i briefly sojourned in the dirty dirty, away from the internets and legalese, where i managed to score some tix to see a great canadian band.
the crowd was an interesting mix of alienated goth kids, their parents who were giving them rides (hello streetcars!), fratties in bass pro fishing hats and disoriented indie rockers. to my surprise, when wim wenders sang the line "don't want to live in america no more," from "windowsill," the crowd roared. did exeter help foment such anti-establishment sentiments?
the evening began with "black mirror," the first song off their newest album. there were 10 musicians on stage, as if it were the WPA or something. is it the socialized medicine that enables the band to employ not one, but two accordionists?
oh wait, the evening really began when i pulled into the parking lot and the attendant asked me, "hey, are you from china?" but then again, a couple of kids sitting on a stoop in my neighborhood in the BK recently called me "gook," [ed note: to their credit, it was a pretty nuanced ethnic slur for a bunch of 12 year olds] so i guess you can't really fault the south on this one.
short story short, believe the hype. the concert was pretty awesome. they played virtually every song off their newest and a handful from their first. each song was met with thunderous hoots and applause (and high-fives from the fratties). the lead singer, despite his amish-esque suspender-short pants combo, was surprisingly charismatic. and i lucked out, as the wall of muscle in front of me remained seated through the entire concert.
these guys, to state the obvs, are blowing up. i'm sure they'll be playing basketball/hockey-size arenas the next time they tour. they undoubtedly will reach REM/radiohead/U2 status within no time, thereby comfortably placing them within the hallowed list of "wildly successful bands indie rockers can love unironically."
oh wow, she has an NYT editorial?! goodness. i haven't been this confused since the matthew fox editorial of early 2007.
2 comments:
You packed a lot into this post. I know for a fact that we have one blog reader who went to Exeter and is exactly Win's age. I invite her to comment on what Win was like in high school (though she's not the commenting type.)
Also, how disappointing is Emily Gould? Clearly, she's a fine writer. The Times piece and Gawker in general are evidence of that. But her editorial is also a Costanza-esque, post-facto attempt at retort. I watched the clip of Kimmel skewering her on Youtube and she came off as doe-eyed and very unprepared. It was clear she knew what Kimmel was going to say to her, but why in the editorial does she say she was surprised? In the clip all she could could come up with was celebrities are protected by money and rarely is Gawker Stalker info posted within minutes of a sighting? That's the best defense? Gawker is about schadenfreude, about naked disdain for celebrity while indulging in its soulless joys simultaneously. It's not principled; it's snarky and it doesn't give a shit. Celebrity is a cancer on our society, and Gawker is the parasite that feeds on celebrity. She should have abandoned her nice-girl ways and given Kimmel some heavy-on-the-snark replies. Some personal attacks on Sarah Silverman would've been nice.
no two ways about it: sarah silverman sucks.
Post a Comment