Ok, so we got accordian, now we need a banjo, and a washtub thingy where we put a hole in it and a stick and it plays like a base or something.Originally posted by lvslr
I was thinking more of the accordian silver.
Music....
-
punk_princess
- Member
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:28 pm
-
punk_princess
- Member
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:28 pm
Pink Triangle is the funniest song!!!!!!!!!!! Definitely not politcally correct. Why is it that everyone seems to stereotype people!? what is up with that?!Originally posted by Stacey
Oh boy... here we go w/the politically correct crap...
lol, sorry I don't think Weezer's Pink Triangel goes under the category of "Politically Correct"
-
punk_princess
- Member
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:28 pm
Lol, maybe you all are so quick to classify us as new wave valley girls because you have never met a girls with opinions and thoughts who actually stick by them. I mean honestly, I really don't fit into that catagory, Valley girls are some of the most preppy, prissy girls ever. And if I'm not mistaken they are airheads as well, at least we have thoughts going on and aren't afraid to not FOLLOW the trend the music industry lays out for us. I mean come on, Milli Vanilli?! They could not have been bigger sellouts if they tried.Originally posted by Silver
O_O Yer a girl! Oh, you don't happen to use "gag me with a spoon" do ya? That would be too surreal. At first the comment was directed at stacey, it could apply to you as well. Sorry didn't mean to leave you out {{{{hugs}}}}
Why Milli Vanilli were picked out as the scapegoats for the music industry's 'authenticity' problem. It's no surprise that two effeminate-seeming men were attacked for failing to play a 'productive' role in the making of their music. In the gender scheme of capitalism as traditionally envisioned by capitalists and Marxists alike, where productive masculine workers create goods for passive, feminized consumers, the role of commodification gets coded as queer. Packaging, marketing, fashion, image-creation -- long gay-associated cultural roles -- are seen as parasitic, wasteful, non-reproductive, fetishistic mediations blocking an unalienated, 'authentic' relationship between producer and consumer. What this story leaves out -- represses -- is the physical and intellectual labor -- the art -- that goes into associating goods with cultural meanings. And what it can't explain are the undeniable pleasures of commodification.
The disgracing of Milli Vanilli didn't return popular music to a golden age of direct communication between artist and fan. I'm not sure I'd want such a relationship, if it ever existed-- most rock stars become a lot less interesting when you learn what they're 'really' like. But in demarcating the '90s' boundary line between 'art' and 'image', what THIS DISGRACING may have inadvertently helped usher in is the era of the Supermodel. Cindy, Naomi, Linda and their cohort can't be unmasked as talentless frauds, don't need to sing, dance, or act to be stars. They've given up any claim to creating anything other than images of themselves. Does this mean they produce nothing that can be of any value to their millions of fans? Not according to the most thrilling media phenomenon to come along since Milli Vanilli, RuPaul, who in "Supermodel" asks us to reimagine image-modelling and gender-construction as the archetypical form of postmodern labor: "You'd better work it, girl." You know it's true.
The disgracing of Milli Vanilli didn't return popular music to a golden age of direct communication between artist and fan. I'm not sure I'd want such a relationship, if it ever existed-- most rock stars become a lot less interesting when you learn what they're 'really' like. But in demarcating the '90s' boundary line between 'art' and 'image', what THIS DISGRACING may have inadvertently helped usher in is the era of the Supermodel. Cindy, Naomi, Linda and their cohort can't be unmasked as talentless frauds, don't need to sing, dance, or act to be stars. They've given up any claim to creating anything other than images of themselves. Does this mean they produce nothing that can be of any value to their millions of fans? Not according to the most thrilling media phenomenon to come along since Milli Vanilli, RuPaul, who in "Supermodel" asks us to reimagine image-modelling and gender-construction as the archetypical form of postmodern labor: "You'd better work it, girl." You know it's true.
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the fredom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag. De Oppresso Liber
-
punk_princess
- Member
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:28 pm
exactly!!!Originally posted by punk_princess
It's absolutely wonderful (and oh so easy) to get old people riled up about ancient news nobody cares about, and NORMAL people would wish to forget about. We didn't want to relive the horror of Milli Vanilli
they wouldn't know good music if it bit them in the ass.
Now Culture Club was the best in my opinion. NO ONE can compare to Boy George's creativity and musical genius. Except MC Hammer maybe.
-
punk_princess
- Member
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:28 pm
Ok, i'm going to say this once and only once.... WHO CARES?! Conspiracy or not, they either took the money (which proves they were in it for the money not the love of music) or they really couldn't sing (which means they were in it for the fame) either way, they suck!Originally posted by lvslr
Why Milli Vanilli were picked out as the scapegoats for the music industry's 'authenticity' problem. It's no surprise that two effeminate-seeming men were attacked for failing to play a 'productive' role in the making of their music. In the gender scheme of capitalism as traditionally envisioned by capitalists and Marxists alike, where productive masculine workers create goods for passive, feminized consumers, the role of commodification gets coded as queer. Packaging, marketing, fashion, image-creation -- long gay-associated cultural roles -- are seen as parasitic, wasteful, non-reproductive, fetishistic mediations blocking an unalienated, 'authentic' relationship between producer and consumer. What this story leaves out -- represses -- is the physical and intellectual labor -- the art -- that goes into associating goods with cultural meanings. And what it can't explain are the undeniable pleasures of commodification.
The disgracing of Milli Vanilli didn't return popular music to a golden age of direct communication between artist and fan. I'm not sure I'd want such a relationship, if it ever existed-- most rock stars become a lot less interesting when you learn what they're 'really' like. But in demarcating the '90s' boundary line between 'art' and 'image', what THIS DISGRACING may have inadvertently helped usher in is the era of the Supermodel. Cindy, Naomi, Linda and their cohort can't be unmasked as talentless frauds, don't need to sing, dance, or act to be stars. They've given up any claim to creating anything other than images of themselves. Does this mean they produce nothing that can be of any value to their millions of fans? Not according to the most thrilling media phenomenon to come along since Milli Vanilli, RuPaul, who in "Supermodel" asks us to reimagine image-modelling and gender-construction as the archetypical form of postmodern labor: "You'd better work it, girl." You know it's true.
-
Silver
- Posts: 3311
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: Somewhere drinking like its going out of style.
Originally posted by punk_princess
Lol, maybe you all are so quick to classify us as new wave valley girls because you have never met a girls with opinions and thoughts who actually stick by them. I mean honestly, I really don't fit into that catagory, Valley girls are some of the most preppy, prissy girls ever. And if I'm not mistaken they are airheads as well, at least we have thoughts going on and aren't afraid to not FOLLOW the trend the music industry lays out for us. I mean come on, Milli Vanilli?! They could not have been bigger sellouts if they tried.
*GASP* MORE BLASPHEMY!!!
Take this you you you you VALLEY GIRL1!!!!
Oh yes Silver right on with those pictures.Originally posted by Silver
*GASP* MORE BLASPHEMY!!!
Take this you you you you VALLEY GIRL1!!!!
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the fredom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag. De Oppresso Liber
-
punk_princess
- Member
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:28 pm
-
Silver
- Posts: 3311
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: Somewhere drinking like its going out of style.
So true, so true. IF ONLY WE COULD MAKE THEM SEE lvslr!!!!Originally posted by lvslr
Why Milli Vanilli were picked out as the scapegoats for the music industry's 'authenticity' problem. It's no surprise that two effeminate-seeming men were attacked for failing to play a 'productive' role in the making of their music. In the gender scheme of capitalism as traditionally envisioned by capitalists and Marxists alike, where productive masculine workers create goods for passive, feminized consumers, the role of commodification gets coded as queer. Packaging, marketing, fashion, image-creation -- long gay-associated cultural roles -- are seen as parasitic, wasteful, non-reproductive, fetishistic mediations blocking an unalienated, 'authentic' relationship between producer and consumer. What this story leaves out -- represses -- is the physical and intellectual labor -- the art -- that goes into associating goods with cultural meanings. And what it can't explain are the undeniable pleasures of commodification.
The disgracing of Milli Vanilli didn't return popular music to a golden age of direct communication between artist and fan. I'm not sure I'd want such a relationship, if it ever existed-- most rock stars become a lot less interesting when you learn what they're 'really' like. But in demarcating the '90s' boundary line between 'art' and 'image', what THIS DISGRACING may have inadvertently helped usher in is the era of the Supermodel. Cindy, Naomi, Linda and their cohort can't be unmasked as talentless frauds, don't need to sing, dance, or act to be stars. They've given up any claim to creating anything other than images of themselves. Does this mean they produce nothing that can be of any value to their millions of fans? Not according to the most thrilling media phenomenon to come along since Milli Vanilli, RuPaul, who in "Supermodel" asks us to reimagine image-modelling and gender-construction as the archetypical form of postmodern labor: "You'd better work it, girl." You know it's true.
-
punk_princess
- Member
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:28 pm
Why's it so important?
Can I ask why you guys are obsessed w/ Milli? I mean it really did happen a long time ago?! Nothing is going to change and nobody cares... what's the point?! Answer me that.........
Re: Why's it so important?
They probably want their grammy reinstated or something silly like that.Originally posted by punk_princess
Can I ask why you guys are obsessed w/ Milli? I mean it really did happen a long time ago?! Nothing is going to change and nobody cares... what's the point?! Answer me that.........
old people.-
punk_princess
- Member
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:28 pm
What point?! That you know how to post pretty pictures?! ooh, i'm impressed?! I mean do you really think I care what you think I look and act like!? It doesn't matter to me what you think, you can think whatever you want, that doesn't mean you have any idea what your talking aboutOriginally posted by Silver
Its the only way to truly get my point across.
Lol, I think it's funny that you can look down on something w/out even knowing about it. Ie: Punk. Yeah what you all know as punk has been totally redefined by my generation and it's a changing genre that dosen't really exist. Punk isn't really a music style, or a fad of some sort, it's an ideal of staying true to yourself, even if it's not what the public sees as accepted. Now ppl can take this to the extreme, but that means the totally loose the meaning of what I just said, and that's ok, I dont' expect everyone to understand this....
-
punk_princess
- Member
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:28 pm
Re: Re: Why's it so important?
SOmething like that!! Or wait... just watch you gave them ideas!! LOLOriginally posted by Noevo
They probably want their grammy reinstated or something silly like that.
Your cool!I have only one thing to say:Valley GirlsOriginally posted by Silver
Its the only way to truly get my point across.
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the fredom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag. De Oppresso Liber
Re: Re: Why's it so important?
Lol, right on! I wouldn't put it past them.Originally posted by Noevo
They probably want their grammy reinstated or something silly like that.
-
punk_princess
- Member
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:28 pm
Yes, punk is something completely different then it was in your Milli Vanilli days. I mean come on guys, if you would get your heads out of the stereotypical pop generation and actually get a glimpse of reality, maybe you would realise that.Originally posted by Stacey
Lol, I think it's funny that you can look down on something w/out even knowing about it. Ie: Punk. Yeah what you all know as punk has been totally redefined by my generation and it's a changing genre that dosen't really exist. Punk isn't really a music style, or a fad of some sort, it's an ideal of staying true to yourself, even if it's not what the public sees as accepted. Now ppl can take this to the extreme, but that means the totally loose the meaning of what I just said, and that's ok, I dont' expect everyone to understand this....
Re: Re: Re: Why's it so important?
Originally posted by punk_princess
SOmething like that!! Or wait... just watch you gave them ideas!! LOL
yup, us valley kids got to stick together
