Another EXTREMELY EXTREMELY long review, this time with multiple embeds and links! Sorry about that. But this time, I'm going to remember to use an entry cut, so that when things start getting long and detailed, you can run away! run away! (Unless you're doing this via RSS, in which case, again, sorry about that.)


So this is something I've vaguely meant to do since last year, as will become obvious almost immediately. That said, it turns out that doing it now has a certain point, as will also become obvious.


The question starting today's entry isn't entirely rhetorical. It's pretty much the question that's the core of The Wizard of Oz, if you think about it, and the question more explicitly at the core of Straight Outta Oz, the version that Todrick Hall created. Straight Outta Oz is essentially a musical retelling of his early life and his first and possibly his second trip through the Hollyweird meat grinder. (His current career is his third, I think. As far as I can tell, one phase ends before he was really able to gain any traction; the second phase ends when his MTV show was unexpectedly and unceremoniously dropped by the network. Which, when you consider that he's only about 30, is a lot to have done already.)

Unfortunately, he's taken down the original version of Straight Outta Oz, put up back in 2016. Unfortunate, both for comparison's sake and because it hangs together as a coherent whole slightly better than the current version. Mind, that isn't to say that the original structure didn't have problems, which I'll get to -- and which remain, in fact -- but that the integration of the retrofits doesn't feel entirely seamless. How much of that is due to the fact that I know what it looked like before, I'm not sure.

Excessively Detailed Musicals Wonk stuff begins ... HERE! )

Very vaguely apropos of today's entry (VERY Vaguely.), you might consider this earlier entry. You don't need to listen to anything in it -- although I will note that as part of cleaning it up and updating links after the entry's transition to Dreamwidth (embeds fared very badly indeed), I found an extra item I hadn't run across before. The new item isn't relevant to today's entry, but it may be amusing.
..."So what DID you do during that long downtime between the end of RuPaul's Drag Race and the actual coronation of the winner, Bob The Drag Queen?"

(The last one in the sequence below is ... um ... it's ... well. Yes. Very. THAT. It may not be possible to humanly describe the sheer level of WTF? going on in that video. Apart from that, it's possible that particular song was actually recorded after the finale, given lyrics.)

I will just note that, if I do it again this/next year, the first one will probably figure, in a different form, in a Twelve Nights entry. It's also rather ... unexpectedly pointed. Also NSFW for lyric. Just the one. Repeated a lot.








Just because I have been in the mood for seriously radio-friendly stuff sung by women, in which they tell off men in their lives. Just because. Only a couple here at the moment, but there may be more later. Also, there's comments after each one.





Weird thing about this one. Every time I heard it -- every single time -- at the end, I'd think, "But ... what if she IS your mama? Your real mama? What happens then?"

Turns out there's an answer to that question. And it is AWESOME. (...OK, to be fair, it's the answer to an entirely different question. Still awesome, though.)

(I will admit, the thought occurred to me because MY actual mama made sure that I knew how to do laundry and cook and clean and all that domestic stuff and then -- with the exception of most, but not all, meals, stopped doing it all for me when I was fourteen. Her rationale was that she did not want me being a burden on anyone that I was in a relationship with, and she didn't want me doing what my uncle did, which was to get serially involved with various women to do stuff for him because he didn't know how, and panicked. If I didn't do laundry, I didn't have clothes. If I didn't cook on my designated days, nobody ate.)


This next one is just a lyric video, just because it's the only version with the full song (provided by the production company, as it were).



I do, in fact, highly recommend taking a look at the scene as it was staged on the show, because it's also kind of awesome. The setup, as I understand it, is that the main character and her sister felt cornered into going out on a date with these two obnoxious guys (you'll know which ones, trust me, even though they don't say a word), so they took them to a teen-friendly karaoke place and Let Them Have It. In Public.


The song below is far far far FAR too short (only 50 seconds) and contains very UnWorkSafe language. F-bombs are dropped about five words in, and then they fly fast and furious.



I want a WHOLE SONG OF THIS SO BAD! Like, at least another three minutes worth, and maybe more.

It's worth noting that Brandy's latest release is also (a) awesome, and (b) mostly as far in the opposite direction from the above, attitudinally, as it's possible to get and still stay on the same planet. Also, she has clearly drunk of the Fountain of Youth, or else has her own version of Dorian Gray's portrait.



Honestly, nothing to say about that one. I just like it.




Ditto. Although I wish there was a less dance-oriented version, oddly enough.
Tags:
iainpj: (bald angel)
( Jul. 10th, 2014 02:35 am)
Let's just have a quick skip along the musical trail, shall we? Let's shall.

I just found out today that something I'd thought of as original (or originalish, anyway) was a cover of a cover of a cover. Followed almost immediately by a later cover in a different language, even. In fact, there seem to be three different languages involved somewhere along the way.

All of the songs appear to be musical versions of a poem by Andres Eloy Blanco, as noted by Spanish Wikipedia. Eloy Blanco does actually have a lyricist credit on most versions of the song.

This was the version that I heard first, and which I love with a love that is true. (NOTE. Audio only. Six minutes long, or in between 2 and 3 times the length of most other versions. I dearly love Roberta Flack, but she can be a tad ... long winded. That said, it's worth noting that Cat Power has a cover inspired by specifically this arrangement that runs anywhere from 4-10 minutes, depending on recording and performance.)



However, this appears to have merely been the then-most recent version in its original (...I think) language. It had been taken for use as a civil rights protest song of an unusual sort. This version came off Roberta Flack's first album, "First Take", recorded 1969.

In 1970, the following performance was recorded, in English ... on German TV. As one does. Or as Eartha Kitt did, given that she was coming to the end of her persona non grata period in the US.



The civil rights protest aspect is ... rather clearer in English, and with Eartha Kitt's particular performance of it.

Both of those follow, almost directly, a 1968 version of the song recorded by a singer named Robertha, about whom I can't find much, except that she seems to be the daughter of a popular Peruvian artist.



Prior to that was a 1952 version of the song in French, "Les Anges Noirs" by Vicky Down. It is very very ... 1952. Very.



And then we loop back to 1948, and a Mexican (I think) musical starring Pedro Infante. In which the song, as staged, appears to be ... a lullaby? Really? How ... cheery. (Also, I have a horrible feeling the little girl is in brownface. Which is an interesting thing for a song that gets appropriated as a civil rights song further north.)



It appears to be the title song for this film, I think.

There are other versions, of course. It appears to have been a very popular song in generation cycles -- strong in late 40s and 50s, effectively disappeared for nearly 20 years, popular again in the late 1960s and early 70s.

And now, to end on an entirely unrelated but cheerier note:



I can't understand two thirds of what she's singing (kind of sad, that), but I'm pretty sure that I might not be expecting the candy she would be supplying.
Tags:
Because the day needs a little modern day old school funkishness. So to speak.



I have to admit, I never thought I'd like Lambert as a performer. I mean, he was fine on American Idol (and he continues its recent rich tradition of having people besides the actual winner of their year having much more highly visible careers), but I didn't think he'd work for me. But he really really does, most of the time.

Also, allowing for the conceptual weirdness that this is a recording of a live show, the "live" version of this song is MUCH better than the album version, which is also pretty good. He sounds better when he's a bit less "produced", for lack of a better word. (And when the live show is professionally recorded.)
Tags:
So I got this email from a vendor that I have done business with, advertising a huge font package for a low price, and I open the email and take a look because I am a typeface junkie. (NOTE: junkie, not nerd. This means that I don't actually know all the history or proper and improper usages and all that stuff that the typeface nerds know -- which, honestly, I find kind of fascinating from time to time. "Junkie" means that I have admitted that I am powerless in the Face of Fonts, but having admitted my powerlessness, I now am occasionally able to resist. Also, once you get beyond a certain point, it slows your system so much and so massively inflates the RAM it uses that it's just not worth it. But I digress.)

Anyway, I'm looking through the list of fonts, and one of them is ... Falkencrest. And I am immediately taken back to an earlier day and time. A simpler time. A time when evening soaps ruled the televisual landscape. A time when people actually watched television on Fridays, and you could get a top ten rated show anchoring your Friday lineup. A time of over-the-top excess, bitchiness triumphant, and shoulder pads that could decapitate a roomful of people. A time when a two-minute long (or longer, in some cases) credit sequence was not at all unusual, and wind instruments ruled the credits auditory landscape.



(And, in case you were wondering, "Falkencrest" the font kinda sorta vaguely looks like it might have been in the same family with the type used in the "Falcon Crest" credits, but then they decided that they weren't speaking any more and went their own separate ways. You can see it in the second section of fonts, under "PLUS, 25 new font families added..." on this page)

I didn't even know I remembered this show at all, let alone the credits, until that weird earworm got triggered.

Interesting to see how people cycle in and out of prominence, if that's the right word. I mean, Jane Wyman has every reason not to be working these days, what with having been dead for a few years. Everyone else in that cast is still around, I think, and still relatively hale and hearty, but I haven't heard of most of them in years. Susan Sullivan is playing Nathan Fillion's mother on "Castle" (I still can't quite wrap my mind around the concept that she's old enough for that -- then again, according to IMDB, she's easily old enough to be MY mother, so she looks very good for her age). Lorenzo Lamas is doing ... stuff. (Seriously, I have no idea what most of the things on his IMDB page are, with the exception of the voice of Meap on "Phineas and Ferb". This also means that he spends about two thirds of his time on that show saying "Meap!" in a very high pitched voice that I wouldn't think he could manage without someone doing something very unkind to his nethers.) William (formerly "Billy") Moses has been doing a lot of one-off guest shots, and a few longer term things here and there. David Selby has also done a lot of one-offs and guest shots since Falcon Crest. Jamie Rose, the same, apart from a brief one-season stint on "In2ition" (series canceled after 9 episodes). And so on.

When I went to IMDB to check out the cast and see who's doing what now, this popped up, fresh out of the TV news today:

'Falcon Crest' reboot in the works, according to former stars

As bob is my witless, I swear that I had no idea about that before today, until after I started this entry.

I must admit, I'm kind of astonished. First, Falcon Crest was generally fourth among equals, shall we say. Dynasty and Dallas duked it out for the top (sometimes with actual duking and actual dukage), the Dallas spinoff "Knots Landing" generally seemed to be third, and then Falcon Crest was fourth. Mind, still a top-ten or top-fifteen rated show kind of fourth, but still fourth. And it never had the sort of over-the-top characters that grabbed the imagination or attention like Joan Collins' Alexis Carrington from Dynasty or Larry Hagman's JR from Dallas. Jane Wyman's Angela was properly conniving and somewhat self-serving, true, but she really did generally tend to do things she thought were for the good of her family, as opposed to herself. They just happened to be sort of ... incidentally evil, maybe? Not necessarily done with malice aforethought -- although if malice came into it, that was a nice little lagniappe.

Susan Sullivan says that if her character is involved, it would be as a ghost in the minds of others, since her character was killed off during the series. The problem with that, one would think, is that she's now 30 years older. People who are ghosts in your mind don't age; they stay as they were when you last saw them, for better or worse. So I'm by way of thinking that unless they get archive footage and stick new soundtracks on it, her participation might be deeply problematic.

It is truly weird that these quintessential 80s soaps are experiencing a revival these days. At the time, they were all about the celebration (and occasional bringing-down) of wretched excess -- with roughly equal emphasis on both the "wretched" and the "excess". Most of the people had tons of money, but weren't at all happy. And the people without money were usually involved in revenge schemes against the wealthy people they thought had kept them from being wealthy. Nobody got to be happy for more than an episode or two. And now we're in the lingering aftermath of the Great Recession (and toying with a Greater Recession, thanks to politics), and ... well, it seems like the sort of thing that would go over like a lead balloon. Particularly tone-deaf, in a way. And yet, the revival of "Dallas" seems to be popular.

Strange. Really, very strange.
Was looking for something else, and ran across the second one, so here 'tis. Just because.


1984




2012




Time has mostly been pretty kind to her, although she clearly has less voice than she used to, but that's pretty much to be expected. As far as I know, she remains the only person ever to be seen singing the title song in a Bond film credits.

For bonus ... something:



Yeah, so .... both of those songs read very oddly without Prince/His Royal Dingbattitude, and they read VERY oddly when you realize that she's singing about her sugar walls to an audience composed primarily of gay men.
Tags:
Again, mostly for Col, though others will hopefully enjoy.



I'm not entirely sure the world is ready for a completely unVictoryRolled Janelle Monae.

I'm getting really curious about what The Electric Lady is going to be. Both releases so far have seemed very tied to the Archandroid concept, but at the same time, as songs, they seem to stand alone possibly a bit better than anything from "The Archandroid" or "Metropolis: The Chase Suite" did.

I'm also curious as to what sort of package it's going to be. The expanded version of "The Archandroid" included not only music, but music videos, behind the scenes videos, interviews, and PDF liner notes. It was also something like 500MB at a point in time where Comcast was enforcing a 2TB limit, and download speeds were much slower -- and you couldn't find out anywhere on iTunes exactly what was in the download or how big it was. Very vexing, that was, although ultimately worth it.

Allegedly, The Electric Lady drops on September 10. I say "allegedly" because release dates are notoriously flexible, and in my admittedly limited experience, items dropping on their original release dates are far more infrequent than items dropping weeks or months later. (The aptly titled next Anita Baker album, "Only Forever", has, to date, slid epochally from March 2012 to ... possibly August. Or maybe October. I don't know. Neither does anyone else.)

And, yes, in theory, there will be updates of slightly more substance in the vaguely near future. In theory. Slightly.
Tags:
Mostly for Columbina, although others might/hopefully will enjoy. (Someone should poke him to get him to look this way.)



Reportedly, this is the first single off her follow-up album, The Electric Lady, which is supposed to complete her Archandroid/Metropolis concept. It doesn't have a release date yet. It's going to be interesting to see how this song fits into the concept. I mean, yes, there are some really obvious hooks, but how does Baduism fit in? (Also, Ms. Monae's Victory roll is looking considerably less victorious these days -- in fact, at moments during the video, she looks positively Supreme.) (... Nope. Not apologizing for that one.)

Just be warned that I'll be having periodic Veruca Salt fits for the next six months or so. (No, no, not the band. THIS Veruca Salt. Preferably with less falling through chutes.)
Tags:
Also, aten't ded yet.



(I have actually told more than one person that they have splinters in the windmills of their mind. Sadly, few of them are old enough to catch the source reference -- not this skit, but where the line came from. However, they usually manage to figure out what I mean.)




So, OK. "Maybe" by the Three Degrees is probably my favorite song of theirs ever. It's a sound that most poeple don't associate with them, because they were much more broadly popular in the later stages of the group's career, which was all about the (really pretty good) disco. "Maybe" is pretty much straight up old-school soul, released probably just a bit late for the sound to still work commercially. Not only is it musically pretty spectacular, but the prologue is one of those things you just don't hear any more. And didn't hear much then, either.

So anyways, I was feeling in the mood to have a listen, and what with not being anywhere near my music collection, I had a search on Youtube. And I came across what you may see below. And, apart from the actual song, which is AWESOME, there is the video. Which is also AWESOME, if perhaps in an an entirely different way than that term is usually meant. (The bit at the beginning of the song proper, when they recreate one of their traditional album cover poses, is particularly AWESOME.) I mean, I love me some Three Degrees, but they clearly had not quite gotten the hang of the whole "lip sync so it looks like there's at least a reasonable possibility that you might sometime have actually considered really singing that song on camera" thing. And then there's the drama of the prologue. OH THE DRAMA.

Anyway. For your edification and enjoyment. (And, hey, if the video is too distractingly AWESOME and cheesetastic, you can always minimize the browser and listen to the genuinely AWESOME song. Which is AWESOME. I mentioned that, right? Just checking.)



And, just for the hell of it, one of their late disco era songs, which is also AWESOME, with video from a Dutch (I think) show, in which I believe they are Actually Singing -- the song recordings don't quite sound like that, apart from the backing tracks. It's weirdly short, as well -- recordings vary from what seems to be the original length of about four minutes to the epick remix length of 12-15 minutes -- and then segues into people dancing to "That's the way I like it". I think this was that country's version of American Bandstand, more or less. (Weirdly, almost every version of this I'm running across is a performance video, and they all start with the Three Degrees essentially doing a Catwoman move. Very odd.)

Tags:
Just having the annual Jim Steinman/Streets of Fire/80s Power Pop fit. This too shall pass. But not before being shared!



I did not know the above song existed before last week. (Thanks, AfterElton, for kicking off the current nostalgia fit!) However, as soon as I heard it, I knew it was a Steinman song. Nothing else sounds like him. (I cannot imagine any circumstance in which that song was a remotely appropriate fit for the period piece "The Shadow", but then, credits songs frequently have nothing to do with the movie to which they're attached.)





It's worth noting that Fire Inc -- the nominal group responsible for the above two recordings -- had two different women singing lead, Holly Sherwood and Laurie Sergeant. I'm pretty sure that each one of them had one of the "Eileen Aim and the Attackers" songs, because those really do sound like they're sung by two entirely different women.

Weird casting notes: Diane Lane's part was originally written for someone nearly twice her age -- or, in other words, someone slightly younger than she is NOW, which would have made the throughline of that film even weirder than it was -- and Amy Madigan's part was originally meant for a "grizzled war vet type", both male and older. Oddly enough, reportedly, they didn't do much rewriting for her character.

Weird musical note: both "Tonight is what it means to be young" and "Total eclipse of the heart" (not linked here, find your own 80s power pop!) were rewritten for Steinman's musical bomb Dance of the Vampires. Which explains one hell of a lot about the latter song, actually, if he had that in the back of his head when he was writing it. (Well ... "rewritten" -- "Total Eclipse" retained its title and most of its lyrics, although it became a duet [which makes a bit more musical sense, actually], and "Tonight is what it means to be young" became "Dance of the Vampires", which ... didn't really help that song. Not at any level. Seriously, just start playing the video, put it in the background, and follow along with the lyrics. There are some places where, clearly, the tune structure changed a bit, because there are words that don't match up with the song structurally. But still, I can't quite imagine that song in context. In ANY context. Though I do love the lyric change from "If I can't get an angel, I can still get a boy, and a boy would be the next-best thing" to "If I can't get a vampire, I can still get a boy...")

EDIT:: Someone out there has put the revised version on Youtube! It's very ... um ... yes. Very. (Seriously, who knew you could make a Steinman song worse by taking the bombast out?)



So, that was ... that. Yes. It was.



The only commercially successful song from the film. Oddly enough, NOT the version briefly heard in the film; that one has never gotten a commercial release.



I love this song in an entirely unironic way. Mostly because when it first came out, I was actually young enough to BE The Young. So to speak.

And now, for your Moment of Modernity:



One of the things I also love about songs about being young, in perhaps a slightly ironic way, is that essentially they're all "We are young and we are stupid because this is the time for being young and stupid so let us be young and stupid."

What I love about this version of the song, in particular, has nothing to do with the song per se. It's that they hired Janelle Monae to, as far as can be told, sing exactly four lines. Or the same line four times, depending on how you look at it. Except when you watch the video, you realize that they weren't so much interested in her singing, but in having her physical presence in the video. In the past three or four years, she's created such a visually distinct persona that it was worth putting her in just to Be Janelle Monae, an oasis of stylish calm in the midst of all that Gallagher-inspired chaos. That's weirdly impressive.

That said, the acoustic version of the song makes it a bit more clear why she got a "featuring" credit (and frankly, I like it a whole lot more -- although, oddly enough, it comes across as a much more melancholy song this way):

Tags:
iainpj: (Default)
( Feb. 23rd, 2012 12:56 pm)
All I can say is, I believe that someone somewhere either misunderstood or is possibly misrepresenting exactly what men are supposed to display to achieve large numbers of beads. Lifting your shirt would not do it, is all I'm saying. No matter how spectacular the man's nipplage would be in 30-degree weather.

No comment. Whatsoever. No. None.

From what I remember from babysitting my cousins at this age, the answer is 7,864. If you're lucky.

I really don't understand why someone would subject themselves to that twice. But then, I didn't understand why anyone would do that the first time, either.

On the one hand, this looks absolutely fascinating, in a kind of horrifying way. On the other hand, really really REALLY don't want to read more of it.

And now, for random moments of utter confusion:

- of all the things to make theatrical releases of, this seems like a strikingly terrible idea. Even as a period piece. Even with Downey attached. Not that it will be a bad film, just a bad idea. (I'm guessing Downey is pursuing it as a possible change of pace. All that action/adventuring is hard on the middle-aged bod, you know?)

- And now for something completely different and unrelated, and fairly annoying withall:



To somewhat misquote another person: it's very difficult to carry off that "'Rocky Horror' Meets 'Cabaret' Meets 'All My Children' Meets 'Swing Kids/International Sweethearts of Rhythm' Meets 'Twin Peaks'" vibe. (The visual references in this are really bizarrely specific. And utterly meaningless to anyone under, say 35 or so.)

And honestly, my impressions were more or less: (1) they need to get rid of that electronic stuff and replace it with real instruments, because the only times listening to this isn't actively annoying are when the real instruments are playing or the electronic stuff is very muted, and, (2) why isn't Gloria Estefan actually singing in this? I mean, granted, the song is structured with a really limited melodic range, and clearly on purpose. But she really can sing, and to stick her in this songspiel thing just comes off as strange. The only time she gets to really sing is during what would be the bridge sections, if this song had a chorus or key change, which it doesn't really. (A chorus that consists entirely of "It's time for hoochie-koochie" absolutely does NOT count.)
So originally, I was just going to do a really small link to the audio, and say "Just push play".

That was before I saw what is apparently the "Official music video." And if it isn't really the official music video, it should be. Either that, or someone should be put into rehab, because they have apparently taken all the drugs. ALL OF THEM.

I just ... I can't ... I have no more words. Just push play, OK?



...Oh my lord, he did "Spirit in the Sky", too?

...Yes. Yes, he did. And sounds both pissed off and drunk, frankly. Again, just push play.

Tags:

Media Relations: Audiovox: nighttime and memory: January 2, 2012
Memory is a really weird thing sometimes, especially for stuff that's of no lasting importance....


Until I finally get the site redesigned and whatnot -- more about that later -- I'll still throw the occasional entry at the different weblogs. Eventually, I'll get it all sorted out and get them restarted. I hope. I think.

Questions? Comments? Ice-cream colored suits?
Just because I'm in the mood. Still, sadly, not ending with, "And that is how the rise of Madonna is connected to the demise of the rocket industry in the United States," but one makes do.

First we have this. You can skip to about the 2:30 mark and then play for 30 seconds for the relevant segment if you're not into opera. (I will admit, I find the staging in this segment fascinating. In the only production of Aida I've ever seen, the segment with the priests is done almost entirely in camera, with Amneris having musical fits outside the chamber, and you don't see the priests or Radames, but you hear the trial. Then Radames gets condemned, dragged out of the chamber, and the priests come out and she has musical fits at them.)

Anyway, we start with this:



Which leads to this.



(For anyone interested, turns out that this is only the beginning of a full instrumental piece: "A Beautiful Mine" by RJD2. I find it more than a bit overlong, myself, but YMMV. It was originally constructed as the backing track for a rap, which is why it sounds so weird on its own.)

And then there's this:



And finally, this:



And there's always a more recent version, if you're not a song traditionalist. I think that may well be the most overproduced version of the song I've ever heard. Or this, if you're not into grand orchestral versions.

(Properly speaking, that pathway should either have ended after the third video -- forward, always forward -- or somehow been circular, but damned if I could figure out any way to relate "Nature Boy" to Aida.)

And, just to end on an entirely unrelated note:

Tags:
OK, so first off, I should note that I do, in fact, own "The Lady Killer", and really like it. But I don't link this video because of the song, particularly, although I do like it. Mostly I link it because of the look on that poor woman's face when a music video breaks out all around her in the middle of her getting dumped. I think that qualifies as a very bad and very weird day, wouldn't you? Plus, hey, whoda thunk that Urkel would turn out like that?



The one below I put in just for the hell of it. After all, you don't expect heavy metal to refer to the size and weight of the instruments, now do you? Especially when they're not metal.




The video below ... takes a bit of explanation. Oh, and IT IS NOT WORKSAFE! NOT EVEN A LITTLE! I mean, OK, the video is fine, but the lyrics MOST DEFINITELY ARE NOT!



OK, so here's the thing: for those of us of a certain age, we know the song that's being sent up here.



(There may be a more detailed presentation of the oeuvre and style of Ms. Vine at a later date.)

The confusing thing is that it's also clear that Ms. Vine is sending up a particular video, and whatever it is, it's really really not a Cher video of any era. She was never quite that ... restrained. Turns out that it's a performance of the cover that Nancy Sinatra did that was later used in "Kill Bill"



Who knew it was possible to make that song even MORE depressing?

Oh, and when I say that Cher was never into restraint? Still not.



And, for a more direct comparison of Cher past and present, there's always this:



You'd think, in this more politically-correct age, that if she was performing a more recent version of her greatest hits, she'd perhaps lose some of the more ... controversial trappings, right?

Yeah, not so much, it turns out.



And, for comparison, there's brief clip of the 90s version of the number, which manages to actually be somewhat more demented without Cher in the headdress.
Tags:
OK, before you do anything else, YOU MUST WATCH THIS! (I would embed, but embedding isn't allowed for this.) Watch it for two things: the entrance about 50 seconds or so in, and the part where she gets flung across the stage near the end and how she lands. And remember: this is a drag queen, so certain anatomical considerations ought to apply.

Most terrifying nurse EVER. And that includes Nurse Ratchett.

It's not that I don't understand the whole self-defenestration thing, under the circumstances. I just don't get why Andy isn't wearing any pants.

"Um ... Oh", indeed.

Interesting viewpoint.

Apart from the whole devil issue, men watching "My Little Pony" is actually a ... a thing. They call themselves "bronies." You don't have to just take my word for it, neither; we got yer audio proof right'cheer!
The Histories of Bucky and Jason Todd Explained [Comic] ... honestly, I can't argue with that conclusion. Though it is arguable whether 'tis better to be a brainwashed assassin responsible for the deaths of many who gets shocked back to sanity and then knows what he's done and has to deal, or a seriously cheesed off "anti-hero" responsible for the deaths of hundreds who knows exactly what he's doing at all points and does it anyway. (...OK, more than a hundred, anyway; Jason Todd just killed over a hundred admittedly very nasty criminals in Blackgate Prison a couple issues ago in "Batman and Robin". Granted that nobody not related to them will mourn them, this is still putting Jason into the company of the Joker and Firefly, in terms of being a really prolific mass murderer in the DCU. And for his sins, he gets to head up a new comic!)

"There is a reason that so many horrible things happen in Gotham". (Not a comic.) And let me just say: SQUEEEEEEE! Not just because this title is finally appearing, not just because both Williams and Amy Reeder Hadley make some seriously gorgeous art (I miss her Madame Xanadu), but because they're using a version of La Llorona for the first story arc! You probably have to have been brought up in Mexico or the Southwest US to really get it, but ... well, I was. So, you know. SQUEEEEE!

"Obama's Evolving Position". The first of this week's strips on the topic. Evolution proceeds impressively.

Another on the same topic, only with fewer reptiles.

(In all fairness, there's also this:
Justice Department strongly backs gays on marriage (San Francisco Chronicle, sfgate.com)
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, July 7, 2011

The latest San Francisco court filing on same-sex marriage reads like a gay rights manifesto: It rejects tradition, morals and procreation as justifications for marriage restrictions and concludes that a federal ban on spousal benefits was unconstitutionally based on "animus" - dislike, rooted in prejudice - toward gays and lesbians.

The brief comes not from Lambda Legal or the American Civil Liberties Union but the Obama administration's Justice Department - which, like the president himself, may be tiptoeing toward a wholehearted endorsement of same-sex marriage rights. [...]

-- The law "was motivated in substantial part by animus toward gays and lesbians and their intimate relationship," and rested on "stereotype-based thinking" that offends the constitutional guarantee of equality, the Justice Department wrote.
-- Even sincere moral or religious disapproval of homosexuality "is not a legitimate policy objective" or basis for a law.
-- Laws that penalize or prohibit same-sex marriage do not encourage heterosexual marriage, procreation or responsible child-rearing, but instead deny children of same-sex couples "the benefits of the stable home life produced by legally recognized marriage."
-- Proposition 8, the 2008 California initiative banning same-sex marriage, was an example of a "political backlash" demonstrating the relative powerlessness of gays and lesbians - a critical factor in judicial review of all such laws. [...]


I would not, myself, argue that our president is tiptoeing toward any endorsement of same-sex marriage rights. In fact, I would argue that he's tying himself into rhetorical knots to avoid doing any such thing, while also trying to avoid alienating gay and lesbian voters. At the same time, it looks like his administration, between trying to get rid of DADT and its newly articulated position on DOMA, is advancing a surprisingly coherent view of civil rights. Having his personal position appear to be so very different from his administration's position seems very strange sometimes, even allowing that he's doing this because he has to govern people who think very differently about the issue. But I digress. Back to comics!

You can sort of understand why she might think that way. What with all the ducking out on dates and everything.

Yes. Yes, it IS.

That would be probably the most unusual description of Austin, TX, I've ever seen.

Strangely enough, some days, web development works exactly like this.

Well ... you can't argue with the endpoint, some days.

"The Prince and the Sea: a romance." And a fairy tale in the folktale mold. Which means that things will not be quite what you expect.

What. The. HELL! is he thinking!? (Yes, there are two strips after this one, and SHE does the right thing, but I honestly can't understand why he would think that was even necessary.)

And in conclusion, just because of today's title:

But thanks to a certain someone (and You Know Who You Are) (No, not the usual person, someone else), I've had this going through my head all freakin' day. No, it's not the same phrase, but it's the same sentiment, believe me.



In fact, let's see if maybe we can run with a theme here. Granted, perhaps a theme sort of north by northwest, but a theme anyway...

The below are audio only. The first one may make people want to dab a touch of gravy or possibly chocolate behind the ears; the second may make you want to visit the dentist;






I include the one below (audio only again, and audio is very very Not Work Safe) purely as an experiment. Because, frankly, cute as he may be, if someone said to me what he says in the way that he says it, my reaction 99 times out of 100 would be to say, "Um. No. No, you're not," and walk away. (The 100th time, one might be in the mood described in the first video, and he wouldn't get past the first line, so one wouldn't have to laugh in his face because he'd be ... you know, busy.) I mean, it's clear from context that this is someone he's either just met or barely knows, and he says that! Who does that? And does that approach work for anyone? (...well, OK, it probably would work for him, at least every once in a while, but that's because he's famous, charming and cute and has groupies. For your average man, probably not so much.) And I'm just wondering if that would be anyone else's reaction.



I wonder if the song below might be interpreted in a ... somewhat different way today than it was back when it was first released. For that matter, I wonder what on earth they thought he was singing about back then. And what the Dixie cup has to do with anything. (And after 24 hours of that -- whatever it was, making no assumptions -- I should think you'd know what he means!)



And now to end on a slightly lighter, sportier but still lusty note. Sadly, I couldn't find video or streaming audio for the censored version of the song below. Believe me, WAY funnier when you've got a line like "We [BEEP] and [BEEP] and [BEEP] and [BEEP] and then we [BEEP] a lot of [BEEP]" and yet it's still perfectly obvious what each and every [BEEP] says. But it'll do. Oh, and as the [BEEP] might suggest, NOT SAFE FOR WORK, CHILDREN, TENNIS BALLS OR PEOPLES OF DELICATE SENSIBILITIES! NOT EVEN A LITTLE! (NOTE: you can get a properly censored "clean version" at the band's website. Worth it, really.)

Tags:
.

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags