttal if it is any good.
DNA expects that most of what he reviews will be easy to skewer, some of it will need to be skewered and hasn�t been, and every once in awhile, he will find some stuff that has been skewered that needs to be admired, and even more rarely, will find something really good that has been missed.
Myspace seemed like a good place to start searching for artists who fit the above criteria. DNA went to Myspace, and went to the Top Artists tab. The top of the top unsigned artists today (11/2/07) was one Tila Tequila.
"Tila Nguyen was 1 year old when she moved to the U.S. from Singapore, but she's Vietnamese by heritage and blond by choice. As for what she does for a living, there isn't really a word for it yet. Nguyen, who goes by Tila Tequila professionally, is some combination of rapper, singer, model, blogger and actress. But what she mostly is is the queen of the massive social-networking website MySpace..." - Time Magazine
Okay, get that? TIME MAGAZINE???? Sorry. Instead of giving you a couple of quotes encapsulating the psychology of why anyone expresses any kind of interest in Tila, DNA will direct you to this well-written article in the New York times.
Seriously, take a moment to read it. It says everything DNA could about what motivates us as a culture. But, DNA isn�t here to critique Tila as a human being, or a myspace phenomena, or MTV sl---uh, star, but as a musician. DNA looked for a long time for anyone actually reviewing her music.
Out of 819,000 hits for "Tila Tequila Review," DNA found only three actual reviews of songs by Tila Tequila. Some might argue that this alone is overwhelming evidence that, like so many have written, she is less artist than entrepreneur, which is the word they use for "whore" in the nice blogs. In the not so nice blogs, they use "whore" for "whore."
Here is a sample of her writing on the song, "Stripper Friends:"
"All my stripper friends, all my ex-boyfriends, we all want the same thing, we all want the same thing.
Bodies in the bar, reaching for the stars, we all want the same thing, we all want the same thing."
Good writers write what they know. DNA is not surprised that Tila knows lots about strippers and has lots of ex-boyfriends. But is this enough meat to feed a song? Is the rhyme between the words "friends" and "friends" too forced? Or the one between "bar"and "stars" so complex as to undermine the depth of the subject? This review is already too heavy, cuz DNA senses some IRON-y. Oh, and the pronoun "we" isn't correct as she uses it. Not to be a little grammar bitch, but it should be "they." C'mon, it's a fucking pronoun. This alone should tell you the level at which she writes.
We are led through a litany of simple rhymes, a simple theme, and a droning refrain, in the mode of any number of pouty-mouthed (and also potty-mouthed) so-called bombshells. Why do our current pop singers sing like they just had dicks in their mouths? Oh. That must be the answer.
After Donna Summers'hit "Love To Love You Baby" stunned people with its steaming sensuality, any number of 'pop' artists have attempted to breathe, moan, and groan their lyrics in an attempt to make their rather pedantic and forced music to sound raw and sensual like that. That was distilled into a very sick vintage in Britney Spears, and has been guzzled by a whole generation of singers who think that "sexual" and "sensual" are the same thing. This whole affectation of over pronounced consonants, as if the singer's tongue is too thick for her mouth (which is exactly the effect they are going for, so sad little boys can think about that girl's tongue, maybe with a stud in it, and what she would do with that), and over-exaggerated hyperbole must stop.
Since she tells us that "we all want the same thing," and the rhetorical device tells us that Tila is the "everywoman" who can tell us what that is, DNA has to ask, "Why the fuck wait until 3 minutes and 9 seconds into the song before you let us know what that is? Generally, holding a bit of information like that to create artificial interest or tension, or to inflate the importance of the concept is an example of weak writing." DNA guesses that Tila is guilty as charged. Here is the wisdom she imparts at nearly the end of the song:
"We all wanna live we all wanna learn how to love without getttin burned We want to be loved, are we good enough? Yeah, yeah."
No, no, we are not good enough. Not yet.
So, she doesn't distinguish herself as a singer, or as a songwriter. The production values aren't bad, certainly passable, but are nothing that can't be done by somebody with a computer in his basement. The beats, the arrangements, the musical talent which is required to write the music itself is fairly small. Does she distinguish herself in any other way? Well, she poses in some of the same ways as porn star Asia Carrera, and Asia actually has some pretty impressive skills, so DNA guesses that counts for something. Look at them side by side.
Asia Carrera...............................
Tila Tequila...............................
Put them together and you get Tia Carrere!
She certainly has marketed herself into a position of fame, has a TV show, has millions of myspace friends, and has a single that DNA's son has heard on the radio. Tila Tequila is no different than any number of the relatively talentless, relatively nice to look at women who are made into 'stars,' with the exception that she actually made herself without the help of Warner Brothers or Disney, which is saying something. DNA thinks it is saying that the bar, officially dropped by reality TV and OJ, has reached a new lower equilibrium. This should not surprise us. As long as good singers, and good musicians are still able to be heard and seen, why do any of us care if Tila can titillate the lowest common denominator? She ain't no Aretha Franklin, hell, she ain't even a Mariah Carey, okay, fuck it, she ain't even at the level of Fergie or the Pussycat Dolls. Still, when your retarded half-sister sings in front of the family at the reunion, shouldn't everybody there clap, and is it wrong that some of the family really thinks she is good?
PROS: She kind of looks like a bobble head of herself, already. Marketing genius if she gives out bobble-heads at her concerts.
CONS: Her writing is simple, her sense of melody basic, her concepts fairly low-brow ("I don't wanna fuck your man" comes to mind), her delivery uninspired, and her affectation of the 'sex-kitten' does not come off as sensual, but as soft-core porn, which considering DNA's comparison of Tila to Asia Carrera, should show you how bad someone trying to be 'hard-core' sexual looks when they don't have the courage of their convictions, and just wants to appear 'hard-core.' Asia Carrera, DNA respects. Tila Tequila, not so much.
PROS: Tila proves that the democratizing power of the internet works.
CONS: God help us all from the river of shit her wave of success has unleashed. Prepare to be underwhelmed.
DNA debated a long time about even reviewing her music, because DNA is only adding to the number of hits that her name gets every day. This is like an endorsement, no matter what her music is like. But DNA really couldn't find any good reviews of her music, so this was justification enough. Just because it is shitty doesn't mean it gets a pass. In this respect, Tila is experiencing a case of the emperor's new clothes. Once public affection has died, once her looks fade, and nobody cares about the trailer park parade she is currently leading, then people might look back and say, "No, I don't see it. I don't know what I liked about her," and she might say, "Wow, I really didn't have very much talent." DNA doesn't want to throw stones, really. DNA doesn't have a lot of talent, either. DNA makes no claims other than it is what it is. A last word: Who has millions of fans but does not have a record deal? Tila.
Permanent Historical Record: 11/07/07
Plagiarism...And Other Crimes
For those of you who do not share an affinity with Carbondale, IL, or SIU, you might want to tune this blog post out. Unless, of course, you enjoy erudite exposition and thought-provoking analysis on exciting topics like intellectual property rights. Hello? Hello? Anybody there? For those of you still reading, SIU's President, Glenn Poshard, is in some hot water, for plagiarizing a few times in his doctoral dissertation. Some are calling for his head, some are backing him all the way, and for lots of reasons, the issue doesn't look like it is going away. So, DNA decided to weigh in on the subject, mainly because most of the crap that has been written about the topic has been, well, CRAP. So, printed in its entirety, with some small edits (like putting 'DNA' instead of ***** in the places DNA refers to itself), here is our first installment of
Self-serving, Self-aggrandizing, Academic Snobfoppery Theater
Tonight's episode: Plagiarism And Other Capital Crimes
Most of you out there don't care about the happenings at a small Midwestern university, unless that phrase was preceded by the words, "Dear Penthouse: I never thought this would happen to me. I attend a small Midwestern university...." But within the university community, these happenings whirl frenetically like a tornado fed by the spinning of its own tail/tale (take your pick).
DNA has been thinking about the issue of plagiarism in the hopes that DNA could distill this slurry he has been reading in the papers and on the internet into a shot of something with a little more, well, character. Kind of like the difference between drinking a slug of white lightning, compared to a nice draw of aged Kentucky bourbon. One will burn your nose hairs and cause you to see funny. The other uses your whole circulatory system as a filter for smoky sophistication. The problem is, DNA doesn't think the current row about plagiarism is really about plagiarism.
Let's assume, for a moment, that this debate is actually about plagiarism. DNA is purposely not going to define the term here. There are more definitions of plagiarism than there are instances of plagiarism in SIU system president Glenn Poshard's dissertation. Rather, DNA wants to talk about what it is. From a student's standpoint, it is the caged beast used by teachers, administrators, and institutions to inspire fear--- whoops, DNA means, to instill the highest standards of integrity for the intellectual process in their students. From a teacher's standpoint, it is a crime, the prosecution of which protects a teacher's value on the open market--- whoops, DNA means, protects their intellectual property. How plagiarism is defined is not so clear. Whether different activities constitute plagiarism, and whether the same penalties should be imposed for an act of plagiarism depending on your professional level (or lack of it) should be up for debate.
Students need and benefit from direct statements about plagiarism so that they understand clearly what is considered cheating and what is not. Students might plagiarize because they know less of what is common knowledge in a particular field; students might plagiarize because they are less familiar with the rules regarding the fair use of others' works; students might plagiarize because a sufficient "weeding out" process is still occurring during the undergraduate years, and many students who actively cheat are only then getting caught in serious enough infractions; students might plagiarize because many of them aren't particularly interested, invested, or driven to create their own work, or to do the research that allows them to find their own voices, et cetera. (DNA views this primarily as a failure of teachers to find the methods to inspire their students.) There are many reasons students might plagiarize, almost all of which, with the exception of unrepentant, continued, blatant cheating, should be accepted by teachers the way a parent accepts reasons for bad behavior from a child who is still learning how to do things: Negatively reinforce to extinguish a behavior, and positively reinforce to change the behavior. When this is done correctly, the negative reinforcement should not overshadow the positive reinforcement. Then, Professor Skinner rings a bell, and all the kids look out the window due to his semester's long operant conditioning. DNA is not a behaviorist, but certainly, there are times when the model works.
If schools want to teach kids that plagiarism is bad, then instructors shouldn't level the worst punishment (failing a class, being suspended or expelled) at students for the first, or second (or, gasp, maybe even the third) infraction of the rules or for an inadvertent infraction. Wouldn't it be a more effective lesson about the value of intellectual and academic honesty to require a student who plagiarized to write a paper about a topic of their choosing, in which he had to present several drafts, submitted sequentially, all verified by the instructor, starting with a simple outline, which creates a clear and obvious trail of the student's own intellectual work? Wouldn't that be much more effective in producing a future scholar who appreciated the value of his own work instead of scaring the hell out of a kid who makes a mistake, or, God forbid, maybe several? But that approach involves actual hard work on the part of the instructor, and assumes an element of really caring about an individual student�s intellectual potential and growth. What was DNA thinking?
It is one thing to talk about plagiarism among students. What about plagiarism among professionals? Now we are getting into the meat and potatoes of this current, for lack of a better term, argument. Actually, there is a better term, it's just longer: "Two sides shrieking back and forth, tossing polemic, pedantic barbs aimed at inciting anger, including few if any facts, all out of context, each claiming that the other side is ruining reputations of institutions or people, and that is why SIU now sucks," or something to that effect. Before we dig into the professional plagiarism main course, let's scarf down the appetizer, which in effect has spoiled our palate for public debate. The appetizer is composed of two ingredients: First take a large helping of "Don't throw stones if you live in glass houses," and vigorously combine with two scoops of "If you're rich, powerful, or connected, I guess the rules don't apply to you," and stand back. The mixture rises on its own, puffs itself full of hot air, and will cause [ad] nauseam if tasted even once. Interestingly, both points of view spring from the same insecure, squirrelly bakery in our psyches: a fear of not being in control of our lives. One point of view basically asks, "Who are you to judge?" while the other asks, "Who are you to be above judgment?" Both rise from insular thinking and an external locus of control.
Plagiarism takes on a whole new meaning and importance when it is applied to the professional world. Then, as a concept, it is related directly to intellectual property and the value, the actual dollars-and-sense value that the property has. Plagiarism is theft, and as such, the process to penalize someone for plagiarism follows the same basic rules that govern the adjudication of any theft of property: The worse the violation, the worse the penalty. If the theft is bad enough, as a professional, you lose money, prestige, reputation, opportunities, your job, and maybe even your freedom. Wouldn't it be stupid to exact the same toll for different levels and kinds of infractions? It's the kind of intractable, inflexible thinking that you would least expect from faculty and administration at a university, but is exactly the kind of thinking we seem to be faced with at every turn. Perhaps those intractable thinkers should remember this aphorism: To err is human; to forgive, divine. (Or maybe that's 'strychnine.')
Somebody said that before, DNA thinks. Oh yeah, it was Alexander Pope. Which brings DNA to its next point: How many times do you have to hear or see something before you no longer feel bad for ripping off Alexander Pope? What falls into the bounds of common knowledge? There is certainly something rotten in Denmark. Et tu, Brute? I'd rather serve in Denny's than manage in McDonald's. You see where DNA is going with this, DNA hopes? When does DNA get to say "continental drift" without saying, "as originally described by Alfred Wegner?" The rules are not very clear. Common knowledge pretty much means, "If you already knew it, then you're okay, but if you had to get your information from somewhere else, then it was not common knowledge to you, so you better cite it, or else." That definition, in one form or another, can be found all over the place. DNA guesses that makes it common knowledge.
Unfortunately, the definition is so relative to an individual's experience as to nearly be worthless. Language itself, being self-reflexive, tends to blur authorship/ownership over time. "But surely, there must be a definable point at which something can't be considered 'common' anymore," you say. Yes, it makes sense that that point exists. And stop calling me Shirley. Now, does DNA have to attribute that joke to the writers of the movie, Airplane!? DNA hopes we're not there as a society. As soon as free expression is curtailed out of fear of penalty or reprisal because you did not attribute everything correctly, then the argument against plagiarism has officially stepped off the deep end. Right now, at SIU, we seem dangerously close to testing those waters.
Do we want a teacher who uses somebody else's teaching statement? Do we want a chancellor who copies large chunks of a previously developed plan and inserts them into his new work here? Do we want a president who committed plagiarism in his thesis and dissertation? Do we want to start looking at everybody's published theses and dissertations and comb through them for signs of plagiarism? No, of course not. In a perfect world, every teacher's teaching statements would be unique or attributed carefully, every chancellor would cite their old plans or create new plans when envisioning a specific university's future, and every president would produce a thesis and dissertation which become the standards for scholarly excellence, and nobody would ever commit an act of plagiarism, intentional or otherwise, in their student or professional works.
Or, we could accept a more modest proposal. Should DNA attribute that? It will, to Jonathan Swift, who suggested, in 1729, that the Irish in Ireland could solve their social problems if they only ate their own children, particularly the poor ones. (They are very tasty, he reports.) Here's DNA's modest, slightly less biting, proposal: Teach students, through a process of experience, why they should not plagiarize. Teachers should show them examples and should be examples of proper behavior, instead of making examples of students when they foul up. Students who foul up include graduate students, too. Even though doctoral grads should have learned their lessons already, some will still make dumb mistakes. Which brings DNA to an important side note: Did you know that school is the place at which you get to make dumb mistakes, and not have it cost you your career? We learn by making mistakes. Why do you think so many people teach at universities? The amateurs (students) should get treated with kid gloves until they turn pro (graduate). Professionals (professors, administrators, et cetera), however, should bear the full responsibility of their actions. That's why they are paid the big bucks.
It would be nice if the world followed the diet suggested by DNA's modest proposal, but it doesn't. Instead, we're filled up by the side dishes. It's hard to say how that happened, but perhaps some of the ill-advised statements weeks before a decision about Poshard's plagiarism by board members, which certainly sounded like a rubber stamp of approval for President Poshard, didn't help, nor did the many statements by folks who had axes to grind against SIU. Nor did those who extolled Poshard's character and trivialized any potential wrongdoing, or those who faulted the process or the findings of a committee for lacking integrity, et cetera., et cetera.
Unfortunately, the issue of plagiarism seems to be the McGuffin of this Hitchcockian drama. Really, does this 'scandal' affect the quality of DNA's degrees? No. DNA still learned what he learned while he was here as a student. DNA takes that with him wherever he goes. Will it affect whether or not an SIU grad is hired somewhere? No company or institution or human-resources manager would be stupid enough to assume that somehow this issue devalued any individual's education. Scandals like this have come and gone at universities a lot more prestigious than SIU. Guess what? They are still more prestigious. The elephant in the living room is this: There wouldn't be a private group of 'concerned' citizens investigating certain targets if there hadn't existed a longstanding culture of SIU administrators treating teachers poorly. It's a fact that we have a larger, well-paid administration at SIU, and a smaller, less well-paid faculty compared to other similar institutions around the country. It's hard to reconcile institutional inequalities like that without sacrificing some rams along with some sheep. Poshard is enough of a politician to keep from getting his throat cut, but can he lead us out of this valley, or will we go straight over a cliff? DNA actually thinks his detractors are afraid he might succeed, not fail, because their axes would be blunted if things started to get better with Glenn at the helm. DNA doesn't believe those concerned citizens actually care about plagiarism as much as they care about plagiarism being a means to an end.
Please, President Poshard, Chancellor Fernando Trevino, if you or your staff happen to read this, DNA ain't the Lorax, but he do speak for some of the trees around here: Take this opportunity to lead. Change the culture, change the perception that our administration is bloated and our teachers are undervalued. You can do this. Some folks have faith---not blind faith, but faith nonetheless--- that you are the right people for the job. This plagiarism issue is likely the first and last test you will be allowed to fail. Yes, fail. You certainly did not win over hearts and minds here with your words and actions. You survived, which is important in the long run, but that is not compelling evidence you are fit to take on this challenge. DNA hopes, for students, faculty, the institution, and the region, that you are. If you are not, leave now. Too many people depend on your success.
Okay, that was the "real" writing that DNA does from time to time. Didn't mean to have it intrude in his internetlife. Can't help it if the dick jokes or memories of the music biz are not bubbling to the surface right now.
What have you plagiarized lately?
Permanent Historical Record: 11/11/07
Where Can You Find A Good Movie?
Certainly not at the video store. DNA and his wife were having this conversation just yesterday and then, last night, DNA's guestbook was hit with spam, asking, "Where can I find good movies? Can you help me?" DNA took that as a sign. Yes, spammer, you trolling dirtbag, and yes, visitor to this site, you wonderful, entertainment-starved spirit, DNA can help you.
Besides the conversation and the spam, DNA has noticed what we all have noticed: Video stores do not carry good selections of catalog titles. Years ago, DNA used to run a video store, and worked for a large retailer that owned a chain of video stores. The model worked as follows: Stock the hell out of new releases, stock the hell out of a few popular catalog titles (anybody remember "Porky's"---God, DNA hopes not), carry a few special interest titles, keep a top row open for "Playboy"and related softcore nudity documentaries (that's what DNA always called them---in fact, after hours, if everyone was cool with it, every once in a while we would put one on, and do like a "Wild Kingdom" voice over narration: "Here you see the beach bunny in its natural habitat. Notice how, once on the beach, the dominant female bends and protrudes her hind quarters, to set the boundary of her territory and signal the waiting males that she is in heat."
When you are in your 20's, and intellectually anesthetized by the repetitive nature of your job, then even ignorant shit like that becomes enjoyable.
Regardless, after that, the chain stores owners left managers with some choice, about 10% or so of the ordering budget, as discretionary, so that we could buy movies to stock that we thought were cool. Also, although we received signage (that's the official word for all the signs and graphics on signs, hanging from ceilings and in windows, etc., that you receive from the home office, that you have to put up in the store a certain way as per your company's marketing department's requirements) we also had freedom to make our own, as long as it wasn't crude or vulgar, and looked professional.
So, it could have been worse. At least the company DNA worked for allowed for a little creativity (not a lot----DNA will tell another story about how he pitched the idea of having song kiosks at which users could download and print up their own CD's about 5 years before it was being done, and the company president said that he didn't think the market was heading that direction, and thanked me for my input---uh, DNA guesses he doesn't have to wait to tell the story---he just did).
The coolest part about the old video store DNA ran was that DNA would create interesting categories, useful categories, for people to find movies. Categories like "Featured Directors" or "Featured Actors;" categories like "Bad Matthew Broderick Movies" and "Who Teaches Bad Guys Martial Arts?" That store experience from years ago has kept DNA aware of the pressures on current video stores to maximize dollars per square foot, but to also stock titles which will sell, and to position titles in ways and places which excite a person's imagination. Why would anyone advertise bad Matthew Broderick movies? Because it invites conversation, it invites a call to judgment, and movies sold off of that endcap in the store because of it. However, you can't have an endcap like that in your store if you don't know enough about your inventory to talk about it. You have to be able to talk about War Games and Biloxi Blues, movies which did not appear on the endcap, as well as Mars Attacks! which did (or if DNA were still running the store, The Producers would have to be added to the display, because it SUCKED as a movie).
You can't find good movies in video stores anymore because the imagination has left the business. As a model, the business is dying. DNA went into the local video store last week, looking for some specific movies. The store is part of a relatively new chain. It is clean and well organized. New releases line the exterior walls of the store. One quarter of the interior store space is dedicated to tanning, one quarter is dedicated to sale and rental of video games, one quarter is dedicated to the sale of recent new releases, and 7/32 is dedicated to the front register and candy sales. 1/32 of the store is set aside for catalog rentals and sales. That was it.
The catalog selection leaned heavily towards children's fare. When DNA asked if they could special order a catalog title, a popular title, the store manager said that they were not allowed to anymore. When a store can't supply a basic demand of a customer, one that you would expect to be able to be met, then that should be a sign that the business is in decline.
Movies on demand, Netflix, these services are changing the model. If you run or own a video store, DNA has a simple plan to save your business.
1. Make your store unique. There are 10,000 Blockbusters. Make your store a different destination.
2. Know your product. Watch lots of movies. Read about movies. Be excited about the art form. Be able to answer your customer's questions. Hire people that share your passion. Don't just run the store.
3. Don't combine your store with another. Movies and tanning do not fucking go together. EVER. Yet, you see this combination all the time. You know what goes together? Movies and pizza. That would work. But even then, why deal with the hassle of two different business models under one roof? Save your floorspace for movies.
4. Most catalog DVD's cost wholesale about $5. That means, you can make money on them after five one-dollar rentals. Or you can sell them for $6.99 and make approximately a 30% profit. What this tells DNA is that there is a lot of margin left in the business. If you could incorporate download on demand in your store, then you put the cost for production directly on the consumer, and wa-laa, you open up the doors to have tons more catalog titles available at little additional cost to you. How hard would it have been, for example, for the chain store DNA went into to enter a partnership with an online movie company like Netflix and be able to deliver a catalog of 100,000 titles to any person who enters the store? Not hard, it just requires imagination.
5. Don't put shit down so low on a shelf that people can't see it, and don't load your shelves with too many titles on their spines and don't buy gimmicky shit like movie tie-in toys to increase your profit margin. Those are all signs that you are abandoning your store's core mission.
That's it. Now, good luck trying to find a movie store which does that. Your best shot is to go online, which is the direction all media is going anyway.
Permanent Historical Record: 11/17/07
The Akkademiks...ROCK!
For those of you who don't know, the only reason the DNA Vibrator got back on this carousel called alt rock was because he started an educational musical project approximately 5 years ago. It started small, but the idea never went away. It was first developed in a business plan competition. The business was called "Music Notes," and the concept was to apply the model of "Schoolhouse Rock" to college subjects. After a frenetic period of writing, which netted 10 songs for the educational project, and about 30 for DNA's own personal projects, the circle is nearly complete. Number 11 has been sitting in DNA's head for some time. Finally, DNA has knocked out the last song for the educational album: Climate Change.
Yeah, it's a song about climate change, as you might have guessed from the title. Remember, this little project is educational, and the first album focuses on Geology.
DNa had been trying to squeeze a couple of hours in to knock out a rough demo, and was exicted that this afternoon, it happened. Which means, that if H.O.G. can get roped, tied and dragged back into the studio, this song will be done pretty shortly. Also, the canned drums have to be re-done, but that part is easy---tedious to get right, but easy to do.
Hope you have yerself some lernin' this Thanksgiving.
DNA forgot the cranberries!
Permanent Historical Record: 11/21/07
Time For Another Myoo-sick Review...
Remember the guiding principle for this recurring feature: After having established in this blog that logically, no music sucks, only the listener's ability to appreciate it does, he was swamped with literally hundreds of humble submissions from readers which really did suck. Hack songs, hack lyrics, terrible production, rehashed themes, blatantly ripped off melodies, you name it, DNA heard it. So, DNA might have to reconsider the concept that no music sucks. Many examples of DNA's own songs are not very likable, so DNA understands that some songs might take a lot of bourbon or weed to appreciate.
However, even music that sucks must have some redeeming value, right? Right? Well, DNA will be the judge. DNA will try to select a wide variety of music, popular, obscure, current, past, famous and not, and try to provide a critical analysis. DNA will try to be fair, to understand why something he thinks is terrible might be liked by somebody. AND, if DNA disses a band you like, then DNA will print your critical rebuttal if it is any good.
DNA expects that most of what he reviews will be easy to skewer, some of it will need to be skewered and hasn't been, and every once in awhile, he will find some stuff that has been skewered that needs to be admired, and even more rarely, will find something really good that has been missed.
This week's experiment in uhh, hmmm, music? is the band Hollywood Undead. DNA doesn't really want to direct you to their myspace page, but in the interests all things fair, you can go here to listen to them. DNA is sorry in advance. Really. Okay, not really, DNA listened to them way too many times over the last few days for research purposes. This was way harder research than DNA's Master's Thesis. Why? Because nobody was torturing DNA while he completed his thesis.
Now, before you think DNA has lost his objectivity, DNa will give you some Hollywood Undead background, and ultimately end with an enlightened discussion of Emo, Screamo, and the final word from someone who can be considered the expert.
First off, Hollywood Undead has, gulp, over 12 million pages views on their myspace page. 12 million page views! Over 33 million listens to their songs. DNA can't even get more impressive italics to show how fucking unreal that is. Let DNA put it perspective. Britney Spears has about 19 million listens to her music on myspace. Hollywood Undead has about 100,000 more "friends" than she does. Who have they shown their pussies to?
DNA will get into the actual review in a moment, but again, he has to ask: for a band that seems to command so much myspace respect, why aren't they signed? Why don't they have a snocap store or are on iTunes or have some other method of online distribution for their music? Why are there a million (okay, only several hundred thousand) mentions of them around the web, but only a few honest to God reviews? And why are the actual reviews (not just fan comments) almost uniformly bad? Also, DNA noted in his research, that either you have people who think Hollywood Undead are the worst band ever, reconceptualizing the actual meaning of the word "bad" by the horrible-ness of what they call music, or that people think they fucking rule, and are inviting the 7 member-band for continuous 7 on 1 orgies across the country. The 7 on 1 orgy invitation appears to be both from male and female listeners. Meaning, Hollywood Undead is so cool, that even straight frat/thug/gym/macho guys get hard-ons for their music, and could handle being the catcher as long it was one of the guys in Hollywood Undead popping his ass-cherry.
At least, that is the gist of the commentary DNA has read.
What do they sound like? Well if you listened to Linkin Park (or 75,000 other bands that sound as bad as they do, the way they do), then you have an idea of what Hollywood Undead sounds like on a good day. Overall, production is good, but not great; again, as with the Tila Tequila review, the beats, loops, and sound are reminiscent of some guys with too much time on their hands and a nice computer in their mom's basement. They copy the "schtick" of many other popular bands, covering their faces, except that you get the feeling that they are covering their faces because otherwise, fans would see that these guys are kind of geeky, not cool. Slipknot, they are not. But, it seems to be working for them. Lyrically, there is some inventiveness, the words certainly flow, but the subject matter, even when one gives them the benefit of the doubt, and is willing to entertain the idea that the lyrics are tongue in cheek, can't help but think, "yeah, tongue in cheek, between ass-cheek, directly in ass." DNA is trying to say the lyrics are base, (not lots of low frequency, but as in low-brow), sophomoric, puerile, yeah, that's the right word, puerile, (look it up, gangsta-wannobe).
Actually, it's the lyrical content that bothers DNA, cuz it plays right into some stereotypes that DNA saw prevalent among the douchebag "think with their dicks or other more impressive muscles" crowd that he so often purposely antagonized while a student at SIU. The problem is, this band is supposed to be part of this "screamo" underground hardcore scene that opposes the establishment, right, except that, they and their fans kind of share the same knee-jerk, 'fuck you, faggot' attitude that is normally representative of the establishment. How can they be cool and anti-establishment if they are dicks and mouthpieces of the crap we all hate about the establishment? Oh, right...THEY CAN'T.
Let's get right to the music, shall we? The first song you hear upon clicking their myspace page is "Dead In Ditches."
That's when we, that's when we, that's when we ride
that's when we, that's when we ride on these bitches
That's when we ride on bitches
You fuckin' faggot snitches
So don't you try, we packin' 9's
We leave you dead in ditches
That's when we ride on bitches...
Okay, DNA just barfed in his mouth a little, and had to stop typing. No, not from being disgusted, from laughing so hard he contorted his stomach and chucked a little up. Instead of listing all of the lyrics, DNA will summarize: They play with the metaphor of a gun being both a symbol of toughness, and also a symbol of virility. It is clear as they talk about packin' 9, (ostensibly, a Glock 9)and shooting, that they are really talking about sexual conquest...wait a fucking minute, is DNA actually doing this? Actually providing a critical analysis of a song about fucking so 'good' that the boys in the band leave ho's dead in ditches? Okay then, how about this: the boys in the band say, "we packin' 9's." You know what that really means? They look at each others' dicks, and they have measured them. Because they are absolutely sure they are packin' 9's. They say it alot. Who do you know who looks enough at other guys' dicks to know exactly how long they are? Just by looking? Sorry, Hollywood Undead, you can't be mad at the "fucking faggot snitches" if you got a thing about measuring dicks. While we're there, about the use of the word "faggot." There is not a single word left in the English language when used in the off-handed, incidental, but still perjorative sense that it is used in this song, that doesn't more aptly display ignorance, stupidity, intolerance, etc., etc. Just the kind of thing your angry, disaffected youth wants to be associated with...if they are fucking fascists. Congratulations, Hollywood Undead. DNA will now buy Elton John, Liberace, Barry Manilow, and Judy Garland records on fucking principle alone.
The next song is "Bitches." Yeah, DNA laughed too.
Bitches I hope you know
bitches I hope you know
bitches I hope you know
I won't stop til I hit that ho
Baby come say hello
And get your junk ass over here let's go
DNA hopes the bitches know, too, that these guys sound like Weird Al when they try to sing, which is really demeaning to Weird Al, who actually is pretty fucking good. From this point of view, DNA is glad Hollywood Undead don't sing very much.
DNA can say, that without reservation, this is some of the worst stuff he has listened to, and for that DNA is glad. Every one elses' music seems better now. Even 2 Live Crew had their moments----"Hey, we want some pussy!" DNA can identify with that. DNA just can't identify with "Bitches." Nor can he fathom how anyone who can hear and understand English could identify with "Bitches." You know who are the bitches? Yep, Hollywood Undead.
Why are they bitches, though? Not only are the posuers (or however the fuck you are supposed to spell that word when you mean not the real deal), but they have completed what the establishment needs to have happen to "win." They have taken a genre that at one time was reactionary and revolutionary, and reduced it to a cliche, and made it the vehicle in which the establishment now rides. Don't believe DNA? Read the "influences" the band lists on their myspace page: "HOLLYWOOD California, Designer Jeans, Camo, Cigarettes, Mickey's 40's, Bud Ice, Pro Tools, OUR FANS, TATTOO'S, Cahuenga blvd, Pla-boy Liquor, ASS, partying, Subway Sandwiches, Finger Snaps, Scene Hair, Sidekicks, Dumb fuckin girls, Freestyling, HXC, Brassknuckles, Riding Bikes Drunk, clubs and bars...." If this doesn't sound like the wet dream list of the dick-headed, frat-boy, pumped up on his own beauty jock from high school/college. The establishment has co-opted cool. Fuck. DNA is glad he is uncool.
Now, here is the problem DNA has. These guys are so wrong on every level. It takes work to be that wrong. It takes brains, and it takes talent. In fact, in the back of DNA's mind, a little voice is saying, "They're fucking around with you, DNA, and with the hundreds of thousands of people who call themselves 'fans.' They are so spot-on parodying everything that is wrong with the tatooed, muscled, thug-life poseur dickheads, and the slutty, wish they were prettier, and only assess their own value based on the size of their asses and tits airheads, that they have to be laughing at them. Otherwise, they really are the theme music for the most pitiable generation of sperm and egg to have ever heaved their way down the fallopian tubes.
Lastly, where do they get the genre, "screamo?" From "emo," obviously. But then, what is "emo?" You think you know, but you don't, not really. Short for "emotional hardcore," or "emotive hardcore," whatever the fuck that means. Here is the definitive response to what is "emo," from the only trusted source on the net, Wiki.
(The passages below were copied right from the Wiki "emo" page. Fuck it, they said it better than DNA could)
In 1985 in Washington, D.C., Ian MacKaye and Guy Picciotto, veterans of the DC hardcore music scene, decided to shift away from what they saw as the constraints of the basic style of hardcore and the escalating violence within the scene. They took their music in a more personal direction with a far greater sense of experimentation, bringing forth MacKaye's Embrace and Picciotto's Rites of Spring. The style of music developed by Embrace and Rites of Spring soon became its own sound. (Hüsker Dü's 1984 album Zen Arcade is often cited as a major influence for the new sound.) As a result of the renewed spirit of experimentation and musical innovation that developed the new scene, the summer of 1985 soon came to be known in the scene as "Revolution Summer".[1]
Where the term emo actually originated is uncertain, but members of Rites of Spring mentioned in a 1985 interview in Flipside Magazine that some of their fans had started using the term to describe their music. By the early 90s, it was not uncommon for the early DC scene to be referred to as emo-core, though it's unclear when the term shifted.
The difficulty in defining "emo" as a genre may have started at the very beginning. In a 2003 interview by Mark Prindle,[13] Guy Picciotto of Fugazi and Rites of Spring was asked how he felt about "being the creator of the emo genre". He responded: "I don't recognize that attribution. I've never recognized 'emo' as a genre of music. I always thought it was the most retarded term ever. I know there is this generic commonplace that every band that gets labeled with that term hates it. They feel scandalized by it. But honestly, I just thought that all the bands I played in were punk rock bands. The reason I think it's so stupid is that - what, like the Bad Brains weren't emotional? What - they were robots or something? It just doesn't make any sense to me."
The bottom line is what started as a movement is now simply a fashion, which is really the only proof DNA needed to see that Hollywood Undead aren't being duplicitous, they really are bad. They are called "screamo" because they look "screamo," not because they represent some social movement, the way bands like Fugazi or Bad Brains did/do.
Lastly, the fact that they are a myspace phenomenon only goes to prove that myspace has very little actual power to effect change, and has linked the lowest common demoninator together. Where else could dickheads find the theme music to fuck bitches to?
Pros: Every now and then, a little humor, or some inventive lyric, makes it to the light of day (keeping that little voice in the back of DNA's mind whispering).
Cons: Predictable, limited, puerile, white-boy, posuer, wannabe, masturbatory fantasy life soundtrack which has been done better by just about every skinny kid who picked up a guitar and felt like Superman.
Pros: They do make it sound cool to have some bitches around.
Cons: Based on their popularity, and we all know how wise it is to listen and follow something because lots of other people are following it, Hollywood Undead will probably have the next bad reality TV show on right after "A Shot At Love" with Tila Tequila.
Pros: Their name isn't half bad. DNA was intrigued when it saw the name Hollywood Undead. That sounds like a band ripe to subvert the ingrained idea of life in Hollywood, right?
Cons: In other words, with a name like that, they sounded like they should have the potential to rock like the Groovy Ghoulies, Man Or Astro-man, or The Reverend Horton Heat, but instead they didn't. Instead they sucked the life right out of the name "Hollywood Undead."
If you are a fan of Hollywood Undead, right here is where you can level all of the "fuck you faggot" responses and other enlightened commentary regarding my analysis of the band.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment