PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of Avril Lavigne?



mylow thehutt
04-13-2003, 12:57 AM
:DWell since my forum on T.A.T.U I can't get enough on people's opions on stuff like this,but enough on the 2 girls behind the fence and on to the girl in front of the fence Avril Lavigne.
Shes got the looks and stamina to make this hutt head over heels. :stupid: :stupid: um... any way since I fist saw her, in her first video, I could've sworn I have meet her or see her befor turns out he just looks like my friend from school.any way shes got some good songs and :rolleyes: ties? so what do you think?

James Boba Fettfield
04-13-2003, 12:59 AM
Mtv picked her to pay tribute to Metallica.

In my book, that's reason to hate.

Porcelina
04-13-2003, 01:03 AM
avril lavigne is britney spears pretending to be a "punk"... silly little teeny bopper! sack of crap crap crap! :D

in my humble opinion, of course!

~

QLD
04-13-2003, 01:11 AM
She's cute, and her songs aren't bad......


.....In My Pants!

Porcelina
04-13-2003, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by JediBrian
And she is very talented.

in what sense? the girl can sing, sure, but she can't write lyrics to save her life... and the music is the same old pop that other singers have been producing for years (i swear it's one man who writes all these pop songs, they all sound so similar) i was writing better crap at 12 years old.... the only thing that's slightly "different" about her is her ties, and that ain't gonna keep her around long.... she'll last as long as the spice girls will, and then she'll die out like they did.... ahhhh... that gives me some comfort ;)

Jedi_Master_Guyute
04-13-2003, 01:20 AM
Oh, please Porcelina, don't be crackin' on the talented lyrics, "He was a sk8er boi, she said see u l8r boi" i mean, we're both SP Fans, and we know Billy only WISHES he could've written something as powerful as that!! :D

Don't like her music nor her lyrics, but as for liking....well.....hmmmmm, cheers!! :D

Prince Xizor
04-13-2003, 01:59 AM
Hot. She is Hot.

I enjoy her music as well, but she is Hot.

kool-aid killer
04-13-2003, 11:29 AM
I dont hate her but i dont like her music either. I too think that she will get stuck being labeled a punk singer or whatever and youll see her try to change her image in the future like britney, christina, and that timberlake chump.

notafinga
04-13-2003, 01:31 PM
wow... it's so damn cold tonight...

looking for an avatar, looking for a post...

..i know...

Kidhuman
04-13-2003, 01:56 PM
SHe has good music and cute.

Darth Sidious
04-13-2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Porcelina
avril lavigne is britney spears pretending to be a "punk"

~

Can't possibly agree more. I don't hate her or anything, I don't really hate anyone until I get to meet them. :D But she does annoy me. Especially how she thinks she invented the whole "Wearing striped socks on your arms/punk rocker/clothes-that-don't-match" look. Her music is lacking too, in my opinion. The only thing that separates her from Britney is the fact that Avril actually WEARS clothes. :rolleyes:

El Chuxter
04-13-2003, 07:07 PM
She's okay. Just another flash-in-the-pan pseudo-punk pop act, nothing special, but nothing revolting, either.

But I wanna put on a pair of those big green Hulk gloves and punch her in the stomach. ;)

Darth Sidious
04-13-2003, 07:09 PM
Yes! Punch in the stomach, then BOOM! GLOVE IN THE FAAAAAAAACE!!! :D

stillakid
04-13-2003, 11:31 PM
I like her music and she's hot to boot. Despite some people dissing her music, the fact is that most couldn't write quality lyrics like hers to save their lives, and then have the motivation to become commercially successful. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

LTBasker
04-13-2003, 11:50 PM
I saw one of her live concents on tv, she can sing for the most part, something that poppers like spears and them lack. However her manipulation of the punk image is saddening, she considers her music 'skater punk' but she isn't even a "skater punk".. :confused:

PoggleTheGreater
04-14-2003, 12:08 AM
I don't like how alot of people consider music of singer/songwriters to be inherantly better than those of singers who don't write their own music. I don't care too much who wrote or sang a song, just that it's good.

Prince Xizor
04-14-2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by PoggleTheGreater
I don't like how alot of people consider music of singer/songwriters to be inherantly better than those of singers who don't write their own music. I don't care too much who wrote or sang a song, just that it's good.

I agree that, to me, it doesn't matter who wrote a song for it to be good or bad. But I do have somewhat of a differant level of respect for an artist if they write their own songs. It takes talent to come up with something that isn't cheesy and sounds good to a beat. Some people have that talent, and I respect them more for that. Some people don't have it, but it doesn't mean their music is worse. It just means their level of talent is not as good as another. I would love to see what a Britney song would sound like if she wrote the lyrics all by her little self without the help of a big-time producer. And I lost tons of respect for Aerosmith when I found out some of their newer stuff is being written by somebody else. Bunch o' lazy old rich people too busy swimming in cash to write their own damn songs.

PoggleTheGreater
04-14-2003, 12:32 AM
Sure, I respect artists who are mulitalented. I'm not really as big a music fan to the extent of following artists careers or lives. There's relatively little music I like from the mid 80's to the present. I'm a fan of rock and R&B from the 50's to the early 80's. I am a big movie fan and respect directors who are also writers and the main creative forces behind their projects like Lucas, Quentin Tarantino, M. Knight Shyamalan, Kevin Smith, and the Coen Brothers.

Dialogus
04-14-2003, 01:14 AM
Nothing compared to Alicia Rio.

Jargo
04-14-2003, 05:57 AM
Punk? Avril lavigne punk? i think not. Not even remotely alternative let alone punk.
I realise we're talking about the watered down American punk here not the original hard nosed bitter twisted evil hacking puking vomiting safety-pinned up torn clothed UK punk of the mid seventies. Just the pale imitation punk that more closelty resembled pop.
But all that quibbling aside, Avril has a good voice but should stick to the folk circuit and leave the record industry alone. Spoilt brat like all the rest of those goils who talk tough but just come across as slappers you'd avoid like the plague if you had any sense of decorum or taste.

Um so I guess i'm putting out a big negatory on Avril then. :p

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 10:29 AM
Avril Lavigne is nothing more than a processed cheese slice, in terms of music.

Processed to hell and packaged for the listening pleasure of the huddled masses. She is slightly less useless than the Britneys and christinas of the world, because even though she writes garbage lyrics for garbabe songs, she does actually write them.

I find this whole trend toward grown men getting lusty over this barely legal girl who looks about 12 a little disturbing as well.

She is yet another part of the massive problem that is the 21st century music scene. Judging by my clock.....she's at 8 minutes and counting.....

Patient Zero
04-14-2003, 11:37 AM
I really don't think anything of her either way. She is avarage looking and can sell a few records to people who are not me.



Originally posted by Porcelina
avril lavigne is britney spears pretending to be a "punk"... silly little teeny bopper! sack of crap crap crap! :D



Oh no! Don't even get me started on what people refer to as punk music today. Rubbish! Greenday and all their sidekicks. If that is what you like fine and dandy, but they are not punk. Punk began as a reaction to a social/political time of unrest that is not the same as today. Punk bands stood for specific ideologies that are absent from the "punk" music of today. I'll take London Calling or Never mind the Bollocks over any of the albums made today. I MIGHT consider the music of today to be skater bands, but I'd say listen to Decendents or Circle J*rks instead.


The bitter old man has spoken!:dead:

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by The Ghost of Jonna
I
Oh no! Don't even get me started on what people refer to as punk music today. Rubbish! Greenday and all their sidekicks. If that is what you like fine and dandy, but they are not punk. Punk began as a reaction to a social/political time of unrest that is not the same as today. Punk bands stood for specific ideologies that are absent from the "punk" music of today. I'll take London Calling or Never mind the Bollocks over any of the albums made today. I MIGHT consider the music of today to be skater bands, but I'd say listen to Decendents or Circle J*rks instead.


The bitter old man has spoken!:dead:

I'm pretty sure Porcelina put the "quotes" around punk to illustrate how un punk it really is. To me, punk finally lay down to rest when Joe Strummer passed. The only bands coming close to the old feel of punk, oddly enough, are coming out of sweden. The Hives have made it somewhat big, but bands like Division of Laura Lee are much closer to the old aesthetic.....

Patient Zero
04-14-2003, 11:52 AM
Don't get me wrong; I'm not going off on Porcelina. I am just using that as a launching pad to go off on the music. I'm bitter. I'm crotchity. It's Monday.

Now get in there and clean your room!


In my day, we couldn't afford feet to walk to school. We just jammed pointy rocks in our bloody stumps.

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 12:07 PM
Actually, I didn't think you were going off on Porcelina, I'm just happy to see so many like minded individuals when it comes to today's watered down suburban punk garbage,......

Exhaust Port
04-14-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by JediBrian
Metallica are a bunch of racist has-beens.

Oh please... :rolleyes:

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 12:13 PM
I might agree with the Has-beens bit, but I've never known Metallica to be racists.....

Boba Rhett
04-14-2003, 12:23 PM
WHAT!? Metallica rocks. :(

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Boba Rhett
WHAT!? Metallica rocks. :(

Never been a fan.....however, life would be damn boring if we all liked the same music...

James Boba Fettfield
04-14-2003, 12:26 PM
Gents, let's not attack each other, remember, it's Avril we hate.

Patient Zero
04-14-2003, 12:27 PM
So Overlord! You mentioned the Hives. What do you classify them as? Them and the White Strips and all of those bands that seemed to pop up around the same time with that sound. They tend to call everything alternative these days, but when you can walk into a walmart and get a copy I just don't see it being catagorizable as a hidden subset to the main stream. Honest question. I personally think that they sound like a grunge version of britpop like fast Nirvana songs mixed with London Suede or Pulp or something.

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 12:28 PM
Agreed. Let our hatreed for all things Avril bind us as Brothers....

JEDIpartner
04-14-2003, 12:29 PM
Correction... Metallica rocked

Back to the subject... I'm not overly fond of Miss Astral Latrine. She comes off as a poseur and the fact that she has to keep "selling" herself as not like Britney or "Xtina" shows me how much she really IS like them.

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by The Ghost of Jonna
So Overlord! You mentioned the Hives. What do you classify them as? Them and the White Strips and all of those bands that seemed to pop up around the same time with that sound. They tend to call everything alternative these days, but when you can walk into a walmart and get a copy I just don't see it being catagorizable as a hidden subset to the main stream. Honest question. I personally think that they sound like a grunge version of britpop like fast Nirvana songs mixed with London Suede or Pulp or something.

Took me a while to figure out what you meant by 'london suede", until I remembered that they had to change their name in the U.S.

I quite like the Hives and The White Stripes. It's got a garage type feel to it, and it's much closer to the punk aesthetic than all the number bands we have pretending to be punks. I realize in britain "garage" means something quite different, but that is what I tend to think of them as.

I think the reason bands like the hives, strokes, whitestripes, QOTS and such are getting any mainstream success is because the regular music market is saturated with formulaic rock, whiner rock (creed, nickelback) and "hiphoprock". All of a sudden some basic, hard driving rock bands show up, and they outclass pretty much anything else that's available to listen to in terms of passion and sound. Thank god, because I shudder to think what turning on the radio would be like without said bands getting occasional airplay.

James Boba Fettfield
04-14-2003, 12:42 PM
Queens were cool back as Kyuss. Wait, did I just say that.

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
Queens were cool back as Kyuss. Wait, did I just say that.

Dunno man, I have no idea what you just said :D

James Boba Fettfield
04-14-2003, 12:46 PM
I understood it, where's Caesar, he usually understands what I'm talking about.

stillakid
04-14-2003, 12:46 PM
I've always found it interesting that whenever "good" artists "make it," they are somehow "selling out" or are "preprocessed pieces of cheese." Would you rather they wallow in the dirt until death takes their souls just so their "true fans" can have some kind of exclusive claim to their music?

Most financially successful people have taken their strengths, whatever those might be, and parlayed them so that their particular "gift" might be shared with a broader audience. Britanny Spears, for one, may not be the most talented songwriter out there, but she and her managers saw that her look could be packaged with another person's songwriting ability to create an unstoppable product. What's wrong with that? Why is music placed on such a lofty perch by some people? It's just music. If you like it, great. Be happy for that person that, in your eyes, has managed to "fool" the general populace. Who cares? Perhaps it's because you feel that your own music is superior and "they" have no right to be there before you. Maybe that's true, but nobody ever said life was fair. If it was, then Lisa Marie Presley wouldn't be debuting her first album this week without having put in the time in dingy smoky clubs.

For those of you old enough to remember, U2 was indeed an underground force as well as REM. Well, the "mallrats" of the world finally discovered their music and POOF!, overwhelming commercial success. Does that diminish the music at all? No. The music may evolve as well as the artists involved and we are all free to turn off the radio at any time. The really nice thing is that there is music out there for just about every taste and it is available at any time you want it. Don't like Avril? Pull out your IPOD and turn on some Iggy Pop. Don't like Merle Haggard? Pull out your IPOD and turn on some Keb Mo. But just because we all have our dislikes in music, doesn't mean that these people aren't out working hard to express themselves in a meaningful way. I personally like some of Metallica, but not all. Most of it is just loud racket with little musical ability to show for the effort. But the same goes for most artists. Some of it is pretty good. Some of it is less so. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater based on some snobby principle of what "punk" "rock" "country" "jazz" etc. should be is ridiculous.

QLD
04-14-2003, 12:53 PM
I'd do her.........


....wait, I'm married now, I'm not supposed to say such things.... ;)

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
I've always found it interesting that whenever "good" artists "make it," they are somehow "selling out" or are "preprocessed pieces of cheese." Would you rather they wallow in the dirt until death takes their souls just so their "true fans" can have some kind of exclusive claim to their music?



When did I ever mention "selling out"? To me, Lavigne has been nothing more than a processed "artist". You think she's good, or talented. I do not. Let's remember that 2 years ago she was being packaged as a young "new" country girl, ala leann rhimes. When that trend (thankfully) tanked, they then saw the notion of a punky girl who's cute as marketable in a world of blinks and sums and POD's..........

The problem is, when the marketing takes precedence over the music, it no longer is art. And despite what some may think, music is still an artform, and should be seen as such, first and foremost.

My favorite band in the world is radiohead. Now there is a band that has managed to parlay great artistic music and critical acclaim into huge mainstream success, yet I would never accuse them of selling out. They aren't trend jumpers, and have always done their own thing. They are artists. the britneys and christinas of the world make loads of money off trends, and are, more often than not, never around much longer than a 4 or 5 year period...and thank god for that.

James Boba Fettfield
04-14-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Most of it is just loud racket with little musical ability to show for the effort.

Examples, must have examples.

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
we are all free to turn off the radio at any time. The really nice thing is that there is music out there for just about every taste and it is available at any time you want it. Don't like Avril? Pull out your IPOD and turn on some Iggy Pop. Don't like Merle Haggard? Pull out your IPOD and turn on some Keb Mo. But just because we all have our dislikes in music, doesn't mean that these people aren't out working hard to express themselves in a meaningful way.

BTW....I'll remember your line of reasoning here the next time you are being hypercritical of the prequels ;)

Jedi_Master_Guyute
04-14-2003, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns

My favorite band in the world is radiohead. Now there is a band that has managed to parlay great artistic music and critical acclaim into huge mainstream success, yet I would never accuse them of selling out. They aren't trend jumpers, and have always done their own thing. They are artists. the britneys and christinas of the world make loads of money off trends, and are, more often than not, never around much longer than a 4 or 5 year period...and thank god for that.


Well Overlord, let it reign among the hills that this is prolly the only thing you've ever said that i agree with. I am a huge Radiohead fan and find their stuff is always awesome. Granted, the last few albums have drifted away from the formula of "The Bends" and "OK Computer" but "Kid A" remains a true masterpiece.

I know folks who hate Radiohead and i can understand why, it's not for everybody, but i don't give them hell for it (not saying you do either, just stating case). I can only hope that once Radiohead announces their US Tour it's "W/ Special Guest Avril Lavigne" Man, that would so rule!! Maybe Thom and her could do a duet of "How to Disappear Completely and Never Be Found" That would so rock!!! lol J/k, i would never buy another Radiohead album if they brought Avril along, but knowing Thom's hatred for mainstream music, he hates her tunes as many of you do.

Hail to the Thief!! (which rules by the way) :D

Exhaust Port
04-14-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
Queens were cool back as Kyuss. Wait, did I just say that.

Kyuss is/was AWESOME!

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Jedi_Master_Guyute
Well Overlord, let it reign among the hills that this is prolly the only thing you've ever said that i agree with.


What? I don't recall making statements people would disagree with around here ;)

In full agreement with you though....Radiohead remains (in my eyes) the best band going today. And I am looking forward to downloading Hail to the thief as soon as possible...

(and for those of you ready tp pounce at the notion that I will be downloading an entire radiohead album, I will also be first in line to by a copy of said album when it is released).

Patient Zero
04-14-2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
the britneys and christinas of the world make loads of money off trends, and are, more often than not, never around much longer than a 4 or 5 year period...and thank god for that.

4 or 5 YEARS!!!! I'm getting back in my cryotube.


But seriously, I'm not busting on anyone that likes said musician; I'm just saying the the way by which music is lumped into groupings is really off IMHO and seems to make little sense atleast to me. Ghesh!! Everyone gets so touchy...your not in the band are you?

The Overlord Returns
04-14-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by The Ghost of Jonna
4 or 5 YEARS!!!! I'm getting back in my cryotube.




Yet, when you think about it they've both been around for about 3 years...so it won't be long now......


The problem is they are like a Hydra.....cut off their heads and 5 more pop up in their place...

Jedi_Master_Guyute
04-14-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns

(and for those of you ready tp pounce at the notion that I will be downloading an entire radiohead album, I will also be first in line to by a copy of said album when it is released).

Just one copy?!?! I've bought special editions and regular editions of the last two albums. Gotta love Stanley's artwork, never ceases to amaze/creep/enchant me. So awesome, it is. Cheers!! :D

hango fett
04-14-2003, 09:49 PM
she is a pretty hot singer. no where near britney, but close. still, no one compares to natalie portman. ahhh. just ahh. i love her!
h

EricRG
04-15-2003, 02:37 AM
None of these teenage no-talent "entertainers" deserve a thread on SSG, much less the time I am taking to type this. I can't believe some of you confess to liking it...but to each his own.

2-1B
04-15-2003, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by hango fett
still, no one compares to natalie portman. ahhh. just ahh. i love her!

Obi-Wan DeadEye once thought as you do. :crazed: :crazed: :crazed:





I dunno, as much as I hate The Hives/Vines/WhiteStripes & Radiohead, I surely hate NickelBack/PuddleofMudd/Saliva/etc even more ! :D



LOL JediPartnr -- "Astral Latrine" :p
I'm not big on that whole "T-shirt with a necktie" look . . . Jack Osbourne tried it too, and it worked even less for him than Avvy. :crazed:

Dialogus
04-15-2003, 07:09 AM
Metallica are lost
Metallica are raped
Metallica are gone

Dialogus
04-15-2003, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
Queens were cool back as Kyuss. Wait, did I just say that.


"BLUES FOR THE RED SUN" kicks a**:evil: !! Listened 2 it recently.

Allen's wrench...that's all u get!

InsaneJediGirl
04-16-2003, 03:03 PM
Well..I think they classify her "alternative" because maybe it is for the pop scene?I dont know:crazed:

I don't really like her music,sure she can sing,but its just not the kinda stuff I like.Its more for the middle schoolers.

Amy
04-16-2003, 05:41 PM
I think she pushed the "this is who I am" thing a little much. If thats who you really are, you dont feel the need to try and make everyone and thier dog believe it, but just do it instead.

She is cute though.

Emperor Howdy
04-17-2003, 03:20 AM
Avril Lavigne!?! Are you serious!?

Ok, here's what I think of her:

I want to look at her nude for a few minutes, then shove a grenade in her mouth while slinging her off a highrise's 30th floor balcony.

plasticfetish
04-17-2003, 05:39 AM
Wow, that's pretty psycho there Howdy ... funny though.

I'm all for this teenage girl pop-star thing. It's high time that we did away with all the ugly old men and pushed for more of these Avril Lavignes and whatever it is they do.

Now, if you'll excuse me I need to go post over in that T.A.T.U. thread.

stillakid
04-17-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
When did I ever mention "selling out"? To me, Lavigne has been nothing more than a processed "artist". You think she's good, or talented. I do not. Let's remember that 2 years ago she was being packaged as a young "new" country girl, ala leann rhimes. When that trend (thankfully) tanked, they then saw the notion of a punky girl who's cute as marketable in a world of blinks and sums and POD's..........
This applies to so many "artists." If we treated them all like this, then who would we have to listen to? Try REM, U2, Blondie, Nirvana...gosh, just about every "band" that has ever "made it" has been marketed to the public in some way with some kind of "look" or gimmick. Punks, Hair Bands, Hot and Sultry Country, Down Home Bluegrass, Chicago Blues...the list goes on and on. The fact is that somebody out there right now is sitting down to write some music and would prefer to not die poor if they can help it. So they'll cut a demo, ship it off, play the clubs and hope that a major financial entity will notice them. In an effort to get as much of that "product" out there as possible (artistically: so that more people can hear it....financially: so that the investment in time and cash was worth it), that "artist" will be packaged and pigeonholed in some way or another. The "image" only demeans the music if you, the consumer, choose to look at it that way. In the end, music is a non-tangible entity that you can't look at, taste, smell, or touch. If you choose to heap the rest of the "marketing" on top of it, you're doing the artist a disservice.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
The problem is, when the marketing takes precedence over the music, it no longer is art. And despite what some may think, music is still an artform, and should be seen as such, first and foremost.
Like the Prequels?

I disagree. Art is art no matter whatever else is being done with it. It can either sit on a shelf somewhere or it can be turned into a commodity as well. As soon as you've paid for something, you've automatically turned it into a "product." But that doesn't instantly remove all of it's inherent artistic qualities.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
My favorite band in the world is radiohead. Now there is a band that has managed to parlay great artistic music and critical acclaim into huge mainstream success, yet I would never accuse them of selling out. They aren't trend jumpers, and have always done their own thing. They are artists. the britneys and christinas of the world make loads of money off trends, and are, more often than not, never around much longer than a 4 or 5 year period...and thank god for that.
Groups like U2 and REM were exactly like Radiohead in the early days. How would you treat Radiohead if suddenly, with their next album, Top 40 Radio pulled one of the tracks out and turned it into the next big "trendy" thing for the bubblegum crowd? Who's fault is that? Do you blame Radiohead and move onto something else (your own trend in your own exclusive "cool" world). Or are they the same but now the "uncool" trendy people finally "got it" and have the same great taste in music that you do?

You're blaming artists who want to get as much exposure for whatever their particular talent happens to be (and as much cash at the same time). Radiohead is no different from Spears. While Radiohead may concentrate on the music, Britany knows which side her bread is buttered on and uses it equally well as Radiohead if not better. She never claimed to be a "Joni Mitchell" and her fans aren't asking her to be one either. They want to see a bare midriff from a hot and sexy girl who is pretending to be "too young" while playing the vamp. It's an unstoppable formula for success. Spears puts on an entertaining show for those that want to see it. Radiohead's angle is music so their concerts center around playing their instruments (plink plink, yell yell, jump up and down). Same stuff, different audience....all art.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we all have to like everything that's out there. Some art is better than others. Just look at The Empire Strikes Back in relation to The Phantom Menace. We're talking apples and oranges in that case. A well-written story is still the goal and it's easy to see when it hasn't been accomplished. But music is a far more subjective medium than storytelling is. In writing, there are storytelling conventions that humanity has more or less accepted to be correct over the last few millenia. Music is nothing more than notes and the way that an artist chooses to arrange them is nearly infinite. In the same way that"we" may all cringe at a song that jumps keys midway through, a film that ignores those accepted story conventions is equally "disturbing." But the sheer variety of musical possibility, from Mozart to Sid Vicous is truly astounding...all with the same notes in the same medium. As much as someone might enjoy Radiohead now, were those guys to belt out a tune back in Mozarts day, chances are they would be labeled as whack jobs and promptly ignored (and stoned).

I think that Grace Slick said it best. Something like, it's the job of Rock and Roll to change every generation so that the parents go "oh, ick!" If rock can make your parents cringe, you're onto something. That seems like Avril has a few people riled up, so she must be on the right track. ;)

stillakid
04-17-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
BTW....I'll remember your line of reasoning here the next time you are being hypercritical of the prequels ;)

Please do. I have yet to crack open the plastic on the DVD of AOTC that I received as a gift. ;) There are far better films to spend two hours with. Life is too short.

plasticfetish
04-17-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
How would you treat Radiohead if suddenly, with their next album, Top 40 Radio pulled one of the tracks out and turned it into the next big "trendy" thing for the bubblegum crowd? Who's fault is that?
I'd say that they've been there and done that in the past. "Creep" had huge play and the album "OK Computer" was a monster hit with the critics world wide. Can we blame the band or do we blame their label and management for pushing them into the mainstream? It doesn't really matter ... it's how you handle yourself after the fact that matters. In the case of Radiohead (and I'm a pretty big fan) it's interesting to see where they've gone and were they're going after they've had some pop success.

As far as Lavigne goes ... I liked her act better when Annabella Lwin did it in Bow Wow Wow. At least Malcolm McLaren knew how to put together an interesting pop act even if it was nonsense.

Exhaust Port
04-17-2003, 02:02 PM
That's true. A lot of bands hit the mainstream and make it just fine. Others on the other hand grab that little bit of lime light and run with it. When it's up they're left all alone in the dark and no one cares. The more successful ones, Radiohead being a good example, make their brief appearance on the front stage of the industry then slowly fade back taking more fans with them than they had before. They don't lose sight of the music they make which is important to remain successful. These pop acts realize that their brand of music is a flash in the pan. They try to make the most of it before they're yesterday's news. I think that's why we see so many artists try to cross over into TV or movies.

plasticfetish
04-17-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
make their brief appearance on the front stage of the industry then slowly fade back taking more fans with them than they had before.
Good point. That's pretty much the gist of a conversation I was having yesterday with someone. It's not so much selling out, as it is "infiltration." It's the old Warhol thing ... if you can do what you do, grab some attention and get someone to buy it for a lot of money then you "win." Fame is unpredictable ... so, you take the cash and the security that comes with it and go on to do what you want to do. If that means making music or art in virtual obscurity ... great. If it means quitting the whole thing and becoming a fish farmer ... well, that's fine too. I think David Byrne is a good example of this. I'm a pretty big fan of David Byrne. I like what he does and I like the fact that he seems to do what he likes. He's not afraid or ashamed of the pop music thing either, but he doesn't (seem to) spend all of his time worrying about it one way or the other .

stillakid
04-17-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
I think David Byrne is a good example of this. I'm a pretty big fan of David Byrne. I like what he does and I like the fact that he seems to do what he likes. He's not afraid or ashamed of the pop music thing either, but he doesn't (seem to) spend time all of his time worrying about it one way or the other .

Right. And there are a million "David Byrne's" out there who we'll never know because, for one reason or another, never "hit the jackpot." But who are "we" to stand on our lofty perch and suggest that someone like Avril Lavigne isn't just doing what she wants to do? Why villify her for her music and how she chooses to package it? Why come down on anyone for the marketing, etc. when it's supposed to be about the music? There have been plenty of choices for our entertainment dollar throughout the years from Barnum & Bailey to Rob Zombie. As far as I can tell, they're all interested in putting on a great show first and then making at least enough money to allow them to keep doing it again in an attempt to brighten our otherwise humdrum lives. :cool:

plasticfetish
04-17-2003, 07:12 PM
Mmm, I would never villify Avril ... she's just too cute.

One thing that I would say seperates her and David Byrne (this is a weird comparison, but I'll go with it) is that Byrne was the one largely responsible for his band's pop status where as I see Avril as beeing merely "along for the ride." The Talking Heads paid their dues before gaining any kind of notoriety ... Avril's gimmick seems to have come out of some marketing guy's note book. But no ... you're right, you can't kick a person for trying to make it. Either you like the music or you don't, either you remember what they've done ten years from now or you don't. Hopefuly they're smart enough to avoid being so annoying that their memory evokes annoyance and suffering long after they're gone. Avril I figure will simply vanish one day ... and then we'll see Shatner doing a "what ever happened to" show about her ... during which I will constantly ask my wife, "Avril who?"

Funny you should mention Rob Zombie ... I'm off to see his little movie right ... NOW.

stillakid
04-17-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
Hopefuly they're smart enough to avoid being so annoying that their memory evokes annoyance and suffering long after they're gone. NOW.

Funny, when I read that part, Frankie Goes To Hollywood smashed into my thoughts. :dead:

James Boba Fettfield
04-17-2003, 08:00 PM
I still want to read about the loud racket that has little musical ability showing for the effort.

Patient Zero
04-17-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
I still want to read about the loud racket that has little musical ability showing for the effort.

What? You mean metalica? ;)

James Boba Fettfield
04-17-2003, 08:26 PM
I mean an example of anything by any band

EricRG
04-17-2003, 11:32 PM
Do you think for a second that Avril Lavigne would be anywhere near an MTV camera if she wasn't "hot"? Hell NO. THAT is what makes her an "entertainer" (much like the strippers down the road a bit, and even more like WWE wrestlers) and NOT a musician. Without her looks and her willingness to flaunt that, she has nothing. THAT is why her music deserves to be criticized. Just because one calls oneself a "musician" doesn't make you one. It is only when others accept you as what you claim to be that you are in fact that "thing" within society. (Wow, that was an awkward sentence.)

I'm sorry, but the valley separating Lavigne and the likes of Radiohead is incredibly wide.

stillakid
04-18-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by EricRG
Do you think for a second that Avril Lavigne would be anywhere near an MTV camera if she wasn't "hot"? Hell NO. THAT is what makes her an "entertainer" (much like the strippers down the road a bit, and even more like WWE wrestlers) and NOT a musician. Without her looks and her willingness to flaunt that, she has nothing. THAT is why her music deserves to be criticized. Just because one calls oneself a "musician" doesn't make you one. It is only when others accept you as what you claim to be that you are in fact that "thing" within society. (Wow, that was an awkward sentence.)

I'm sorry, but the valley separating Lavigne and the likes of Radiohead is incredibly wide.

Hmm.

Faith Hill = not a musician?
Shania Twain = not a musician?
Amy Grant = not a musician?
Dolly Parton (in her prime anyway) = not a musician?
Heart (Wilson sisters) = not musicians?
Dixie Chicks = not musicians?
Charlotte Church = not a musician?

should I continue?


That was possibly one of the most sexist statements I've read in a long time. So just because a female happens to be attractive, it means that she has no inherent musical talent? The flipside of course is that all "real" musicians are ugly men?

Having said that, I'll be the first one in line to agree that 9 times out of 10, a hot chick will get the first call to sign a contract for anything over a really ugly one. But that's just society and human nature. Investors know for a fact that sex sells and that "we" would prefer to pay to look at attractive people moreso than unattractive people. So Avril or Faith or Shania are far better bets than someone like Kelly Osbourne. It's not the artist's fault for being a musician and attractive at the same time. As for the investor (record label), it's just a smart move. But to just degrade someone's art just because they happen to be attractive and female is sad. Guy's generally don't find success that way because they can't. Society isn't built that way. Women (for better or worse) have to. That's just the way it is.

And, as far as I can tell, plenty of people have "accepted" Avril as a musician. The only ones who don't seem to are the uppity pop-haters who somehow hold the definition of what "real music" is. This reminds me of the Jack Black character in High Fidelity. You know, the guy with the "Yanni" T-shirt.:rolleyes: Maybe the truth is that Avril wouldn't have gotten a record deal if she was butt-ugly, but then again, the last upteen times I've heard her music on the radio, I haven't managed even one glimpse of her anywhere around me. So if this is all about looks, then why are they still playing her music? Why are people still buying her CD?



Let's see....as of this week, Avril has spent 45 weeks on the Billboard top 50. LET GO is number 22 this week, down from 20 last week. LET GO peaked at #2.

Hold on, I'm looking for Radiohead....still looking....just a sec....nope, not here. Hang on, I'm checking elsewhere...

Here we go..."I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings" slides to #166 this week.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1451349/20011206/story.jhtml

What Went Right With I Might Be Wrong?

Before I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings slinks off the Billboard 200 charts entirely (it slides to #166 next week), we'd like to take a moment and ponder what could have been (and maybe should have been) for Radiohead's much-ballyhooed concert record.

Coming on the heels of the band's potent 1-2 combination punch of Kid A and Amnesiac, as well as Radiohead's acclaimed tours of Europe, North America and Japan this summer, I Might Be Wrong was obviously meant as a way to tide fans over until Thom Yorke and company's next proper release. Nothing new there, as Radiohead had previously done something similar by issuing its Airbag/How Am I Driving? EP in spring 1998, almost nine months after releasing OK Computer and featuring several B-sides and unreleased tracks from the OK sessions.

As with I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings, the Airbag/How Am I Driving? EP earned enough sales to debut in the upper half of the Billboard 200 albums chart. The seven-track Airbag EP sold 20,000 copies to skid into the charts at #56 during its first week in April 1998, and has since gone on to sell more than 157,000 copies to date, none to shabby given that Airbag is no longer in print in America.

In just three weeks, I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings has already sold over half that number, notching some 83,000 copies in sales, including an impressive first week where over 48,000 copies were sold, propelling the album to a #44 debut on the Billboard 200.

But considering how well Kid A (928,000 copies sold to date) and Amnesiac (628,000) have fared, we're wondering if Radiohead might have missed a golden opportunity to serve up a true, full-length concert record instead. Based upon the early returns for I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings, we think they have.

While we do appreciate the lovely unreleased track, "True Love Waits," that Radiohead chose to include on Live Recordings, we're convinced that the album's relative brevity (eight songs that clock in at just over 40 minutes), when matched with its full-length price, undoubtedly turned some fans right from Wrong.

For a group whose anti-corporate stance is well-documented and who once considered using No Logo as the title for Kid A, it seems that Radiohead would be the kind of act that would want to give fans more product for less money. Instead, I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings is carrying the same, if not higher, sticker price than the band's full-length studio releases and that's not a-ok for the kids, computer.

Considering how well received Radiohead's summer gigs went, a more typical and characteristically fan-friendly move from the band might have been to issue a 70+ minute live album on a single, regularly-priced disc, or even a complete concert across two discs at a discounted price.

When it comes to doling out live material, Radiohead is certainly no Dave Matthews Band, who have several platinum concert albums to their credit, including the 1.36 million-seller Live at Red Rocks 8.15.95, as well as Matthews' 1.72 million-seller with guitarist Tim Reynolds, Live at Luther College.

However, based on Radiohead's current following, we're confident that if the Oxford band had issued a more comprehensive version of I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings just in time for Christmas, it would have at least surpassed the sales levels of such recent, moderately successful concert albums as Ozzfest 2001: The Second Millennium (166,000 copies sold), Ben Harper's Live From Mars (185,000 copies sold), The Roots Come Alive (187,000 copies sold), or Jimmy Page & the Black Crowes' Live at the Greek (199,000 copies sold), numbers that I Might Be Wrong will be lucky to near in its current configuration. Oh, well. Maybe next Christmas ... or Bastille Day.

James Boba Fettfield
04-18-2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
The flipside of course is that all "real" musicians are ugly men?

Ha ha, it's true, all of the good ones are ugly!

Please note, this is just a joke, I mean nothing by it.

plasticfetish
04-18-2003, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by EricRG
THAT is why her music deserves to be criticized. Just because one calls oneself a "musician" doesn't make you one. It is only when others accept you as what you claim to be that you are in fact that "thing" within society.
Well ... I think you are a musician, if you make music. Now, what makes you a popular musician is the amount of acceptance and attention that you receive. You've kind of contradicted yourself ... having the attention of MTV does mean that she's accepted, at least in some circles.


Originally posted by EricRG
I'm sorry, but the valley separating Lavigne and the likes of Radiohead is incredibly wide.
Mostly they're separated by the differences in their fan base. One target audience is somewhat different from the other. Avril is focused on the "MTV mall shopping early teen punk-ish skateboarding set" ... and Radiohead is (or at least was) focused at the "I used to watch MTV but now I'm really interested in 'causes' and more abstract things like the dehumanization of mankind." Sure ... they make different kinds of music, but that's not to say that one persons reaction to Avril isn't exactly the same as an others reaction to Radiohead ... or Metallica. I happen to really like Radiohead, but I had no interest in them back when they where getting all of that play for the album "Pablo Honey." It was pop music and I assumed that because it was, that I didn't like it. "The Bends" came out and I heard and liked a few tracks ... bought the album. "OK Computer" came out and I loved the album, but was a little freaked that I was digging something that was becoming so "popular." I've liked every album since and have given in to the honest truth that I am their target audience and I may as well deal with it ... even though I feel somewhat like a sucker. Another story ... somewhere around here I stated that I also had started really liking Bruce Springsteen (in particular the song "Born to Run".) Growing up I hated "the Boss" ... his music was crammed down my throat and it totally f-ing annoyed me. But, a few months ago that song came on the radio and it clicked with me in a way that it never could have before. Suddenly my wanting to get my behind out of Los Angeles had a theme song. I felt/feel like a dork for liking it ... but, so what?

Moral of the story ... there's nothing wrong with liking pop music and it's probably not wise to go on about "what is and is not music" ... because you may end up changing your mind in 20 years. Also, "popular" is a relative term and a musicians "value" as a musician is entirely based on who happens to be listening to them. (One man's trash is another man's treasure.) Be careful, you might wake up tomorrow and realize that the music you love doesn't speak to you anymore and that something you used to really hate does ... who knows, it just may be Avril Lavigne. (Though in all honesty I doubt it.)

scruffziller
04-18-2003, 02:33 PM
Overrated.

Exhaust Port
04-18-2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
...much like the strippers down the road a bit

And what road would that be? ;)

EricRG
04-18-2003, 11:08 PM
stilla,

You TOTALLY misread my statement. I was referring ONLY to Avril Lavigne where I mentioned that she is only popular because she is "hot". From dialogs we've had in the past, I think you know me better than that, no? To the contrary, I feel that Lavigne, Spears, Aguilera, etc. actually do a HUGE disservice to women and the image that is presented of them.

plasticf,

I have to disagree with you on several fronts. Lavigne would never have been heard from if she was forced to come up through the ranks like most musicians with any merit do, by playing clubs, then theatres, then hockey rinks, etc. Instead, she was given a gimmick, a promotion team, and probably the songs she sings, and then was hyped. We all know how corrupt the music business is, especially with regards to airplay. Believe me, her popularity was bought and that was forced down the throats of the teens who buy into it. I think that teens are smarter than we give them credit for, and many would listen to quality music if they were exposed to it. Instead, they have to choose to spend their money on (for example) Lavigne or the Wal-Mart censored version of Eminem. In both cases, they lose.

With regards to Radiohead and many others of their ilk, you see, they'd be perfectly happy playing their music to a roomful of friends. Why? Because they LOVE to play music. They could have VERY easily made 4 followup albums with songs similar to "Creep" on it and rode happily into the sunset (and the bank). But instead, they continue to evolve and challenge themselves as well as the people who bought their previous albums with the music they make now. They really could care less if you liked the last album, but not the new one. They make the music they feel, and that's that. The fact that success comes with it, says that they do have something special. Other than themselves, they have no "target audience".

And last, you are right, I probably shouldn't drag on others music (to each his own, as I mentioned above). But I assure you, I will NEVER like the likes of Lavigne, Spears or Aguilera.

stillakid
04-19-2003, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by EricRG
stilla,

You TOTALLY misread my statement. I was referring ONLY to Avril Lavigne where I mentioned that she is only popular because she is "hot". From dialogs we've had in the past, I think you know me better than that, no? To the contrary, I feel that Lavigne, Spears, Aguilera, etc. actually do a HUGE disservice to women and the image that is presented of them.



Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)

But then again, how do we really know that her looks are the only reason she got signed. As I've said, for better or worse, women almost have to be attractive to "make it" in this world but not to the absolute exclusion of talent to begin with. As I understand it, Avril does indeed write her own music, which, according to the charts anyhow, seems to resonate with somebody out there. I think the fact is (fortunately or unfortunately) that it doesn't hurt a woman who has talent to also be "hot." On the flipside, it does seem to hurt a talented woman who happens to be on the not-so-attractive side. Is it fair? No. Should it be this way? No. Is it ever going to change? Probably not. But in the meantime, we shouldn't insult those women that do manage to make it to the big time.

For the consumer to make a blanket statement about their "lack of talent" just because they also happen to be beautiful does their talent a disservice. Afterall, who ever said it was a requirement that A) all "real" musicians need to be ugly men and B) that all "real" musicians have to slave away in dirty clubs for years on end before "making it"? I wasn't aware that there were any rules regarding musical success, who is allowed to achieve it and when.

Funny thing is, I "wasted" a good portion of my high school years avoiding the likes of Madonna, Depeche Mode, and the Cure just because of my own preconceived notions about what that "kind of music" was or represented. What an immature waste of time that was. :rolleyes: Instead of enjoying what I now feel to be really decent music, I spent more time worrying about how others would see me if I showed any interest in that "pop sh...er, stuff."

Music is music. Thank god that there are so many varieties of it to match just about any taste that exists in society. But just as the virtues of Radiohead have been proclaimed such that an alien race might think that they have god-like powers, for the life of me, I couldn't hum a tune of theirs right now if my life depended on it. They clearly had so little impact on my life when I undoubtedly heard one of their (what I most likely perceived at the time) cookie cutter "loud angry rock tunes" on the radio that I just let it go in one ear and out the other.

Just as Avril seems to be prefab pop even to me, the likes of some random group like Radiohead is prefab rock. But the truth for both is most likely far different than that simplistic evaluation. Avril is hot and also performs her own music. Same for Radiohead. Maybe if Jonny or Nigel had huge knockers they wouldn't have had to eek out a living by lugging their crap from club to club before getting noticed. But tough f'in luck. Nobody said life is fair. Avril sat at home, scribbled down some tunes and got lucky out of the gate. Hurray for her! Really. I wish I was that fortunate in my own career. But should anyone really run her into the ground just because she happened to win the lottery this year?

plasticfetish
04-19-2003, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by EricRG
They could have VERY easily made 4 followup albums with songs similar to "Creep" on it ... But instead, they continue to evolve and challenge themselves ...
Yeah, I agree and that's largely how they've won my respect. I'd like to think that the issue of their "target" audience is less their own doing and more of a biproduct of "the industry." But, don't be fooled ... regardless of how they personally approach their music ... someone somewhere is thinking of new and clever ways to sell it to you and me. In their case it means aggressively packaging it as being ... not Avril Lavigne.

BTW ... new album, 'Hail To The Thief' out on June 9 (http://www.waste.uk.com/Announcements/LP6.html).

... and, just to expand on something ... what I said about being critical about music, doesn't mean that you can't have your own opinion. You should be able to love or hate whatever you want (and say so when you want) ... just as long as you freely allow that others will do the same.


Originally posted by stillakid
Maybe if Jonny or Nigel had huge knockers they wouldn't have had to eek out a living by lugging their crap from club to club before getting noticed...
Hahahaha!
That would be a whole different show.
But, about "getting lucky" ... I completely agree. I know a few musicians that have been hammering away at what they do for a while, always just on the verge of a big break. Would they mind it if someone came along and said, "Hey fellas, want to be big stars and go to Ozfest?" ... no they wouldn't. Actually one of my friends has been approached by Ozfest and you know, as absurd as the whole thing really is, they'll be there if they're asked. It's nice to play your music, but it's even nicer to play it infront of a huge audience and maybe get payed a pile of money for the effort. "F starving" ... that's my motto.

stillakid
04-19-2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
But, about "getting lucky" ... I completely agree. I know a few musicians that have been hammering away at what they do for a while, always just on the verge of a big break. Would they mind it if someone came along and said, "Hey fellas, want to be big stars and go to Ozfest?" ... no they wouldn't. Actually one of my friends has been approached by Ozfest and you know, as absurd as the whole thing really is, they'll be there if they're asked. It's nice to play your music, but it's even nicer to play it infront of a huge audience and maybe get payed a pile of money for the effort. "F starving" ... that's my motto.

Bon Jovi comes to mind. In recent interviews, I've heard him bemoan the stereotype that was laid upon him as being a "Hair Band" primarily, while the music got lost in there somewhere. Maybe the truth is that if they didn't give in to that "fad" then he'd be selling insurance somewhere right now instead. I think that many musicians first A) actually sit down and come up with their "look" or gimmick before setting foot on stage, and B) would gladly "compromise" their image for the chance to sign a significantly lucrative contract. It's all about the music, right? So what's a little image adjustment between friends if it gets the tunes out to a larger audience?

So maybe Avril isn't a true "punker" despite her choice in clothes. But then again, maybe the definition of punk has changed since Sid Vicious was on the scene. Who owns that term anyway?

EricRG
04-19-2003, 08:08 PM
NOT blink-182!

HARDY
04-23-2003, 11:43 AM
well i think avril is well fit hoo yaaaa as you americans say

Exhaust Port
04-23-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by HARDY
well fit hoo yaaaa

:confused: I think I need some assistance on that one. Is that good or bad being "well fit hoo yaaa?"

The Overlord Returns
04-23-2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
:confused: I think I need some assistance on that one. Is that good or bad being "well fit hoo yaaa?"

Means he thinks she's hot.

Darth Sidious
04-23-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by HARDY
as you americans say

...We do? :eek: :D

HARDY
04-23-2003, 08:29 PM
yeah is shes a hot babe....... gorgeous id love to erm......show her my vader figur????;)

DewMan37
05-01-2003, 05:08 PM
OMG SHE IS TEH HOT WTF LOLOLOLOLOL!!!111

...

;)

keith koth
05-01-2003, 05:42 PM
She is a real cutie! :)

The 'Xir
05-04-2003, 04:09 PM
Was he trying to say, "who whaaa!!"

I haven't really followed this thread much, but how the hell did you guys get to the point of comparing Avril Lavigne and Radiohead? They're like Apples and Oranges, it just can't be done!

Oh and Stilla, you're killing me! You're obviously not a fan of Radiohead, and that's fine, but leave it as that and don't try to pass judgements if your only basing them on the 1 or 2 songs you may remember of hearing! I'll admit that 'Creep' got way overplayed when it first came out, but unlike some of these manufactuerd pop star songs(Kelly Clarkson would be another good one to throw into the mix) 'Creep' was just a solid and good rock anthemn song! It took on a kinda life like 'teen Spirit' did when that first came out. People were just looking for something a little different, and I think what grabbed people's attention or what seperated 'Creep' from all those "cookie cutter" songs as you mentioned, was Thom Yorkes' voice! People couldn't get over how this pain laydened operatic voice could come out of this little frail 5'2" man's body!!! And boy have they taken their fans on a wild ride, starting from a punk backgorund to rock, to atmosphereic rock, to I don't know what...I swear they have invented a new genre of rock if not music all together!
Oh and are you knocking them being at #166 on the billboard charts for an live albumn that came out almost 2 years ago? I'd say that's damn pretty f'n good!!! Let's see where Lavigne is when "Hail to the Theif" hits #1 when it's released next month! But as I've said comparing them is pointless anyway, but let's just see for the fun of it!

James Boba Fettfield
05-04-2003, 04:38 PM
Lavigne, barely moving from her mike stand, sang "Fuel" with her considerably more energetic band. Drummer Lars Ulrich visibly enjoyed the version; Trujillo and guitarist Kirk Hammett seemed less enthused.

I can only wait to see how bad that went. Stupid Lavigne!

DewMan37
05-04-2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by The 'Xir
Was he trying to say, "who whaaa!!"

If you were referring to me, I was acting like everyone else I saw post in this thread saying she's hot...;)

The 'Xir
05-04-2003, 11:49 PM
That's cool and all, but actually it was more directly aimed at Hardy!!! He was close, but I figured he was trying to do Pacino's famous, "Who Whaaa" from the movie 'Scent of a Women'

DewMan37
05-05-2003, 05:51 PM
...heh...my bad...

QLD
05-05-2003, 06:00 PM
I thought more about this subject lately, and came to another decision.....


I would still do her.

stillakid
05-05-2003, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Lando In My Pants
I thought more about this subject lately, and came to another decision.....


I would still do her.

Get in line. :D