Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
If someone's going to write a piece with every second fucking word being a fucking swear, why asterisk the cunting fuck out of it? gives me a headache...
explain it for me?
It ran in the back page of Melody Maker where all swear words were starred out like that. I think they felt that as the paper would be read by young kids they should respect that.
But since Mr Agreeable was much loved for choice things like, "Meanswear? Men will f***ing swear when they hear this," or whatever it was, The Quietus, aimed squarely at the MM/NME demographic of 15+ years ago as got the column running again in the same style with which it was first done.
Does that make sense? I guess I mean that it is an anachronism and hence there is the censorship.
Just a nostalgia trip thing. I can appreciate that. Sounds like it was done in a wittier way in MM though, that Michael Jackson piece left the humour at the door.
I guess it was always a little hit and miss.
the MM connection...or why a pro-writer would want to release a junior high school rant like that.
Who's that website guy that is really funny...? -it's something like Your Favorite Band Sucks or something like that?
picking easy targets and slating them relentlessly. He just doesn't grasp the (simple and dull) concept of what he is doing and so incorrectly titles them "defending the indefensible". Unless the fact that the artists are clearly not "indefensible" and he is clearly not "defending" them is supposed to make the whole thing wonderfully ironic. idk he knew Courtney Love and Kurt Cobain or something....
over and over again for the past few days. I can't get enough, and I'm determined not to stop until I do.
I seem to remember the one about Coldplay took someone defending them and then ripped into how they could possibly have the gall to think this was okay.
...I was never a massive fan of Mr Agreeable, not realising that if you look behind the swearing, the wordplay is superb. This passage, from the Jacko piece, is quite marvellous:
"He was a humanitarian..." NO! "He taught us how to love" DID HE F***! "He wasn't strange . ." YES HE F***ING WELL WAS, HE WAS STRANGER THAN A F***ING SEVEN-LEGGED GIRAFFE THAT F***ING LIVES UNDERWATER ONLY EMERGING TO THE OCEAN'S SURFACE ONCE EVERY F***ING SIX MONTHS TO UTTER THE WORDS "BERNARD CRIBBINS" IN A F***ING NORFOLK ACCENT! F***ING STRANGER, IF ANYTHING!
Plus it's welcome to have a break from the blanket eulogising and mawkish tributes.
...are you on about, o sainted one?
...you perplex me. What do you mean sir? Was the 1948 dictionary the one where they spell "weird" with and "ie"?
Firstly, it's quite hard to look behind the swearing, because there's so very much of it and, even without the stars, it makes it quite hard to read. It's almost the selling point isn't it?
If the wordplay is so superb, then why hide it behind all the swearing? Does it not stand up on its own?
Also, the bit that you've quoted is actually quite a tribute to his strangeness, although admittedly not a mawkish one.
I just don't really find it funny. It's a bit drawn out, it's hardly the only thing out there making paedophile jokes, seems to lack, i dunno - a bit of effort? Maybe i was too young to appreciate it back in the day and too old now, or maybe it's just not to my taste. I think that Theo's point about it being an anachronistic nostalgia thing makes the most sense to me.
Having just read it properly, i like the use of 'ariba'.
I can't believe i'm sat at work typing this when i could've just gone out for a drink :(
it's better than the everett true dti tings. At least it's picked a target that makes a bit more sense. Although this is, of course, a pretty backhanded compliment.