![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Random Thoughts Roundup: June 1st 2019
Jun. 1st, 2019 06:29 pm -Just heard a new song by Madison Cunningham on Live from Here, and immediately went to pre-order her new album. I've been holding back because I've been on the fence about whether I should get it on vinyl or digital download, but once I heard this new song I headed straight for the iTunes store. I'll probably buy her album on vinyl at the merch table when I see her and Lake Street Dive this October. Anyway, the point is... Madison Cunningham is the greatest and I will continue to spread the gospel of her music for as long as I can.
-Speaking of iTunes, I'm highly disappointed to hear that iTunes is officially shutting down. I only read the headlines so I'm not sure of all the details, but I personally would prefer to actually own the music I love instead of just streaming it. Yeah, I use Spotify pretty much every day, but only in order to listen to music that I've never heard before- a "try before you buy" sort of situation. Everything I really love, I'll buy. And I have no more room for CDs anymore, which is the best option for me right now, since I can rip the mp3's and load them onto my favorite devices so I can listen anytime, anywhere. Plus I can play CDs in my car. Vinyl is fun, but my turntable has shitty speakers and also, records are not portable. So I'd like to be able to download mp3's first, and then get the physical copy on vinyl. So I'm not happy about the idea that streaming could replace purchasing mp3's. Especially since streaming music pays next to nothing, unless you're a hugely popular artist. Yeah... I'm not happy about this.
-I feel like there's a whole category of indie artists nowadays who are highly lauded, but they just do absolutely nothing for me. Examples: St. Vincent (though I love some of her recent stripped-down material), Lucius, Sylvan Esso, tUnE-yArDs, and I'm sure there's more. I just don't get what people see in this kind of music. It's technically good, yes, but is it necessarily enjoyable?
-There's been some recent developments in the U2 fandom and though I don't think of myself as being in the fandom much anymore, I just have to get my 2 cents in. First off, U2 announced a tour in Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. They haven't been there for ten years, and they're touring a show that they toured in the US and Europe a couple years back. And the first reactions I see from US fans are: "Gotta save up enough money to travel to Australia!" Like... what the fuck. How entitled can you be? First of all, even in the depths of my U2 fandom, I never understood the need to see multiple shows on a single tour. At least, I never understood the need to travel all across the country and go out of your way to see them. I mean... okay, I've absolutely had dreams of following Punch Brothers around, but like, as a person involved with their tour, not as a fan. It makes less sense with U2, whose setlist tends to be rigid (until later on in the tour when they usually introduce new songs and then THAT setlist is rigid). And besides that, why would you go all the way to the other side of the world just to see a band you've seen plenty of times before, when there are many fans in the areas they're touring who've never seen the band once in their lives? It's not all about you, folks. Fortunately, these initial reactions have been met with "shut the fuck up" type reactions from other fans, and I gotta say I am firmly in their camp.
Another U2 thing I want to discuss, that ties in with some other thoughts I've had recently, is the fact that U2 has been suggested as the next band who's up for a biopic to be made about them. The reaction I've mainly seen is "hell no," and I'm pretty much in that camp myself, but only for the following reasons. First, U2 is an atypical band in that they've been relatively free of drama and strife. There's not much material to mine for a dramatic biopic. But the main issue is, if the filmmakers stick to the same paradigm of band biopics that's so popular- see Bohemian Rhapsody for a perfect, recent example, and for a more personal example (as in the one that got me to notice the pattern), An American Family which is about The Beach Boys- they're destined to create a poor work of art. This video explains the whole thing better (and is really a fascinating watch), but the bottom line is, the filmmakers have to know what story they want to tell about this band that isn't just "look at these awesome people, they sure did awesome things!" If a U2 biopic ever goes forward, I personally would love to see a filmed version of Bill Flanagan's book U2 at the End of the World, which is an account of the band's history from 1989 to 1994- the making and release of their album Achtung Baby, followed by their acclaimed Zoo TV and Zooropa tours. That is a story worth telling in film, instead of trying to condense their entire history into 2 hours and ending up with a pointless mess.
-I heard Robert Pattinson is going to be the new Batman, which I approve of even though I don't care about Batman because he'll get to display his improved acting skills to a wider audience and prove that he's not just Edward Cullen. The only reason I'm bringing this up is that, as a result of seeing his face in the articles that announced this news, I've come to realize that I actually think Pattinson is pretty handsome- even though when he was first announced as Edward, I was disgusted that THIS guy is playing the supposed most beautiful man in the world??? I have no idea what changed, but he's certainly better looking than Taylor Lautner, which is the exact opposite of my middle school self's opinion.
-Speaking of iTunes, I'm highly disappointed to hear that iTunes is officially shutting down. I only read the headlines so I'm not sure of all the details, but I personally would prefer to actually own the music I love instead of just streaming it. Yeah, I use Spotify pretty much every day, but only in order to listen to music that I've never heard before- a "try before you buy" sort of situation. Everything I really love, I'll buy. And I have no more room for CDs anymore, which is the best option for me right now, since I can rip the mp3's and load them onto my favorite devices so I can listen anytime, anywhere. Plus I can play CDs in my car. Vinyl is fun, but my turntable has shitty speakers and also, records are not portable. So I'd like to be able to download mp3's first, and then get the physical copy on vinyl. So I'm not happy about the idea that streaming could replace purchasing mp3's. Especially since streaming music pays next to nothing, unless you're a hugely popular artist. Yeah... I'm not happy about this.
-I feel like there's a whole category of indie artists nowadays who are highly lauded, but they just do absolutely nothing for me. Examples: St. Vincent (though I love some of her recent stripped-down material), Lucius, Sylvan Esso, tUnE-yArDs, and I'm sure there's more. I just don't get what people see in this kind of music. It's technically good, yes, but is it necessarily enjoyable?
-There's been some recent developments in the U2 fandom and though I don't think of myself as being in the fandom much anymore, I just have to get my 2 cents in. First off, U2 announced a tour in Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. They haven't been there for ten years, and they're touring a show that they toured in the US and Europe a couple years back. And the first reactions I see from US fans are: "Gotta save up enough money to travel to Australia!" Like... what the fuck. How entitled can you be? First of all, even in the depths of my U2 fandom, I never understood the need to see multiple shows on a single tour. At least, I never understood the need to travel all across the country and go out of your way to see them. I mean... okay, I've absolutely had dreams of following Punch Brothers around, but like, as a person involved with their tour, not as a fan. It makes less sense with U2, whose setlist tends to be rigid (until later on in the tour when they usually introduce new songs and then THAT setlist is rigid). And besides that, why would you go all the way to the other side of the world just to see a band you've seen plenty of times before, when there are many fans in the areas they're touring who've never seen the band once in their lives? It's not all about you, folks. Fortunately, these initial reactions have been met with "shut the fuck up" type reactions from other fans, and I gotta say I am firmly in their camp.
Another U2 thing I want to discuss, that ties in with some other thoughts I've had recently, is the fact that U2 has been suggested as the next band who's up for a biopic to be made about them. The reaction I've mainly seen is "hell no," and I'm pretty much in that camp myself, but only for the following reasons. First, U2 is an atypical band in that they've been relatively free of drama and strife. There's not much material to mine for a dramatic biopic. But the main issue is, if the filmmakers stick to the same paradigm of band biopics that's so popular- see Bohemian Rhapsody for a perfect, recent example, and for a more personal example (as in the one that got me to notice the pattern), An American Family which is about The Beach Boys- they're destined to create a poor work of art. This video explains the whole thing better (and is really a fascinating watch), but the bottom line is, the filmmakers have to know what story they want to tell about this band that isn't just "look at these awesome people, they sure did awesome things!" If a U2 biopic ever goes forward, I personally would love to see a filmed version of Bill Flanagan's book U2 at the End of the World, which is an account of the band's history from 1989 to 1994- the making and release of their album Achtung Baby, followed by their acclaimed Zoo TV and Zooropa tours. That is a story worth telling in film, instead of trying to condense their entire history into 2 hours and ending up with a pointless mess.
-I heard Robert Pattinson is going to be the new Batman, which I approve of even though I don't care about Batman because he'll get to display his improved acting skills to a wider audience and prove that he's not just Edward Cullen. The only reason I'm bringing this up is that, as a result of seeing his face in the articles that announced this news, I've come to realize that I actually think Pattinson is pretty handsome- even though when he was first announced as Edward, I was disgusted that THIS guy is playing the supposed most beautiful man in the world??? I have no idea what changed, but he's certainly better looking than Taylor Lautner, which is the exact opposite of my middle school self's opinion.
