it's funny when people are trying to put pete down by insulting his bass skills or whatever and they're like "he didn't even write fob's most iconic bassline!!!" (which I'm assuming is dance dance ig idk) and it's like. buddy, pal, friendofmine. sibling dearest. I'll do you one better: I can't name a bassline he has written.

great news! it doesn't matter. I'm not suggesting he's a good bassist either, because I've never really seen anything that really supports that idea. but he's not in the band to be the world's best bass player. it's a means to an end. he's a fantastic lyricist, he's a good frontman, and the three other members of fob wouldn't want to be in the band without him. I think that's all you could ever truly ask of him. nice try though

Blu DeTiger Is Bridging Indie Pop and the NYC Underground Club Scene [Q&A]

New artist Blu DeTiger is not so new after all. The NYC-native has been a bassist since age seven and was named “the coolest DJ around” by Vogue Magazine in 2017. The young talent, known for her combination of disco-funk DJ sets and live bass playing, has more recently become a touring bassist for acts like Caroline Polachek, The Knocks, Kitten, and FLETCHER.

Now it is Blu DeTiger’s moment. While she has been writing and producing music for most of her life, her first single “In My Head” was released in 2019. With a four-on-the-floor beat and nonchalant vocals, “In My Head” carries with it the hypnotism of the dance music she plays during her DJ sets. 

Most recently, Blu DeTiger released “Figure It Out,” a bass-heavy funk pop track with an irresistible groove. Its laidback lyrics and catchy chorus make it the perfect song to start the summer and shows Blu DeTiger hitting her stride as an artist.

We spoke with Blu about postponing tour plans, proving herself in male-dominated spaces, and writing “Figure It Out” with her brother, Rex.  

Ones To Watch: After spending years as a DJ and touring musician, how have those experiences helped you navigate being a solo artist? What were some of the most important lessons learned?

Blu DeTiger: Touring experience was extremely beneficial to me. Loading in, setting up gear, monitor mixes, in-ears, staying healthy, green room etiquette, sleeping on a tour bus, being in a van, stopping at gas stations, setting up merch, payouts, staying SANE — you really have to learn this stuff yourself. Playing a lot has built up my confidence and overall comfort level onstage. I absolutely love to perform.

And DJing made me develop a better knowledge of music. I know the hits throughout the decades, what makes people move, what slows them down, what’s popping on the charts, how to read a room, what song is best for that moment.

You once noted that although you've always been a musician, you felt you've really had to prove yourself as a woman in male-dominated spaces. Do you still feel that others underestimate you as a musician?

I always feel I need to prove myself. It’s part of my personality and I don’t think it’ll ever change. It’s really more of a shock factor thing that people have when seeing me play. People are so surprised when they realize I can actually play bass or DJ properly. It’s partly flattering that they’re complimenting me — but why did they assume otherwise? Would the assumption be the same for a guy? I want to change that perception.

I don’t think people give enough attention to women in the producer role especially. I think there needs to more opportunities and more recognition of women in all aspects of music (mixers, engineers, A&R, for example) — not just as writers and singers.

I’m really hoping to inspire and empower girls to express themselves and be whatever they want to be.

You've been playing bass since age seven and DJing since age 17. Did songwriting come later for you or have you always been creating your own music?

Yes, I’ve always been creating my own music. I’ve always been in bands and writing / doing creative work. I did some music for commercials, made DJ mixes, produced remixes, played on records, etc. It wasn’t until I met B-Roc from The Knocks that my own creative project under the name “Blu DeTiger” really started to take shape. I’ve always had a desire to do my own music, and I just kept moving forward with that intention. It felt like a natural progression. 

What has been your greatest career highlight so far as a musician?

It’s difficult to answer because I think I’m in the midst of it now and there are a lot of exciting things in the works!

Are you still going to NYU? If so, how are you able to balance touring, music making and school?

I’ve been on a leave-of-absence from NYU since January 2019. Balancing everything got pretty challenging. My last semester in school got crazy—I was flying out every Thursday morning to tour on the weekends, then taking a red eye flight back every Sunday night to make it in time for my class on Monday morning. Meanwhile, I was in the studio during weekday nights finishing my original songs, and also DJing until 4am some nights… I wasn’t sleeping much, and it became really difficult for me to continue to put my 100% into the schoolwork — I still got all A’s though! Ultimately, I decided to take time off because I got offered a great touring opportunity that I just couldn’t pass up. I’m grateful for the time I spent in school, but it was definitely the right decision for me.

How has the coronavirus pandemic affected your plans for 2020?

All my touring has been postponed/rescheduled… I was about to go on a 4-week European run, opening for FLETCHER, as well as playing bass in her band. Following that, we were meant to go on an Arena run in the US (which would’ve started a few days ago). I was also scheduled to join Caroline Polachek as her sole bandmate on multiple festivals this summer. It’s a huge bummer, and I was really looking forward to all these shows. If there’s a bright side, it’s given me the time to write and produce more music. And engage with my fans!

Your latest single "Figure It Out" was written alongside a few other musicians, one of which is your brother, Rex. How did this track come together, and how often do you write with your brother?

Basically, I got this beat from a producer named Novodor, and I immediately connected with it. I was in a session and the first verse and chorus just exploded out. I put the song aside for a while, but always really loved it. Months later, I came back to it and finished it up with this producer named Jeremiah Raisen, and my brother, Rex, while we were working in New York. I’m writing more and more with my brother, especially since we’re quarantined together. It’s been amazing, he’s so talented, and it feels like we have a really good flow right now.

Who are your Ones to Watch?

Channel Tres, girl in red, Melanie Faye, Claud, Spencer., Remi Wolf — to name a few!

Listen to “Figure It Out” below:

“Think Happy Thoughts!” Musings on the subject of Happiness in the Car Share world...

"All we wanted to do is make happy television" - Peter Kay

The words ‘happy’ and ‘feelgood’ are often used to describe the appeal of Car Share, so I’ve put together some thoughts on how the subject of happiness is addressed throughout the series. Please feel free to agree / disagree / add your own observations! :-)

In the very first episode of Car Share, having barely spent an hour in each other's company, John and Kayleigh have the following exchange about the car share scheme: K: No, I'm happy sharing with you. J: Oh right. Yeah, I am. I mean, me too. K: Good! And so the scene is set for what is surely the overarching theme of Car Share: the journey towards happiness of two unattached people with unfulfilled dreams. The 'happy' word is referenced repeatedly throughout the two series and is a pivotal factor in the unexpected cliffhanger ending of S2E4 which we now know will be resolved in a 2018 Finale episode (hurrah!)

So what does happiness mean to each of them and how does this change throughout the two series? Let's take a look at the evidence...

The first major discussion around the subject takes place on the day of Old Ted's funeral, when Kayleigh ponders whether Ted was happy with his life. John affirms that he "seemed happy, had everything y'know, good job, lovely wife". This suggests that John's idea of a happy life is small scale and rooted in the everyday, and he further clarifies this when he says "Happiness for me is about enjoying the odd good time rather than expecting one constant party in life."

Kayleigh on the other hand, despite counting her blessings with her family and friends, still laments that "all I've ever wanted is to meet the man of my dreams and have babies." John tries to console her with talk of online dating, though he is clearly uncomfortable with her choice and this only becomes more apparent as Series One progresses.

In effect neither has what they think would make them happy, but John backtracks to say that he's always been happy on his own – or at least "I was until you pointed it out." Already Kayleigh has challenged one of the key things he believes about his life, which is another important theme of their journey together: some of the very things John professes to dislike or disapprove of (e.g. people singing in his face / management fraternising with staff / employees bunking off work) he then ends up doing under Kayleigh's 'life-is-for-juicing' influence. And not only does he participate, but he clearly enjoys himself along the way too.

It is by being very direct and wearing her heart on her sleeve that Kayleigh is able to draw things out of John which contradict what he tells her - and what he tells himself. It is apparent that what he believes makes for a happy life is not necessarily what he he is experiencing day to day. He has vague hopes for the future - "hope I'll have moved on by then" - but no coherent plan to make any changes happen. This is also evident in his approach to his long-muted musical ambitions ("Christ, what are we doing here Jim?" he asks his Compendium band mate when discussing a bottom-of-the-bill gig at a gymkhana).

In counterpoint it's also interesting to note that Kayleigh's outlook on life isn't static either. Her former 'party girl' lifestyle is described in S1E3 but she admits she "can't do it any more", which harks back to John's assertion that 'one constant party' isn't necessarily the basis for a happy life.

In S1E4 the sole reference to happiness comes in the classic car wash sketch when Kayleigh's aquaphobia triggers a panic attack which John helps her to overcome by gripping her hand and urging her to "Think happy thoughts!" In contrast to John, who has a natural tendency to back away from thoughts which scare him, Kayleigh copes by submerging herself in an imaginary watery world which she happily swims through, bestowing smiles and applause and blowing kisses at fishes.

This contrast in their different approaches to fear and happiness is also underscored in S1E5 when the song 'Have A Nice Day' comes on the radio. Kayleigh immediately classes it as "a nice happy song" until John urges her to 'listen to the words': "it's actually quite a bitter song about a man who's not happy." Not only is this a subtle echo of the two occasions when Kayleigh urges John to listen to the words of a particular song, but it also demonstrates that she can sometimes take happiness at face value, whereas John sees and understands the underlying dissatisfaction behind the facade. As he says of Old Ted in S1E2, "he seemed happy, but who knows what goes through people's minds?"

In the last episode of Series One and the first of Series Two there are no direct references to finding happiness; instead it is played out in the situations and demeanours of the characters as they face separation but ultimately wangle their way back together via a mixture of shy gift giving, wistful looks, repeated phone calls, teasing laughter and sly determination, culminating in soppy smiles and an understated commitment to carry on spending time in each other's  company.

Which brings us to S2E2 and my favourite scene of the entire series: the 'fluffy drunk' ending to an entertaining eventful journey home in the company of a large, inebriated smurfette. The broad humour and drunken ramblings give way to a poignant exchange where Kayleigh's adorable fluffy/funny drunk bravado enables her to ask John if she makes him happy. His softly-spoken answer - "Yeah. Yeah, you do. Very much," - is as heartfelt as her question and marks the point where they are the most open they've ever been with each other about their feelings. And as they naturally go to act on them.....Damn that smurf!

But there is no question that Kayleigh now sees that her curmudgeonly colleague might well be the man of her dreams and that John's idea of happiness no longer hinges on being on his own. To paraphrase Michael Jackson, he used to talk of 'I' and 'Me' but by the middle of S2E4 he is saying 'Us' and 'We'.

Perhaps the highpoint of their happiness in this 'last' episode comes as they sing along to Billy Ocean, laughing and holding hands on the drive home. But while they might make each other happy, John's fear of change is never far from the surface and he retreats into his default position of enjoying "the odd good time" rather than reaching for the larger slice of happiness which Kayleigh offers him. Ironically (and for the second episode in a row) it is talk of the Christmas Team which throws a bucket of water over proceedings, as Kayleigh's hopes for something more are dashed: J: Are you not happy the way things are? K: Yes!.... I dunno. Yeah. Yeah, kind of....

The beautifully acted scene which follows has a similar effect on the viewer: our hopes for a happy ending for our heroes are seemingly dashed too, as John's panic over having to confirm or even confront his feelings causes him to lash out with an uncharacteristically harsh accusation: J: I'm not like you, y'know? I don't live my life in a bloody fairytale! K: I don't live in a fairytale John, I just want to be happy!

For the second time in as many minutes John makes the mistaken assumption that his happiness with the status quo should be sufficient for Kayleigh:  "And we are happy aren't we?" But this time she can't hedge or hide her feelings, and she tells him outright that she loves him but has to let go because "it's killing me you don't feel the same."

In the most bittersweet manner, John's dedication indicating that he does feel the same way is aired on Forever FM within seconds of Kayleigh getting out of the car. True to their characters, Kayleigh has been open and direct in her approach whereas John has gone all round the houses. Ultimately both have arrived at the same destination but, tragically, they appear to have missed their connection.

The final words spoken (in what was touted as the final-ever Car Share episode) are John's resigned concession of "I'm done." But as we have since learned, the series isn't done and therefore neither is John. Throughout both series and on his journey(s) he has learned that something other than his safe and singular routine can make him happy - very much so. Similarly Kayleigh, contrary to her declaration in Series One that she's "not going to meet someone by sitting on my arse," has found that what makes her happiest is the idea of sharing her life with John.

So we look forward to the Finale sometime later this year with renewed anticipation that "all will be revealed" to them and both will finally find the happiness that fate has steered their way via the Car Share programme. It’s a happiness which is sure to be shared by viewers up and down the land...!

Just Communication in Sound! Euphonium 2 - Part 2

Making Things Clear

(part 1)

The moe brass band and I welcome you to another installment of “Just Communication”. Last time, we examined music as a communicative practice and we started to get a feel for why the series thinks that practice is important. This time, to truly get a solid grasp, we will be looking at the first story arc of the series. Not only does it introduce us to the practice it finds so valuable, but it also demonstrates that same sensitivity of feeling it felt so impressed by. It is a story arc that reintroduces us to a a form of communication we are all very familiar with: the explicit, verbal kind. It allows this form of communication to signify itself, but also communication as a whole.

Before all that abstract frippery, however, it is a story of two girls: Mizore and Nozomi.

When we meet Mizore the oboist and Nozomi the flutist in the first episode, their relationship is in shambles, even if only one of them knows it. Nozomi left the band last year, following club turmoil. Ever since and for reasons unknown, Mizore has lived in traumatic fear of her former friend. Neither of these two are our point of view character, though. That would be Kumiko, same as ever. She is a specter here, tuned in to the drama and willing to help, but unsure of how and afraid to hurt someone.

Kumiko learns their circumstances and personalities through conversations born from her stubborn inquisitiveness. She has an already tangible sense of the stakes in her bandsmates' predicament, because she is already dealing with people connected to her. We, audience members, knowingly consuming fiction, need a little push. Here, art's artiface is its power more than its handicap. Through deliberate depiction of these fictional people, Sound! Euphonium 2 gives their feelings recognition, emphasis in a way that our “unadulterated” sight does not. Even as this story arc dramatizes the need for communication, the series is itself communicating the feelings of its people to us, every way it can.

Mizore is a driven musician, but seems to be so out of some automatism, rather than anything else. She expresses no joy at playing on her own initiative or when questioned about said playing. Nozomi is peppy, but deeply troubled by Asuka's refusal to let her rejoin the band. Their respective forms of isolation are emphasized in similar ways. One way this is done is through the framing of specific body language. For example, in the second episode, when Nozomi is discussing her inability to return to the high school band without Vice-President Asuka's permission. The frame at one point zeroes in on Nozomi's hold on her own arm to emphasize her insecurity. At another point, on her eyes looking away, as she fails to confront the pain of being apart from the band head-on.  

Another way in which the emotional states of the characters become salient to us is in the careful animation of characters' body language. In the first episode, Mizore becomes ill upon hearing Nozomi playing the flute and collapses in the stairwell. There is a another deliberate framing choice here, a point of view shot of her splayed legs. However, what is even stronger at emphasizing her unsteadiness is the protracted, trembling motion with which she rises to her feet again.

Of course, I would be remiss in talking about the life breathed into these characters, without giving mention to the voice actresses. After all, it is not just what you say that matters, but how you say it. Nao Toyama (Nozomi) alternates between frustrated sorrow and chipperness fluidly and convincingly, while Atsumi Tanazaki's monotone as Mizore sells her forced disassociation from her trauma. Tanazuki does equally well when Mizore shatters to pieces, cries, yells, and generally makes a wide variety of tonally incomplete, yet very loud noises.

In the examples above, we can see how the many tools of the animated medium allow Sound! Euphonium 2 to convey the emotional states of Nozomi and Mizore to us, the audience, efficiently and dramatically. However, the characters within the anime have no such guide. Nozomi and Mizore's distance is an extreme example of a failure to communicate, but even the other characters have to pick-up on of the subtle shifts body language and make assumptions about intent, so long as their partners in conversation do not make their feelings explicit.

Nozomi made one of these assumptions about Mizore when she quit the school band. Nozomi left the band without telling Mizore, because she did not want to disturb her friend. What she did not know, hardly could, was that Mizore's playing was for her. Not knowing how important she was to Mizore, never hearing how important she was to Mizore, Nozomi saddled her with uncertainty and fear that she had been abandoned by her only real companion. Too scared to find out for sure, Mizore developed a traumatic aversion to her friend. In both cases, a simple verbal confirmation of their feelings.

This morality play on verbal communication skills comes to a head in a stunning episode full of smart framing and quick action, the fourth of the series. This is also where we finally shine the spotlight on the glue holding this crazy club together: Strongbow Yuko. Yuko, bless her heart, has been an enthusiastic friend to Mizore ever since Nozomi left. When the oboist inevitably meets Nozomi again and freaks out, it is Yuko who conscripts Kumiko into searching for her. Yuko walks into the frame that Kumiko already inhabits to enlist her, going to her frame for help. It is the start of a series of framing choices made by episode director Taichi Oigawa to emphasize a relationship, rather than a sole emotional state. Where previous examples were attempts to convey a character's isolated mood or thoughts to us, these embellishments convey the feelings one character has for another. These artistic choices aim to make important to us a relationship, an emotion, a person in every scene. They do the groundwork for what the series is attempting as a whole.

When Yuko does find Mizore we can see how character animation, framing, and attention to body language come together to add a maximum amount of power to Yuko's words. Yuko scolds her for thinking Yuko was only friends with her out of pity, shaking her like a ragdoll while she does so. The frame, as if a physical object compelled by Yuko's arms, goes up with Mizore, a little past her, and then down with Mizore and a little past her, emphasizing the force of the emotion with which Yuko is speaking. Next, when Yuko convinces Mizore of the earnestness of her friendship in words, another trick is used: the carrying of momentum from a cut with one person to a cut with the other to signify one's words hitting their mark. Here, we see a tear fall down Yuko's cheek as she speaks her truth and then the tear hitting Mizore's face and rolling down her cheek as if it were her own. Next comes the final embellishment of physicality to Yuko's speech. The frame holds an absolute focus on Yuko's hands undoing Mizore's guarded posture to pull her up, as she begs her to take some pride in her music for her own sake.

In short, Sound Euphonium 2 makes Yuko's words visually impressive. It makes their meaning weightier by making them synesthetic experiences, visible as well as audible. Now you may say to me, “convincing us words are powerful by giving those words fancy picture frames is cheating like a motherfucker. You would be right. By cheating, the series is hoping to bridge a gap: the gap in meaning of those same words, the one that exists between our lived experience as members of an audience and that of its cast . It is only cheating, because it needs to make-up for its handicap. If it were not, it would not be doing its job as a work of art. It is crucial enough to make these feelings, not just known, but felt that it is necessary for Sound! Euphonium 2 to cheat, to use artifice, to be art.

At any rate, the cheating-slash-artistry extends beyond embellishment of physicality. To that, Oigawa marries another trick in the animator's toolbox: lighting. As Yuko drags Mizore up, she also pulls her out of the shadow and into the light. It is a simple motif, wherein Mizore's new found understanding of and happiness in her relationship are highlighted, but an effective one. One repeated when the time comes for Nozomi to clear things up with Mizore the way Yuko has. Here too, Mizore's turn to the light is paired with the physical act of hands reaching out to hold their counterpart. Mizore is not just illuminated with regards to her relationship, but is made to understand by the action of Nozomi's explanation.

The scene ends with an exemplary sequence where Nozomi passes Mizore's oboe, together with her wish to play together, to Mizore. Oigawa cuts from Nozomi's smile to the camera, to her speaking in profile, to the oboe, to Mizore in profile, and finally: Mizore smiling again after all this time. It is not just that the oboe symbolizes Nozomi's wish in this instance, but that the weight of her words appears to move from Nozomi, through the oboe, and into Mizore, as if it were a physical thing. That is the power your feelings can have on another: enough to move them, to shape them. Yet, while the tone of our voice or the twiddling of our thumbs can give strong indications toward these feelings, we often need our words to spell them out or risk them failing to reach someone at all.

And not only Mizore and Nozomi were affected by their failure to say a single word to each other. Yuko suffered in sympathy with her friend, for one, but the entire band ached along with them. First of all, all the second and third years, the ones that knew of Mizore's trauma, were stressed and split over whether or not to Nozomi in the band, debating for hours, losing precious time practicing together and alienating their juniors as they did so. Secondly, Mizore's playing was emotionally sterile in Nozomi's absence, which affects a competition band a great deal when you are their star oboist. Kumiko only got involved enough to be a point of view character in this train wreck, because it affected her as a member of the band. She barely even knew who Mizore was before this started. By tying its interpersonal drama to the future of the band, Sound! Euphonium 2 makes the success or failure of communication all the more critical. When you fail to communicate in your relationships, it is not just that relationship that is hurt, but everybody tangentially involved as well.

Such is the macro-view collage that Sound! Euphonium builds from its microscopic moments. It demonstrates the care with which it wants to consider other people's feelings in every scene.It shows its commitment to that ideal by doing so. Better yet, its commitment is what generates our investment in its message. Our emotional affect towards these cartoon people and their cartoon lives is built upon these tiny moments of tender understanding. These moments engrave into our minds their morality play at large. It is the power of art to flit between the instant of a blush and the grand narrative of a high school band. It can simply give us the sympathy we would have otherwise had to work for by showing us every view at once.

But Sound! Euphonium 2 also shows us that art is not enough. We cannot comfort our friends by playing the trumpet at them every time. Art is a mode, a tool in our being together. Its very nebulous nature allows it to sort of express what we cannot, but straight talk is best for the things we can. When it is within our power to do so, we need to make our feelings for one another known in the clearest terms, terms that the uncertain nature of art is insufficient for. Language only pretends to be clear, but the level of directness it does allow makes it the best tool we have for our most important job: being with one another.

Finally, we can understand what Sound!Euphonium 2 is trying to say about art and communication. We understand why it has modeled itself so in order to say it. But “saying” something is not enough for a series like Sound! Euphonium 2. Just as it is putting its own ideology into practice in its explanation of that ideology, its story, its actual fucking plot is one girl coming to understand and put that ideology into practice herself.

That girl is Kumiko Oumae. In the next, final, installment she will be the one doing the talking

(part 3)

Sorry still talking about this, but seeing Zayn looking so sad breaks my heart. Can't people tell he's unhappy? Look at the way he has to look down to physically stop himself from crying. Look at the way he swallows deeply. What's even worse is what he's saying. He's talking about doing what he wants. Isn't it obvious that he's sad because of the hypocrisy of it all. He's clearly thinking about how he 'he's free to do as he wishes', when he can't even be with the man he loves? Please free Zayn.

Hi darling,First off I am really sorry if you sent this and it’s been long but I hadn’t been active on tumblr for the past few days so sorry for the delay. And never ever be sorry, ever. I think that when Zayn left and a while later embarked on his solo journey with the #realme narrative as a defining outline of his “rebrand”, a lot many people believed him, believed that henceforth whatever happens with Zayn is the real him sans any management intervention or stunts or PR games or psychological warfare with the fans, etc. That’s obviously far from truth not just when it comes to Zayn and Liam and Louis and Harry and Niall, but also, like 99.89% of celebrities. You don’t decide to just give up all the showiness of the showbiz, because you cannot afford to. But the ztans went with it and g*gi was dubbed as Zayn’s saviour -- LMAO -- and the larries bought it because YESS!! THAT’S WHAT WE’VE BEEN SAYING, THE BAND IS CONTROLLED AND LARRY ARE CLOSETED. See, no one outside the fandom really cares about the constant updates of Zayn with his PR fake girlfriend or Liam with his PR fake girlfriend, (they might find them cute or hot and move on, that’s what I did in the past all the celebs and their partners, who now all seem PR tbh) and much less so that there might be an actual closeted relationship between the two boys. Heck, why even go as far as outside the fandom when even within the fandom, outside the really restricted Ziam side, no one sees the Ziam because Larry are together and there obviously cannot be more than one gay relationship in the band, obviously. *scoffs*I am ngl, I go back and forth between Ziam and whether they are still together or not so often, but even without the assumption that both the boys are in a loving relationship, you cannot deny the comfort and love and intimacy between the two, and the lack of it with their supposed girlfriends. It’s funny because I think this has been covered by many bigger blogs but like, the only reason people buy z*gi and c*iam is because they are a het couple. If Ziam were het, and they’d be acting the way the two boys do/did and maintained they were “just good friends” people would have called them out on their BS ages ago. It’s sad because these heavy stunts were orchestrated with the sole intention of alienating the Ziam fan base and emphasizing on the hetero of the boys and to an extent, it’s insidiously working? Blocking the fans on twitter or going off on random following spree of update accounts which sell the narratives, fans are getting tired and I cannot even fathom how tired the boys themselves must be. Esp with an impending baby narrative hanging over us, all I can hope for is that all of this ends soon because possibly the GP won’t even care about this a year later and most of the fans won’t either, but the boys would be left with lasting repercussions and it is messed up. Free Zayn, indeed. Free Zayn and free his music, and free OT4 and free their music. Free them all. 

Thanks for the analysis like I always had seen zayn haters said how "zayn only sings about sex" and that his album was "trash" smh someone even argue with me about how pillow talk was just about sex , tbh zayn deserve more I can't believe the media think his album is all about sex and doesn't care of see all the lyrics😕same happens with 1d when ppl say that their songs are meaningless when they are is annoying how they are looked down for being a boyband but other artistswith worse lyrics arent

Like most of ppl say that 1d "just sings about love!" But like EVERY artist do that ! Like I like the songs but why is Adele,Taylor ,Justin,Rihanna , Adam etc.. considered better than them? They all do mostly love songs , but they are more respected like Justin album is quite basic compared with zayn in lyrics but it's nominate for a Grammy! Meghan trainor has won a Grammy like?!why 1d can't ? Why boybands never won a Grammy?the wrost is that at least some were nominated but 1d isn't even that😕

Like if they can then WHY 1d can't 😒😕?even zayn solo was successful and wasn't nominate either( I know that the Grammys are for popularity but that is more because of all the A list singers 1d is the only one to don't even go to present someone or perform, maybe is because they aren't very popular with the GP?)but again I don't get what is wrong with boybands that Demi said she didn't wanted to work with 1d for that,5sos saying they don't want to be called a boyband, ppl saying 1d can't sing +

An are just faced what is untrue because they always sing live and without backtrack unlike most of the respected artists that use backtrack or lip sync(Mariah and Justin are examples but are WAY more that have been caught lip syncing )ppl thinking that all their fanbase is just kids females and make fun of that like they forget that the Beatles started like that but ok, why I don't get is all the disrespect for boybands and mostly for them,they are nice/talented they deserve better :/

Grammy’s

The Grammy’s like to pretend they’re about quality when they’re really a popularity contest and a political game just like any other awards show.

I know it’s frustrating to see the boys get snubbed.  I think part of the reason 1D and Zayn have never even been in the running for the Grammy’s is because your team has to submit you for consideration.  I doubt 1DHQ bothered, especially these last few years when they’ve been at full on war with the boys.  

When it comes to popularity, 1D has always been popular with their albums, but their singles haven’t broken the top 40 in the same way singles from other boybands in the past have. Occasionally 1D will get a single in the top 40, but it doesn’t necessarily stay up there for weeks in a row.  Part of the difference is just that the music industry is in a different place than it was when N*SYNC and Backstreet Boys were popular.

The other element is the idea of prestige that the Grammy’s holds dear.  There are several reasons why One Direction isn’t considered prestigious, all of which are pretty much BS.

Sexism

When it comes to the prestige part of it, you’re right that the Grammy’s and the general public look down on boybands for no solid reason.  The prevailing theory that has merit is that it’s a form of sexism.  People assume that only girls can like boybands because the reason to like them must be that the girls want to date the members of the band.  This is a load of BS since there can be any number of reasons to like a boyband, but people still believe that boybands are solely liked by young girls who want to date them.

Pretty much nothing young girls like is taken seriously.  Girls get called hysterical all the time while young boys can go crazy over video games or men can go crazy over sports and no one calls them hysterical.  Since boybands are seen as something young girls like, they’re automatically discredited by association.

It’s true that some boybands don’t have a very good quality of music, but that’s not true of all boybands by any means.  All genres of music have some popular bands that aren’t very good, so singling out the boyband genre and defining it by the bad bands isn’t fair if you’re not going to do that with other genres.

Elitism

People have a need to feel special, unique, and because of that, exclusive. Anytime something is massively popular, there’s a backlash because it’s no longer considered exclusive.  One Direction is victim to that backlash to some extent.

The other problem is that things that are light and fun are always considered superficial.  Things that are light and fun are not mutually exclusive to things that have depth and meaning, but people can’t seem to wrap their heads around that.  Bringing joy to people is a very important thing.  Hope, joy, and love can help people keep moving forward when they want to give up on their life, can inspire people to persevere against oppression, and can help people understand each other and stop the cycle of hate and violence.

Because One Direction’s genre started out as light pop and that’s when they had their massive hits that everyone has heard, people are more willing to dismiss their music.

Ageism

Ageism can go both ways.  There’s discrimination against older people and also against younger people.  Younger people are always seen as being naive and ignorant because they’ve lived fewer years.  It’s true that in many cases, older people have more experience and more wisdom, but that’s not true across the board.

One Direction are no longer teenagers, but 1DHQ never allowed their image to grow up.  Fans know that they curse, make sexual innuendos, and have political views, but non-fans don’t pay close enough attention to see those things.  All they see are the promo pictures and the merchandise that’s sold in stores and that stuff still makes it look like the boys are 16.

Manufactured Myth

Part of it is that boybands are considered manufactured.  People assume that it’s a money grab, which it is in many cases to be fair.  There’s an entire industry in South Korea and another one in Japan that’s targeted at creating new boybands to try to earn as much money as possible.  Even One Direction was created with that intention in mind, not that the boys themselves had any say over the goals of their careers.

People just don’t understand that the way you were created doesn’t define what you become.  It’s just like the difference between parents and children. Parents influence children, but children are not their parents.  You can have bigots with extremely open-minded children and you can have extremely decent parents with a child in prison for murder.

One Direction having the success that they’ve had isn’t a fluke.  It started on X-Factor when they had tons of fans lining up outside just to see them.  They already had an international following before they’d even released their first single.  The reason they’ve succeeded is because they’re talented, hardworking, have a rare chemistry between the members, and are genuinely good people.  

Believe me when I say I’ve seen quite a few boybands and One Direction is special.  Not every boyband has that chemistry and spark.  A band being formed without any input from the members themselves and yet working together so well is extremely lucky.  For the members to recognize what they have together and dedicate themselves to it is even rarer.  I only know of 2 bands like that- Arashi and One Direction.

Instruments and Writing

People also assume that if you’re manufactured, you must not write your own music or play your own instruments, and if you don’t do those things, you’re not authentic.  Both of those assumptions are wrong.  As the 1D fans know, pretty much all the boys are talented lyricists and all of them can play guitar. Niall even records for their albums and plays live on stage.  

However, even if they didn’t do this, there would be no shame in it.  Singing and performing are professions that require a lot of talent in themselves, so there’s no reason to demand that someone who sings and performs also has to be a talented instrumentalist, composer, and lyricist.  That would be like requiring someone who acts to also write scripts, produce, and direct.  Some actors eventually go down that route, but by no means are all actors expected to.

So Yeah

People who have that knee-jerk reaction of making fun of boybands have probably never thought about why they do it.  They’ve just absorbed the pervading sexism and elitism they’ve grown up with and they churn it back out thoughtlessly.

The best you can do is challenge anyone who says things like that to think about it more.  More than likely, they’ve never listened to any One Direction song that’s not a single.  In fact, they probably haven’t listened to anything from the last 2 albums at all.  They know nothing about the band and maybe if you point that out, it will plant a seed in their heads to start wondering what basis they actually have for their opinion.

WKE Chronicles: Rigors Of Being A Bandleader.

Last night was the first public outing for the William Kurk Enterprise since November 2015 as a band, and I was quickly reminded why I the responsibility of being a bandleader can be gratifying, while also taxing.

On the upside of things, the personalities that coincide with the talent I acquire are always great, and for me, that's the primary attribute in what I seek in ensemble members. New and old friends help threading the musical needle once again for the sole purpose of making music.

The downside is the expectation that a bandleader has for the ensemble to perform at a level that is equal or greater to the expectation of said ensemble members. The reality of this modern spectrum of the musician hustle in 2017 is prominent: mercenary musicianship supersedes meticulous musicianship.

With so many working professionals grinding daily in the city of Chicago, it can be difficult to align the vision of a leader's musical landscape with players that share that same sense of integrity for the music. In other words: it's hard to find available musicians that are not just motivated by what a gig pays, but are also motivated (if not more) to perform very well.

I don't think the potential is lacking; otherwise I wouldn't summon the musicians I enlist in my music-making army.

The precision is lacking, and that is what drives a bandleader (me) up the wall. When I know that certain musicians are capable of performing at a higher level than what is presented, it bothers me so much that I tend to over-think every choice I made in the finalization of  the material…but ultimately, I provided all the resources necessary for them to succeed, and when it's said and done, it's not on them.

A bandleader has to know when certain musicians are not yet at a spectrum to engage certain materials musically. Not every musician will share the temperament and mindset of the leader, and that is a tall order to live by when I basically float throughout styles in the duration of a single set.

It is the responsibility of the bandleader to know the strengths and weaknesses of his (or her) band, and in my case, I should be more assertive about my ability to make these determinations more affirmatively and quicker. The players will simply go through the motions if a fire isn't lit underneath them, and in this particular case, I let a lot of things slide based on the assumption that their precision would show up for the performance.

The precision throughout was 'very shaky'; perhaps the most turbulent I've experienced in ages. There is nothing more alarming than to sense that the band is not comfortable with certain material, and they perform it as such. The challenge for me as a bandleader is trying to find that space between being militant and easy-going…and what I've come to find out is that there is no in-between if you expect the highest level from players who the potential to play with precision.

Not all musicians are performers, and that is also a failed expectation on my end; to think that these performers are great at their craft, but they don't possess any natural stage presence or interaction.

I spend the duration of the 2016 year performing solo most of the time, and it was a great way for me to develop a routine for a solo show, as well as not be worried about the preparation of adult musicians that lack attention to detail when my music is on the horizon.

I was quickly reminded why I don't miss having a band, but I also reminded why a band is the essential way to present people with the best musical experience possible.

I have to be very militant in the near future regarding my compositions for the sake of the precision, and even consider playing repertoire that best suits the ensemble. If I get the feeling that doing such is too demanding, I will neglect to use a band all together.

The way I felt afterwards was a humbling reminder that being a bandleader means more than hiring cats and providing them materials to learn from, but it also means that you are acting as a coach, babysitter, and provider of the music being performed. The outcome will reflect the preparation of the leadership.

I'm not sure if I feel the excitement of being a bandleader like I used to, because of the evolving climate of musician's demands. I would say my feelings towards doing the bandleader thing are rather 'dormant' at the moment.

Nothing is not like it used to be, and will never be that way moving forward…unless I land upon a pot of gold and make my band the priority somehow.

In a nutshell, being a bandleader is more taxing than rewarding (at least for me), and when you don't have stable parts to build from, it's always a rebuilding process every trip. I don't care to deal with being a bandleader, but if I have to, I can. Based on how I feel at this very moment, I much rather not even deal with it.

-W.K

Orthodox Pluralist or Benedict Option?

Writing in GQ a number of years back, John Jeremiah Sullivan penned one of my favorite essays on the Christian subculture. Set at the CrossOver Festival in the Lake of the Ozarks, Sullivan’s piece focused on idiosyncrasies in the Christian music scene. The essay is brilliantly constructed from wellhead to burner tip, but I want to focus on a specific part in the middle. This is where Sullivan provides his assessment of the music quality:

The fact that I didn't think I heard a single interesting bar of music from the forty or so acts I caught or overheard at Creation shouldn't be read as a knock on the acts themselves, much less as contempt for the underlying notion of Christians playing rock. These were not Christian bands, you see; these were Christianrock bands. The key to digging this scene lies in that one syllable distinction. Christian rock is a genre that exists to edify and make money off of evangelical Christians. It's message music for listeners who know the message cold, and, what's more, it operates under a perceived responsibility—one the artists embrace—to "reach people." As such, it rewards both obviousness and maximum palatability (the artists would say clarity), which in turn means parasitism. Remember those perfume dispensers they used to have in pharmacies—"If you like Drakkar Noir, you'll love Sexy Musk" Well, Christian rock works like that. Every successful crappy secular group has its Christian offbrand, and that's proper, because culturally speaking, it's supposed to serve as a standing for, not an alternative to or an improvement on, those very groups. In this it succeeds wonderfully. If you think it profoundly sucks, that's because your priorities are not its priorities;

Sullivan’s piece came to mind this last week as I read a number of writers at the New York Times engage with the argument of Rod Dreher’s newest book, The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation.  At its core, Dreher’s thesis is that if Christians in the West see a deep and destructive misalignment of their worldview with contemporary culture (and they should!), they ought to explore forms of resistance and creative communities set apart from these forces.

Where Dreher sees potential, I fear Christianrock.

But let’s hear him out. What might these forms of community look like, and when does ‘resistance’ make sense? In an astute analysis of the book at Comment, philosopher Jamie Smith quotes the following from Benedict:

In a chapter on employment and work, Dreher takes the commitment to stability in the Benedictine Rule and turns it into a counsel of despair: "We may not (yet) be at the point where Christians are forbidden to buy and sell in general without state approval, but we are on the brink of entire areas of commercial and professional life being off-limits to believers whose consciences will not allow them to burn incense to the gods of our age." These professions, by the way, turn out to be "florists, bakers, and photographers" as well as public school teachers and university professors.

Like Jamie, though perhaps for different reasons, I can’t help but read Dreher and start to feel a bit uncomfortable. At the Times, David Brooks agrees and frames an alternative:  

The right response to the moment is not the Benedict Option, it is Orthodox Pluralism. It is to surrender to some orthodoxy that will overthrow the superficial obsessions of the self and put one’s life in contact with a transcendent ideal. But it is also to reject the notion that that ideal can be easily translated into a pure, homogenized path. It is, on the contrary, to throw oneself more deeply into friendship with complexity, with different believers and atheists, liberals and conservatives, the dissimilar and unalike.

My own wrestling with the tension between a religious worldview and modern culture is deeply personal. I am the son of a midwestern Presbyterian pastor. Much of my youth was spent in the evangelical subculture -- shifting between forms of church and para-church ministry. For college, I went to a school with a conservative bent to theology, though one rooted in a deep belief in the intellectual power of the Christian tradition. Many of my professors believed that their reformed theology implied particular policies in the public square. It is a perspective that has exposed one of its graduates, Betsy Devos, to critique over the last few months. In graduate school at Washington University in St. Louis, my intellectual life continued to evolve. I grew in a desire to pull from my tradition while simultaneously setting it into dialogue with other ways of thinking and seeing the world-- frameworks from empirical social science, evolutionary psychology and biology, and cultural artifacts. And in the “friendship with complexity,” I found companionship. 

The other day, my friend Robert sent me a dialogue between two famed philosophers: Richard Rorty and Nick Wolterstorff. Rorty is the late philosophical pragmatist from Stanford and Wolterstorff a retired reformed epistemologist who spent much of his career at Yale. Taking aim at Rorty’s view that religion is an unhelpful conversation stopper, Wolterstorff reframes an alternative model around the life of Martin Luther King Jr. In King, Wolterstorff finds a man whose viewpoints are deeply informed by faith, but he remains just as conversant across traditions as he is within. In other words, you can’t remove the Christian from King without losing the foundation of his argument; but, nor do you have to leave your alternative assumptions at the door to engage with its essence.

King’s vision is one that I find compelling.

But to see the potential pitfalls of linking worldview to public response, it is helpful to take a step back. Put simply, everyone has a normative view of the world-- an intuitive sense of what is good, true, real, and beautiful. These views are a mix of our cognitive hard wiring towards specific moral responses, as can be seen in the work of Jon Haidt. They are also formed by the cultures we sit within. Some people’s views are shaped within a particular religious community, but perspectives can come from political frameworks like neoliberalism or philosophies like secular humanism. It could even be the “American Sublime” preferred by Rorty. In the end, the key point is that these views rest upon a set of metaphysical assumptions that are not easily amenable to rational argument. As Wolterstorff concludes in step with Rorty, “I view our human condition as such that we must expect the endurance of such fundamental disagreements.”

When it comes to the public square, these “private” views often hold implications for how a society should be ordered. They are endowed with certain value priorities which bear upon its citizens. They imply a set of policies to drive the world toward those ends. Where it becomes interesting is when these views-- whether foundation, or implication-- start to diverge. Two people look at the sexual revolution-- one sees an empowerment of women, another sees the undermining of important societal structures. So, where do these points of tension bubble up?

PROBLEM 1: DIFFERENT START- SHARED CONCLUSION: Let’s say I have a worldview that leads me to understand a specific kind of behavior as morally right. Maybe this is my view of the nuclear family, an understanding of how we should design prisons, or a perspective on privatization of schools and tax breaks for religious institutions. And then I meet you. You start from a very different beginning, but we end up with the same conclusion.  While many might see this as a win, if my worldview is exclusivist, I might start to wonder whether I need to hold my starting perspective at all. Commence existential crisis. 

PROBLEM 2: SAME START: DIFFERENT CONCLUSION: Another point of tension is when two people from a shared worldview reach drastically different views. You can see this in the fragmenting of religious institutions over issues of LGBTQ rights and gay marriage. You and I being in the same tradition, but end up concluding that very different behaviors are justified. Unlike the first problem where I wonder if my foundation is relevant, this crisis is about whether a particular tradition holds enough ambiguity to bear disparate conclusions.

PROBLEM 3: FOUNDATION POLLUTION / DILUTION / SUPPRESSION: The core of the third problem is how to maintain “orthodoxy” in the midst of pluralism-- to borrow from Brook’s language. In this case, I might worry that my worldview will be polluted, diluted, or suppressed by dancing amidst competing perspectives. Sure your view of relationships is shaped by specific sacred texts, but might there a little HBO mixed in there as well?  Worries about “losing the culture war” seem to rest squarely within problem 3. 

PROBLEM 4: FUTURE CONCLUSIONS LOST: Finally, to the extent that unique perspectives on future problems only emerge out of specific worldviews, the third worry is that in losing a distinct tradition we might negate creative responses to future issues. In other words, maybe we need a distinctly Christian, Muslim, Neoliberal, or Secular Humanist response to the singularity. Something might be lost if we don’t have these views weigh in on AI, the driverless car, and healthcare reform. If these views are polluted, then their response might be as well.

Looking over this landscape, there are a number of reasons why I stand more with Brooks than Dreher, aligned more fully with Wolterstorff than Rorty. On the first point, I don’t think a particular community has to hold the sole intellectual foundation for a specific policy for it to be justified. I am a pragmatist in this way. If we start on different paths but end up together, we should be able to celebrate. Specific to the second worry that our traditions will fragment into multiple conclusions, I think this inevitable divergence should give us pause about what we can know with certainty regarding metaphysics. This is not a move into nihilism, but rather a call to engage with big issues with loosened grips on our perspective and an openness to dialogue. And as for the third point, while I can see why we might fear the dilution of our traditions, I would rather aim for MLK cross-pollination than be set apart without an ability to dialogue.

Just the other week, Andrew Sullivan wrote an astute piece at New York Magazine assessing the reaction of Middlebury students to Charles Murray’s impending visit. As Sullivan’s work highlights, it is not only religions that struggle with this kind of open conversation. Speaking of growing intolerance within the academic “intersectionality” movement, Sullivan writes:

It is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a “smelly little orthodoxy,” and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., “check your privilege,” and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required.

...

It operates as a religion in one other critical dimension: If you happen to see the world in a different way, if you’re a liberal or libertarian or even, gasp, a conservative, if you believe that a university is a place where any idea, however loathsome, can be debated and refuted, you are not just wrong, you are immoral. If you think that arguments and ideas can have a life independent of “white supremacy,” you are complicit in evil. And you are not just complicit, your heresy is a direct threat to others, and therefore needs to be extinguished. You can’t reason with heresy. You have to ban it. It will contaminate others’ souls, and wound them irreparably.

So we are left with a dilemma. We need our unique perspectives, but we also benefit when they are in real dialogue with others. In contrast to Rorty’s view, I believe our traditions can give us unique insights into reality that might creatively color (versus color-over) what we are able to see. Like a language system whose particular words and grammatical structures enable us to pick up on the unique features of the world around us, so too worldviews enable us to see things that are missed with views that start with different aims. Here is Wolterstorff again, on this very point:

Yes indeed, religion is sometimes a menace to the freedoms of a liberal society. But the full story of how we won the freedoms we presently enjoy would give prominent place to the role of religion in the struggle; the good that religion does is not confined to providing, in Rorty's words, comfort "to those in need or in despair." Has the prominent role of religion in the American civil rights movements already been forgotten? Has its prominent role in the revolutions in South Africa, Poland, Romania, and East Germany already passed into amnesia? Then too, a full and fair narrative would have to give prominent attention to the great murderous secularisms of the twentieth century: Nazism, Communism, nationalism. The truth is that pretty much anything that human beings care deeply about can be a menace to freedom - including, ironically, caring deeply about freedom.

This is not to suggest that these views would not have come about otherwise. It is, however, to highlight that the starting points for these policies and perspectives came from particular worldviews. In this way, I think “intersectionality” should exist just as much as Judaism, Liberal Protestantism, Conservative Evangelicalism, and the American Sublime. But I will hold much stronger to that perspective is I think the views that come out of such starting points are both creative and open to dialogue. You can’t reason with heresy, Sullivan reminds us. Going back to Dreher, I wonder if in being set apart, the list of what counts as heretical grow longer and longer?

And still, I can’t shake my fear of the diminished quality from a world set apart. How close is the Benedict Option to John Jeremiah Sullivan’s experience at the CrossOver Festival? Here, Smith puts it well:

When Dreher encourages "bold" and "entrepreneurial" responses to these realities, the examples sound like a replay of subcultural production—little cottage industries that function as what James Davison Hunter has described as "parallel institutions"—coupled with the tribal admonishment to "buy Christian" (which is why in the United States you see little icthuses on business listings in the Yellow Pages—well, when we used to have Yellow Pages!). Dreher seems to think these are suggestions that are fresh and forward-looking, but a lot of us have already seen this movie. And we know how it ends.

Set apart to create a unique music footprint, an industry creates Christianrock. This should give us all pause.

Maybe in serving only the needs of a particular segment we end up with buttoned-up conclusions, a shift away from dialogue, and a resulting diminishment of quality. Christianrock does not need to be quality, Sullivan argues, in large part because that is not the primary thing the audience is looking for. They are looking for safe. They are looking for good enough. Sullivan concludes with the dagger: “So it's possible—and indeed seems likely—that Christian rock is a musical genre, the only one I can think of, that has excellence proofed itself.”

While we need unique communities and particular traditions to see the world with fresh eyes, we need to be equally concerned about the quality of their vision. We need to pay attention to patterns that make us excellent-proof. If the Benedict Option moves a specific tradition in the direction of a creative and helpful distinctiveness, then it should be celebrated. If it doesn’t, it runs the risk of preaching to a choir that is less and less engaged with any other comparative voice. In the end, I am less optimistic than Dreher that the positive vision will come to be.  For that reason, keep me in the Orthodox Pluralist camp. Let me build “friendship with complexity,” and learn to deal with the risk.