Politics vs. Pop Songs Pt. 4,356

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.salon.com/ent/wire/2003/02/10/madonna/index.html

Is Madonna overreaching herself here (pop songstress as empty sloganeering bandwagon-jumper)? Is she contributing to the (inter)national dialogue? Exploiting the events of the day? Actually making a bold personal statement?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 10 February 2003 23:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Sounds like a bunch of BS hype to me.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 10 February 2003 23:19 (twenty-two years ago)

every little bit helps, baby

― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 10 February 2003 23:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Now that I won't deny (and I like Akerlund's work in general, what I know of it).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 10 February 2003 23:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Sounds fucked up enough to make me look forward to it coming out. But as soon as I saw Jonas Akerlund directed I stopped thinking it would be, like, great or anything. He's grabby, but I always find his stuff rather exploitive. He's transgressive.

Frankly, after that new Mariah Carey video I'm just sooo not impressed by fucked up shit right now. Evidently the mainstream media makers knows to create bonkers stuff. That they let Justin Timberlake go all Blue Velvet was a big sign. Or that Levi's ad with the stampede. The word is out. Psychedelia time!

And yeah, as confused as I am about the subject, I'm very fine with a public figure being anti-war in America right now.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 10 February 2003 23:26 (twenty-two years ago)

He's transgressive.

And lord knows we can't have any of that! (Yer point is taken, though -- though Justin going Blue Velvet does not compute.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 10 February 2003 23:27 (twenty-two years ago)

what else has Akerlund done? I'm unfamiliar with him.

And speaking of unleashing psychedelia, there is a NEW JERRY CORNELIUS novel out! Featuring yours truly! (In habitual fashion, I blow up historical buildings and namedrop movie stars from other dimensions).

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 10 February 2003 23:29 (twenty-two years ago)

*befuddled* Why in the world has Moorcock returned to that now?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 10 February 2003 23:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Akerlund's "transgressive" in the same way that every other academic dissertation is "trangressive." I.e., yawn.

Have ya'll seen that retro-LBJ commercial against the war, with the baby playing in the field and then WHOOMP! The Bomb goes off?

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2003 23:34 (twenty-two years ago)

"*befuddled* Why in the world has Moorcock returned to that now? "

http://www.pspublishing.co.uk/cat/ftc.htm

It's actually quite on-point: Jerry was always about gliding through the apocalypse, massive surreal political insanity and global instability (combined, of course, with technology, drugs, and pop culture). He perfectly fits the times. The intro by Alan Moore is almost better than the book itself.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 10 February 2003 23:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Is that the Jerry Cornelius thing that was Moorcock's 9/11/01 ahem hum "reaction"?

...bah, new answers. only came out October 02, then.

― thom west (thom w), Monday, 10 February 2003 23:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I saw this coming back in my village voice article.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 06:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Amateurist, the original "Daisy" ad was a JFK ad. little kid playing with a daisy, flash of light, cut to stock footage of a nuclear bomb—"this is Oz with Goldwater at the controls" (heh they should have said that, with Kruschev as the wicked witch) It's weird, it's like Bush doesn't get it - he himself is trying to draw parallels with the Cuban missile crisis, drafting Powell to pull an Adlai at the UN, imagining himself - and the Repubs? - reborn as JFK, the ultimate "do over" "what if" like the Japanese fractured-fairytale novels that have Japan winning WWII. Bush wants his Camelot, dammit! No missiles right off our shore but damn if it doesn't feel like that what with EVERY GODDAMNED CHANNEL running a lower-third graphic that somehow includes the word "Alert" on a red background. WE'RE ONLY AT ORANGE PEOPLE. WHEN IT GETS TO RED YOU'LL KNOW IT. (last thing (yes, from the Daily Show): a (real) reporter asks Tom Ridge why "orange" is the new thing for February and he says "we have a general and specific aggregate of information that blah blah" and the reoprter says "so why can't you tell us any details about possible times and locations for these planned attacks?" and Ridge says "the problem is that none of the specific information we have includes times, locations, or methods" Given Ridge's subsequent denial that the totally un-otherwise-justified bump-up in alert status had anything to do with Saddam I would almost kill for someone to find a single shred of information that it did, which I wouldn't put past these guys AT ALL (actually I guess the supposed-to-be-secret CIA threat assessment if taken seriously would kick us into orange automatically)

psyched for the video

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 07:58 (twenty-two years ago)

uh, that ad ran in 64. Kennedy = dead by then

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 08:22 (twenty-two years ago)

re: Madonna; I'll reserve judgment til I see it though I do think this is gonna play out as 'that Madge - she loves controversy!' or 'she's using the war to sell her album blah blah blah'. It should be remembered she took part in Lenny Kravitz's "Give Peace a Chance" remake back in 91.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 08:25 (twenty-two years ago)

really, i always thought it was JFK!! eh that blows my Camelot theory - Geeorge W already is LBJ (except for the master-organizer part)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 14:50 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.