Blog Archive

Sunday, February 22, 2009

The Ugly Theory of Civilization Development....

In our previous discussion of beauty, and why only hot chicks sing in rock and roll bands, DNA dismissed beauty-ism as the main culprit of this cultural phenomenon. But, beauty-ism exists. Check out this article if you doubt DNA.

Beautiful people get more breaks, they get more respect, they get more chances to fuck up. People like to look at beautiful people. They like to be associated with beautiful people. What a shallow existence that must be, having, as one of your requisite skills, “being pretty.” This takes up a lot of brain power, which could be devoted to other subjects, like, oh, math. This is why DNA thinks most female deep thinkers and philosophers, scientists and artists, are not necessarily the prettiest peaches in the basket. Those smart people don’t have to “be” pretty. Thank God for that. Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte wrote comedies and tragedies of manners 200 years ago because they could see that their culture was in the business of training one half of the population to be window dressing, and more insidiously, training girls to want to be window dressing, and training boys to want window dressing. The same thing happens now, in our society. We haven’t outrun that past, yet.

300,000 years ago, attracting the hunkiest cave man with the biggest club was an evolutionary necessity. However, at some point, not too long ago, there were enough ugly dudes that no matter what, even if they only bred with the most attractive females, plenty of ugly children resulted. Not being cursed with beauty, many of those individuals began to do the more important things in the world---invent bronze tools, tattoos, agriculture, boats, and other shit like that. DNA calls this the Ugly Theory of Civilization Development. On one side of the Ugly Divide, with a small hunter-gatherer society, for example, there are not enough ugly people to spur innovation. On the other side of the Ugly Divide, there are lots of pissed off, sad, desperate, un-entitled, disenfranchised, sexually frustrated ugly people to really get shit done.

Although people gravitate to beautiful people, initially, most people, ugly or not, realize quickly that most superficially beautiful people are just that----superficial, shallow, and grate on the nerves like shingles (the disease, the remnants of the chicken pox virus which lives on in your nerves, quietly waiting until you are weak or stressed to strike---not the roof covering). So being uglier, but being a little bit smarter, because the ugly get to exercise their brains in different ways than the beautiful do, means that ultimately, being beautiful is an evolutionary cul-de-sac, a lodestone around the neck. Eventually, the beautiful person will be as rare a phenomenon as the trailer park queen is now, produced when the ugliest of the ugly, all fornicatin’ like drunk dogs in the “wheeled domiciles only” zoned section of town, comes together right and a beautiful child emerges from one of those unions with more teeth than all of her uncles combined, and in the right places, too.

Here is the irony though: When beautiful people become more vacuous through the cultural processes in their lives which make them aware of beauty as a commodity and they work to refine that commodity, they are no longer beautiful, and in some cases, they are no longer really people, but they are objects, created by society, and just as often, by themselves. And, when ugly people do the things they do, without superficial beauty clouding people’s judgment of them, then they become beautiful for who they are. Of course, there are some ugly people who do ugly things, and they, frankly, are fucked, and there are a few beautiful people who do beautiful things, and those people are golden.

But this brings us back to the point: Doesn’t it seem odd that so many of the beautiful people, and specifically, beautiful women, front bands? There just aren’t that many beautiful people doing beautiful things, and even if there were, why are they all fronting bands? According the Ugly Theory of Civilization Development, most of our singers and musicians should be pretty ugly, since the beautiful have more important, less significant things to do. (Again, with the irony---many of the kids who form bands in high school and college are the outcasts, the dregs, the losers, and yet, they produce the music which all of the beautiful people sing as the soundtrack to their lives, and as the loser makes it big, the cheerleader who treated him like dirt becomes the groupie who degrades herself to fuck him…. How strange it is).

Since most of our female singers are not ugly, if the theory holds, then it must be true that most of what they do isn’t singing or musicianship. Most of what they do must be a commodity, like the beauty they cultivate. So, most rock and roll must be crap. DNA has argued this point before, and came to the conclusion that all music is art, and someone who you think is a hack is still probably someone who really believes in his or her “art,” no matter how smelly a pile of dogshit it sounds like*. However, given this new set of criteria, if the music is made as an extension or as an accessory to someone’s “beauty,” then fuck it, it must suck. Unless, like the trailer park queen, it is an anomaly, and is actually good in spite of its progenitors.

So, why are most female rock and roll singers hot? According to the theory, because most rock and roll is crap. But also according to theory, some female rock and roll singers must be hot, because their art is awesome and makes us want them. And, a little bit of rock and roll must be made by the trailer park anomalies.

Although this may explain why female rock and roll singers are hot, it does not explain the missing ugly majority that should be fronting bands and are not. Are these women frustrated housewives, or annoyed clerks at Wal-mart? If there are lots of ugly people who should be making music and aren’t, then we really have to consider the cultural implications of letting so much talent go to waste, or locking such talent away under a cultural blanket of beauty-ism.

For years, DNA has been proud to be one of the plain people, one of the slightly imperfect, one of the ugly ones. Yet, get this, his boy is really handsome, and really geeky, and is into Mad magazine, videogames, band at school, and knocks the top off the standardized tests. Despite believing this mess DNA spelled out over the last few minutes, DNA still hopes he is one of the golden ones. Does this make DNA a hypocrite? Maybe. It’s one of DNA’s uglier qualities.


*that’s a Lara-ism. DNA hasn’t done one of them in while!

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Even In This Tough Economy....

Sometimes a deal comes that is too good to pass up. Such is the case with a new bass DNA bought. It's not here yet, but adding up what DNA knows about the bass, and the price he got it at, he could not go wrong. Here is a picture of it:



While he was bass shopping, he also bought this:



No, DNA ain't made of money, but he is made of good-deal-sensing catlike intuition. DNA needed a small but powerful rig for home, and this will fit the bill.

Next, if you were like DNA, after the last post, he listened to the Morris Day Youtube cut continuously until now, that means you listened to it approximately 3000 times. AWWK! Hallelujah! Whoa-oh-oh-oh!

The questions DNA posed last time was, "Why aren't there ugly female rock stars?" There are ugly male rock stars. Really ugly. In fact, ugly becomes part of some guy's appeal. DNA doesn't think it is just a matter of beauty-ism or sexism in the marketplace.

Here are some of the potential reasons why there no ugly female rock stars:

Only pretty females can sing.

If you are a female and you sing, everyone in our culture automatically assumes you must be pretty, instantly adjusting the unconscious paradigm of beauty to include you---so by definition, there can never be ugly female singers.

If you're an ugly female and you sing, nobody listens or cares.

Just by listening, people can tell if you're ugly, and decide not to like you or your music.

Even blind people know if a female is singing and is ugly, and they don't like it.

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, all women are beautiful, the beauty in music transcends physical shells, and the message and the delivery of the message are really what we find beautiful about women who sing. So, in the end, only pretty females sing. But for the right reasons.

Naw, that sounds like bullshit. Here is proof that hot chicks sing rock and roll, but scary, ugly guys get to, too:



Now, to prove the point about only hot chicks singing rock and roll, DNA did a quick survey of bands with girls in them. Here are some pics of the girls:



See? All hot chicks.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

A Philosophical Question...

DNA has been hard at work on the ol' Ph.D., literally falling asleep every night past 2 am, with some dusty book about why we think the way we think. So, updates to the website are going to be few and far between. If you want pictures of the ice storm, go to my fancy family website,American Girthic.

Give DNA some time, and he will address some of the pressing questions brought up last time, but for now, here is the philosophical question referenced in the title of this post:

How come there are no ugly female rock and roll singers?

Before you complain that DNA is being sexist and offensive, answer the question. DNA guarantees you, that even if you can think of ONE example of an ugly female rock and roll singer, DNA will list 100 successful female rock and roll singers that are hot.

DNA excludes male rock and roll singers, because for men, like it or not, ladies, ugly=character, or ugly=well, he must be talented, or ugly=he must be hung like a horse and fuck like a god cuz he's ugly and popular. No, it's not fair, but that's how it is.

This question extends to all aspects of media, not just music. Where are the hideous female news reporters/anchors? Where are the nasty public relations women? Is it true, like Morris Day of The Time says, that "This song isn't for everyone, just the sexy people?" The question is legitimate because there are some fat, sleazy, nasty, and hideous male counterparts to all of the positions mentioned above and more who are respected, talented, and get plenty of face time. It can't just be beauty-ism, can it?

DNA has his own ideas about it, but would like to open the floor to debate. So, world, please respond. While you are gathering your thoughts, watch this for fun!

Monday, February 2, 2009

Ice Can't Stop This Train From Blowing....

Or, DNA don't need a compass to see which way the wind shines...

We had an ice storm here. DNA will post pictures later. The ice storm has postponed a couple of fun features that DNA has wanted to do for awhile. Here's a list of fun things to expect in the future:

1. How about a biting commentary about Michael Phelps smoking dope?

2. How about updates on the worldwide media blitz surrounding DNA's new record?

3. How about some new Myoo-SICK Revues?

4. How about some political talk?

5. How about some insights into a conversation DNA had recently with a preacher?

6. How about the fact that our universe is actually a three dimensional projection from a two dimensional space? Thank about that for a second, cuz lots of scientists are. Exactly what does a two-dimensional space thingy look like to generate DNA's three dimensional life, particularly when DNA is rocking out? Whatever it looks like, it must be AWESOME.

7. How about more songs?

8. How about armageddon?

9. There were about 60 more items on DNA's list, but after #8, the other things on the list didn't seem as important, so we'll leave it at 8. That's enough to get started on, anyway.