Tag Archives: Question of the Week

Question of the Week: Most Subversive Song?

“The Twist was a guided missile launched from the ghetto into the heart of suburbia. The Twist succeeded, as politics, religion and law could never do, in writing in the heart and soul what the Supreme Court could only write on the books.”- Eldridge Cleaver

The Minister of Information says “The Twist” by Chubby Checker. Good choice. I’m not sure what I would go with. What do you fine people think?

Question of the Week: Porn

Is porn degrading to women? men? Does it matter what kind of porn? How has this affected the relationship between men and women? What do you guys think? For some of you these questions may seem obvious and I must look like an idiot for posing them, but I intentionally made them broad to encourage dialogue and not have my opinion dictate the post. Perhaps I will reveal some of my views in the comment section, but first let us know what you think.

Question of the Week

Now, I know how much all of you love Question of the Week, you know since this segment is always filled to the brim with comments, so I decided to take time out of my somewhat busy day to write up another queston for y’all to ponder. Okay, so you’re given the chance to travel back in time, but the catch is you can only travel to past concerts (I know sounds lame, but go with it). Who would you see? When? Why? My list would be soo damn large. Naturally, I would start off probably in the 60s and see the early British Invasion bands like the Beatles, Kinks, Rolling Stones, etc. I would see all my older favorites in their prime. I would attend my more modern favorites in their early days, i.e. Black Lips in their pee and poop and burn shit loving cocksuckers fad days.

High Praise for High Art

This is somewhat of a Question of the Week sorta… Ok, so can anyone think of a band or an artist that has consistently put out high quality, evolving music for decades? For my money, Sonic Youth probably beats them all. In fact, I have often proclaimed them to be the most “successful” band of all time, but that’s a whole other story. Certainly some SY albums are stronger than others, but overall, they have an initimidating discography consisting of nearly thirty years worth of material. Very, very few bands can boast such a claim. So, what do others think? What other artists do you feel should be mentioned? Do they rank higher than SY and Why? You know where the comment section is. Peace.

The Simpsons!

Sorta Question of the Week

As you all should know I have championed Michael Azzerad’s Our Band Could Be Your Life as one of the finest books on music and particularly 80s underground music. Many of my favorite bands are chronicled here and I’ve seen a good chunk of them live. Reading all of their stories and the historical background Azzerad shares with us truly inspired me in various ways. Being a massive fan/supporter of several modern underground bands I have considered writing my own little ditty. Now, how would I go about this? Save the obvious dedicated work of researching, interviewing, writing, etc. I’m not referring to that. I mean how would I tell a general story with an overall theme like Azzerad does? Which bands would I choose? If I leaned more towards my favorites would I be featuring artists with too many similarities, i.e. Garage Rock sound? Is it too soon? Most of these bands have not broken up or jumped to major labels or what have you, so their stories haven’t really ended like those in OBCBYL. He also had years behind him to observe the influence of the groups he was studying and the fact that the era he was focusing on was the first era of a unified, anti-corporate, underground. I’m not really looking for someone to tell me what to write or how to write, I guess these are more like questions I’m asking myself. Either way, what are some bands you would like to read about or think is important enough to be chronicled?

Question of the Week…

Is it wrong to endorse an artists’ work, even if they led or lead truly horrible lives? For example, some point to the gifted filmmaker, Roman Polanski. Polanski has won academy awards for his work, but he wasn’t in attendence. Why? Decades ago he fleed the U.S. after drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl. Yes, this is quite sickening, but if he makes a film that is a masterpiece itself, should it not be treated like other great works of art? Picture this, you run an independent record label and you enjoy documenting the best damn music to please your ears. Suddenly you hear the greatest record of all times and it’s none other than…. Charlies Manson. So, now you sign Charlie (if you could) and release his material. Is there anything wrong with this hypothetical situation? What if it was Hitler, Mao, or some of the other massive murderers from history? Would it be immoral to endorse their work? Where do you draw the line? Is there a line? Let’s hear some thoughts…


Question of the Week: Pulp Fiction

“Pulp Fiction is one of the greatest movies of all time and you know what, I have yet to seen another film top it”- Me

Going with the flow of Glen’s earlier post on Roy Orbison I decided to switch gears with a film. To the above statement, anyone agree, disagree, why? Better films? Thoughts on Tarantino and his style? etc. In my Cultural Studies class today we discussed high and low art/culture and it’s relation to Post-Modernism. In other words, is anything “real” anymore? Are Tarantino’s and others’ works merely unoriginal pieces filled with references, simply a giant reference. What do y’all think?


Question of the Week

To give some background information before I pose the question, the famous above photo was taken following the My Lai masacre during the Vietnam War in 1968. Hundreds of innocent, unarmed civilians, mostly women and children were brutally murdered. Even though over a dozen soliders particpated in the crime, only one was convicted, officer William Cally, who ordered the masacre. He initially was given a life sentence, but Nixon eventually paroled him. At the time, many protested Cally’s conviction, mostly patriotic/chauvinistic Americans, but also critics of the war and the miltary’s policies. The latter’s logic being that millions of innocent civilians had been murdered throughout the war and that this was not an isolated incident, but rather a common policy. Now, my question is should we imprision such individuals for their crimes or ignore them because others clearly do not receive the same treatment?