And Put Matlock Back On! No-Good Kids!
Jeez, when did Dave Grohl turn into Grandpa Abe Simpson?
Foo Fighters Singer Not Fond Of Bare-Breast Incident
Janet Jackson's breast-baring stunt at the Super Bowl was nothing more than self-promotion and "blatant exhibitionism," Foo Fighters lead singer Dave Grohl said.
Grohl, 35, a former drummer for Nirvana, believes the music industry has been harmed by the recent skin-revealing exploits of Jackson, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera.
"Get them on the Playboy Channel," Grohl said Thursday at a pre-Grammy rehearsal party. "Keep them out of my MTV. I want to see bands and music."
As opposed to when you dress up in drag for your videos, Dave? Get off your high horse, dawg.
Posted by jsmooth995 at February 7, 2004 12:27 AM
Dave has a long history of not practicing what he preaches. I remember years ago (said the old man), when he was first doing videos, they were all very much about he and his bandmates acting out various stories.
In an interview at the time, he said that he hated musicians trying to be actors. But then again, he wasn't really acting.
Clyde
Fwa fwa fwa fwaa fwaa fwa. (The "boring old people" sound from Charlie Brown.)
The Foo Fighters are so incredibly boring. (And I loved Nirvana.) Dave Grohl is a walking talking weenie, and a *much* better drummer than lead singer. FF's popularity makes sense only because there's so little white-rocker competition at this time.
What a little turd. Since when did a flipping boob ever hurt ANYONE????
Jay, I think your page is great and I agree with lots of your views, but sorry, man, I have to dissent here.
When Grohl dresses in drag for humor, yes, he is using humor to "sell" his music. Using sexuality to sell music, on the other hand, is different. Granted, both are instances of using something besides music to sell music, yet that does not put them on equal levels of "dirtiness."
Think about TV advertisements. Would you not say it is lower to use sex to sell something completely UN-sexual (fast food?) than to use humor? Yeah, obviously you would -- everyone would.
Using sex to sell is low. If Grohl is on a high horse, I'm right up there with him.
Think about TV advertisements. Would you not say it is lower to use sex to sell something completely UN-sexual (fast food?) than to use humor? Yeah, obviously you would -- everyone would.
Actually I really wouldn't at all, and I'm pretty sure many others wouldn't either. This perspective on sexuality is not a universal thing, it's basically just a hangup we have here in the USA.. that's why so much of the world has been laughing at us all week, wondering how we could be so worked up over a split second of breast.
So you may have hit on my biggest question here.. Why do we in America equate sexuality, the most natural beautiful thing in the world, with being "lower"? What makes being sexy lower than being funny?
Jay, you're missing my point, man. Sexuality is not "low," but using sex to sell an item is. If you don't agree with that, well... I don't know what else to see. It's simply a viewpoint, and believe me, America isn't the only country that finds it low that sex is used to sell. In fact, many countries despise our consumer culture and sexing up of the media.
Our consumer culture and our supposed sexing up of the media are two different issues though... much of Europe, and many other places like say Brazil, have a more "sexed up" society than we do, and still frown upon our consumer culture.
This was not an ad for a cheeseburger, not a case of someone using sex to promote a product that has nothing to do with sexuality. It was a stage performance, of a song that has everything to do with sex. So isn't it only natural for them to give the song a sexy presentation?
Do you think artists should not make sexy songs? Or, if they do, they should not give sexy performances of them? Do you think, say, Josephine Baker's stage act was low?
Yes, in this particular case, it was a sexy song. The point is, whether it was a sexy song or not, both those artists would still use sex for promotion. This is no different from Britney Spears and Madonna liplocking during a performance. They used their sexuality to create promotion, and that is simply low. Do you think the two artists involved in this stunt did not know they would be creating a controversy? Right... right. This is low.
Hey, i heard this today ;-)
Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed.
The other guy takes out his phone and calls the emergency services.
He gasps: "My friend is dead! What can I do?"
The operator says: "Calm down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead."
There is a silence, then a gunshot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "OK, now what?"
