[Miscellany]

It wasn't until the early 90s and the British Indie scene was starting to penetrate the smokey, strung out back rooms of mainstream nightclubs in Melbourne that people really noticed them. I wouldn't know, I wasn't in clubs then, I was sitting somewhere in the middle of a classroom listening to my headphones discretely under my school jumper, snaked up through the neck and under my hair. But somewhere in between deciding whether I could get away with wearing a bit of lippy to school and buying shitty op shop clothes with my hard earned pay packet I discovered Pulp. I admit, at first I was in it for the Cock(er) (typical, but what a way to go) but soon enough found they held other delights - namely the music.

I think being a bit besotted with Jarvis taught me a lot about how sexual attractiveness is about what goes on inside rather than all looks. Honestly, the man went against everything I really saw as sexy in men. He was greasy, skinny, awkward, lanky and looked as though he had pneumonia half the time - so of course I wanted to have his babies (probably still would). Why? Oh, so many reasons - starting with;

That voice.
Amazingly deep, soulful and way too sexy for a white skinny guy from Sheffield.

Then I discovered he was also side splittingly hilarious, plus politically motivated and not afraid to act on it. I was sold on Jarvis - and interestingly those qualities are first and foremost what I find sexy in men.

As for Pulp, the band, they had me from the moment I first heard them. The song at the time that was creaming corduroy pants around the nation was Common People and I loved that too, but the song that really drove me wild and still does is the rather wicked Babies. I can't decide whether I want to just lay back and listen to this while staring at the clouds or whether I want to get up and dance. Both, now that I think of it.

Babies - Pulp

click for song

ps: Jay did a great MM on Pulp not too long ago - much more comprehensive than mine - check it out.

Labels: men, musical monday

posted by M at 6:20 pm 19 comments

What is it, 1 in every 3 (or was it 2) marriages end in divorce now? That's a lot of divorce lawyers who are making a mint eh? Not to mention everyone who gets paid because people are making money via change of address, change of name, change or everything forms. Lucrative.

Divorce and marriage happens to be in the headlines once again because of Ol' Greg Norman and his divorce to wife Laura. You remember Greg, right? He's that underachieving and over-hyped golfer. Laura..well, I've never heard of her before, but I'm sure she has her own story, as do we all. Anyway as the story goes, after 25 years of married life Greg filed for divorce and now they are battling it out in the courts. She wants half, he's offering a little less than 1/3. Quite frankly when we're talking about 300 million dollars then the cookies are so big that 1/3 is probably quite enough to keep someone well away from ever having to use food vouchers or buy home brand shampoo. Take it luv.

Oh, wait it turns out that old Greg couldn't keep it in his pants. Well, that's a different story. I have this theory that when infidelity is involved then nothing short of stabbing at the jugular will do. People can be reasonable up until that point and then it all goes to shit. And you know what? I may be one unpopular lady for saying this but fuck it: I reckon if you get married and then you cheat then you SHOULD be kicked where it hurts, and if that's the wallet then I totally applaud it.

But what if it's a run of the mill divorce? No cheating - just that it's over?

This is how I view marriage - you are team. Why get married if you're not going to be a team? You share a bed don't you? You share your children, don't you? You share your lives, don't you? You share in-jokes about the neighbours and take turns to walk the dog don't you? I don't see the point of getting married (and I totally INCLUDE defacto couples in marriage here) if you're not going to share. So while we're sharing so much, why is it when the marriage breaks down that all this sharing you were so willing to do beforehand goes out the window?

Yes, I think that infidelity, alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, crime etc etc make an ordinary situation extraordinary. But I'm not talking about that - just the 'we don't love each other anymore - it ain't working' divorces. Why is it so hard to share afterwards what you were so willing to share before? If you're a team you both reap the rewards and you both suffer the losses, I say.

But there are so two opinions that keep popping up about this:

Opinion 1) The husband and wife put in differently. He paid off the house while she raised the kids at home. Or she paid off the house while he raised the kids.

This is rubbish. Anyone who knows any stay at home mum/dad knows how hard it is to raise a family. As my friends are going through it now I'm seeing how crazy that kind of lifestyle is. It's the value we put on these things that count. Money talks sure, but a job doesn't count more than raising a family. I don't buy it. Besides, lucky are the few that are able to live this kind of lifestyle for longer than a year or two in this economic climate.

Also, and we're seeing something related happening right now in terms of opposition leader Kevin Rudd and his missus. Sometimes for one half of the couple to gain success the other suffers loss. Since you are a team you both take it on though. You both take on the success and you both take on the loss. The thing is, let's say that one half gives up their business for the other and years later they get a divorce. The one who gave up their business doesn't just pick up and keep going after the divorce. How can they? They GAVE UP their career for the other, it's going to take them a hell of a lot longer to get back on their feet than someone who has an established business in the pipeline that just continues on divorce or not. In the case of Greg Norman's wife - with such a rich and successful husband, what was she supposed to do exactly while her hubby was golfing it up? Get a job as a check out chick in a supermarket? I don't think so.

Bottom line: It's moot point. Both parents are working these days anyway and if not then it's been agreed mutually that one should stay home. Team decision. Team outcome - share half.

Opinion 2) She gets the kids. Why should I have to pay?

This is what I like to call the 'shit for brains' opinion. You both made the kids so until they're 18 you BOTH pay. I think sometimes it goes too far with people with more money than sense but I really don't think they are indicative of 'normal lifestyles' anyway. Keeping a wife in the lifestyle to which she is accustomed is a weird concept to me - and it conjures up images of 80 year old men who marry 18 year old women. I don't think it's real. What IS real though that you have kids and then one parent feels like they are paying too much and the other feels like the payments don't cover enough.

I actually think they're both right - really.

Kids are expensive but at the same time it's emotionally heartbreaking not to see them.

I don't know how exactly it can ever be worked out so that it's totally even, except that maybe the rules should be defined better.

If they live with both parents equally then each parent should share the cost of extras such as school fees, uniform, camps, parties, music lessons, child care etc. Stuff like clothes and food/electricity/internet connection etc should be taken care of by each parent individually because the child lives with each equally. Only payment should really be in the form of extras.

If the children live with one parent during the week and the other every other weekend. Then yes, the parent who sees them less should have to still put in for half of 5/7 days of food and electricity and that kind of stuff - the other parent puts in for half of the weekend's worth of the same. In the end much cancels out except for a few days which need to be shared in terms of money. Doing it alone during the week while you're trying to get off to work everyday and dealing with homework issues at night and the school time worries and discipline etc would be excruciatingly hard on your own compared to picking them up for a weekend and being seen as the fun parent. Then again, only seeing your kids on the weekend means forking out money to do fun stuff or dealing with having only such a short time with them and giving up your own weekends. That would be *so* hard too. I guess these situations will never be totally fair so we look to the bottom line - money. It's sad, but it's the state of things.

If children are granted full exclusive custody to one parent ... I don't really want to comment. I've only ever see this take place at the school and in cases like this it's because something really bad has happened and is messy all around. I don't know if this is always the case but I only ever hear the shit stuff. But the rule still applies. You made the kid, you pay for it - but I have to say in the cases I've seen the parent with full custody (and no it isn't always the mum! Believe me!) doesn't want anything to do with the Ex, including money.

Bottom line - it would be great if divorced parents were all still great friends and lived very close to each other so that the kids could even walk to their mum/dad's house without it being a hassle for pick up/drop off. They could REALLY share custody instead of doing it the hard way - but that's not going to happen for most people. Bottom line is..money and I really think that when it comes to money both parents should put in equally for the general raising of their children. If one divorced parent is rich then you'd think they'd actually WANT to do extra stuff for their children, but if not then I guess it always comes back to haunt them. Kids know exactly who is putting in and how much these days. They notice those things like 'why does Mum go for holidays to Vanuatu never sends me money for shoes?' They know who's being a deadbeat and losing the respect of your child is the worse price to pay IMO.

I guess my opinion is this. You get married and you're a team when you divorce you split as a team and share the wealth. If you have nothing, you share half of nothing. If you have everything you share that too. Whatever you brought to the partnership pre-marriage is not part of that deal, but everything post-wedding is.

Where do you stand on the divorce and money issue?

Labels: divorce, marriage, yes I include defactos in this

posted by M at 10:50 am 17 comments

I'm having one of those 'can't write' days. There are a few things I *could* write about but it's not quite working for me today... Feel my pain:

* I always balk a bit when I see white fabric chairs in a restaurant. There's a reason why girls like me do not wear white (um, not that reason, the OTHER reason..mess). I get a bit nervous - best they have no tablecloths either now that I think of it..or carpet. One should be able to spray and wipe down the whole establishment I feel. I don't mean to make a mess, but sometimes I do miss my mouth with my fork and get my nose instead. Sometimes I get my cheek. It's pot luck really...

* Performance anxiety in public toilets: Is it just me? ...

* One of the boys in grade 1 has a girlfriend who is in grade 2 and they are going to get married. It's been rumoured for a while but now I can offically say that yes, the kids have better social lives than I do. I have watching Big Brother in my immediate future. They have marriages and three kids...

* The film project is turning out to be bigger than Ben Hur. Where the hell do I get footage of the UN anyway? Furthermore why is it that whenever I get the group together the girls are ready to actually talk about things like humans while the boys bounce off the walls like monkeys? Is it possible to secure an electro shock device to children that can be activated from 5m away? Why hasn't anyone invented this? I want answers...

* Happy birthday Bro - here's what you have to look forward to about 27... umm...

* um...

God my life is boring.

Labels: brain fuzz, silly rabbit, writing

posted by M at 9:51 am 17 comments

Over coffee with some of the girls tonight #2 brought up her friend Em and the conundrum that ensued after being cracked onto by a lesbian at a bar the other night. #2 commented that Em didn't know what to say or how to react to the forthright way this girl was putting the moves on. Apparently it was very much like how men get when they are being too full on (girls, you know what I'm talking about).

Obviously, since Em has no interest in girls sexually the response is an easy no thanks, however Em found it hard to articulate that in a matter of fact way to this woman. It's interesting because for any girl who's ever been cracked onto by a strange man in a bar (that they're not interested in), saying no isn't exactly hard. Obviously, if you know the guy then saying no is very difficult, no one actually ever wants to hurt someone's feelings. But when it comes to strangers that are annoying you by being too full on then saying no is just something that needs to be done. Not every girl wants to lead a man on for a drink, you know. Why then was it so hard for Em to make it absolutely clear that she felt uncomfortable by this woman?

Sure, I'm not saying that a woman who doesn't want to will ever engage in something with a lesbian when she doesn't actually want to - but just that you're nicer about saying no to a lesbian than you would be when it comes to a man you don't want. Therefore I have to ask:

Is it politically incorrect for a woman to reject a lesbian in the same way that she would reject a man?

Does the same conundrum exist for straight men when being cracked onto by a gay man?

As for MM - this is an oldie but I've had it on repeat almost everywhere, in my head, in the car, in the art room ...and loud too. Is it Joy Division? Is it New Order? Am I splitting hairs by even thinking about it? Sometimes you come across a song that takes you somewhere completely different to where you are, and I guess this song has been it for me. Somewhere in between dreamy and vibrant. Somewhere I can't quite articulate except in that part of me that makes sense only to me (as usual). I'll let you decide where it sits for you on the musical spectrum...

Ceremony - New Order

Labels: blurry girl, lesbian, musical monday

posted by M at 9:58 pm 25 comments

* The papers are talking about how Kylie Minogue is constantly being snapped having lunch, having brunch, having dinner, having sex..err..not the last bit but speculation is rife - with a married guy. She affirms they are that old adage of "just friends" and furthermore she has never cheated on one of her boyfriends and feels that would be immoral. Meanwhile married guy hasn't said anything much and his heavily pregnant wife has been wondering what the fuck is going on. She eventually came out with the old gem of saying how sorry she was that Kylie is getting a bad reputation. Great comeback me thinks. She's not accusing anyone but she's making it perfectly clear that: when it comes to married men no body is quite innocent even if you are being ..innocent. Indeed, wasn't it always Kylie who was rushing to the side of her numerous boyfriends when they were having a "just friends" dinner with another woman?

Even if nothing is going on, the situation is dodgy as all fuck and yes, her rep *is* under scrutiny here and so it should be. I don't know how often two friends of the opposite sex dine alone on a yacht or dine alone anywhere but hey. Don't friends go out in public places or hang out watching DVDs or make a night of it by ensuring the other gets picked up in a noisy bar? As I said, dodgy as all fuck even if it really IS nothing. Why wasn't the wife invited? The one thing I've learned that about 90% of the time the couple goes places together. There are some friends I just don't see anymore unless they are with their partner. Dinner invite? Invite both. Wedding invite? Invite both. Movies? Invite both. Parties/birthday dinners? Invite both. There are times when the couple certainly *doesn't* do stuff together (ie: the boys weekend etc) but usually, it's a given that they are together - hell they are a couple!

If however, something IS going on then the affirmation of an innocent party in a situation like this is also suspect. Though she's single, Kylie would still be 'responsible' - I don't care what anyone says about single people not having to watch their backs. In my eyes knowingly taking part in an affair from any angle doesn't make me feel sorry should your name be raked through the mud even if you are single. You'd be bad news. If I was a future boyfriend I'd wonder if I could trust that you had any respect for relationships at all - let alone marriage.

And what of the married guy? No one seems to be talking about him at all. He's just the lucky man caught between two women I guess (according to the media anyway). Someone needs to make sure he gets a smack in the head (cue: the woman married to him).

Labels: cheating, media, men, relationships, women

posted by M at 1:00 pm 19 comments

The great thing about my job is that I get to think about and view pieces of artwork all day and it's all legit. People also approach me for my opinion about art as well. I find the later absolutely hilarious - since it was only a couple of years ago that I was in the classroom and people were asking me about reading instead. I haven't changed qualifications overnight - just the perception of me has changed. It's made me realise how titles can create an aura that has little to do with the actual person. To be fair, a lot of people talked to me about art before too - but just without illusions as to what I did and did not know.

I've been working with a lot of Australian painters with the kids this term. The upper levels with William Barak, the little ones with Charles Blackman and the middle kids with John Brack. I didn't consciously intend to do an Australian theme across levels but somehow things just ended up that way. They just seemed like the best choices to use for what I wanted to demonstrate. A few years ago I wouldn't have given Australian artists any credence but now I rate them highly. I guess I have always had a very euro-centric view of art which has been influenced partly by my upbringing but also by being an Australian, living in Australia. We tend to find validation in the outside rather than within.

Though I spend so much of my time now contemplating art, as well as teaching it - I've come to realise that I view Art primarily through my emotions and I didn't realise that not everyone does that. I've got my red hat on, so to speak. A piece is good because it has the technique, the cultural significance, the je ne sais quoi - all that and more - but my favourite paintings are the ones that make me feel something. Maybe it's a sense of sadness, or despair, or craziness, or ..something - whatever. For me, if it doesn't make me feel then it hasn't achieved it's purpose. Yes, abstract art too (so bloody ignorantly assessed as being something 'even a child can do').

So when a colleague commented favourably on John Brack's Collins St, 5pm, which I had displayed for my next lesson I was a little taken aback by her reasons for liking it - It really shows it all doesn it? The esablishment is there. She was refering of course to the stately buildings in the background. As well as this she liked how distinguished they looked in their coats, and commented that there were hardly any women. All valid of course. All true. Though I had never thought of the painting in these terms. For me it was about the drudgery of work life, the depressing nature of being part of the dehunanising machine - you get dressed, you get on the bus you go to work, you get out at 5pm with all the other plebs, go back to the bus looking a little more weary and begin the home life which may or may not also involve other aspects of drudgery - who knows? All we see is the ever imposing buildings (Bank of NSW, indeed) and flat, almost cardboard like quality of the figures, and of life itself. The painting makes me feel depressed and in some ways I can identify. It captures that sense of monotomous, monotonal life beautifully.

I was amazed my colleague didn't touch on these points, which are so important to me and important when I view any piece of artwork. I want to know about the emotion and the feeling. I look for these things and my colleague doesn't. She wouldn't even enter into a discussion about it and I realised this is why people disagree about art. I wondered about it later and realised that she views most things, not so much superficially but does concentrate a lot on the establishment and the look. I tend to see things through the way I feel. Things aren't going so well today because I'm frustrated. Or things are wonderful, I woke up happy. You might dismiss a certain kind of art (like say children's art) because it's not sophisticated, or not perfect but then maybe you view life in this way too - you might be unrelenting in other ways too. It's interesting in that art really is life. I wonder how the way I view art is influencing my little students. I certainly look at all aspects, technique, culture, emotion etc but I only ever pick paintings which I, myself can feel. I'm like that with everything.

How do you view art? What do you look for?

Labels: art, wonderings

posted by M at 9:02 am 17 comments

It's Monday afternoon and I could almost fall asleep under the Art Room bench. In fact I almost didn't make it out of bed this morning. I awoke momentarily only to roll right over and fall asleep again. Thank god I woke up again, not quite in time for a shower, but with enough time to rush and just make it. Don't you just hate days like that? You're already behind from the beginning. It was a stroke of genius to stay behind on Friday afternoon last week and set up the AR for this morning. Lucky me.

My weekend was a mix of friends and family as it tends to be on Mother's Day weekends. The 30th birthdays have started in full swing and it's a little scary to tell you the truth. The big difference between the 21st and the 30ths is that by 1am you actually are tired AND willing to submit to the tiredness. Plus you make your own speeches rather than have someone else do the dirty on you. By 30 I guess you're owning it. That's kind of cool. I've started to think of 21 year olds as kids now, so I guess I'm well and truly past it. Everyone seems to agree, leaving the 20s is hard but the 30s sound like much more fun.

It was interesting catching up with the buds for this particular 30th. B, we hardly see anymore since she up and moved to the country with two children in tow (definitely a yummy mummy). G is starting to scour the internet for true love (I told her about my experiment a while back. She tells me to submit it as an article to Cleo. lol), M is as always the perfect host and #2 is still living the rockstar lifestyle - which is apt since she married a muso. As for me - there's something NQR. As always is the theme with me: I'm still waiting for this life thing to happen. I don't know why it's so hard for me to just leave everything behind and take a chance to make a change (whatever that chance and change may be), but alas it is. Funny, since I'm normally so spontaneous in everything I do.

But yes, something needs to change. I'm finding that I'm not even being myself anymore. It's like I'm playing M the character, the protagonist in my own story - and that doesn't seem like a way to live a life. But how do you? How do you change?

Anyway, today's Musical Monday is simply a song I heard on the tele yesterday afternoon - on the Sunday Arts program on the ABC. Not quite high brow but it's not Big Brother so that's something. A brother and sister duo Angus and Julia Stone whom I'd never heard of before - with their song Mango Tree. It's been playfully hanging around in my head all morning. I like it being there. I hope you like it too.

Mango Tree - Angus and Julia Stone

Labels: change, musical monday

posted by M at 10:42 am 21 comments

The top 10 tally of search topics from people this week on melbstories and cbg as as follows.

drunk nuns
flowery panties
blew smoke up arse
clockwatching
running around trying to find
how not to come across as needy to a new guy
you treat me badly, I love you madly
naked women models, Melbourne.
Ted Baillieu film
moo-moo head.

I'm affirmed by the knowledge that people who come to these two blogs are a mix of the ridiculous, have weird sexual fetishes, are vaguely political, into pop culture and gender politics and might be slacking on the job. Kudos. No wonder blog people are my kind of people.

Meanwhile one of those inquiries is a pertinent one. How not to come across as needy to a new guy. Let's help this one out:

- don't have sex with him on the first date, second date, ..err any date until you are dating exclusively or he's actually expressed he likes to spend time with you when not having sex first (is this too old fashioned of me? Fuck it, so be it. I'm not having sex with someone who wants to date other people - unless I'm drunk off my tits in which case I'm anyones!!!!).

- have friends and better yet do stuff with them that doesn't always include him.

- don't call him everyday at work just because you missed him and are wondering what he's doing. Girlfriend, he's working (or updating his blog).

- don't make the pouty face when he spends time with the boys (or worse yet, invite yourself along). He's a new guy, let him believe he can still see the boys once in a while.

- no relationship talk until after you have sex (see #1) and even then don't do it in the afterglow.

- don't be sometimes girl. If you have sex and things suddenly cool off - cut him off. If he likes you, he'll like you in the morning and he'll want to introduce you to his friends. If not then he's not worth it - don't take him back.

- nickname: Honey Bunny. Save it for the 50 year anniversary.

- do not bring up the fact that you'd like a white wedding in Hawaii while on your first date.

- Interested in his life = good. Taking notes = bad.

- Do not sit out the front of his house with a bucket of chicken and a pair of night vision binoculars just to see what he's up to.

- Don't change your football team to his. NEVER DO THIS! Get a life, please!

- Have your own interests. He invites you out on Tuesday - oops you're having dinner with a girlfriend then. DO NOT CANCEL DINNER WITH GIRLFRIEND! Say, "I'm having dinner with a girlfriend, let's go out on Wednesday instead".

- He calls you at 9pm on a Saturday night. Do not answer the phone. Don't even entertain the last minute booty call. It's the early dating days - he wants a date, let him make it.

Anything else?

Labels: blogs, boys

posted by M at 4:20 pm 26 comments

* Conversation: The other day I was eavesdropping on a conversation between two friends. They were discussing getting the flu and how shitty it makes you feel - you know mundane stuff. We've all had that riveting conversation I'm sure.

Then one girl brought up gastro - a painful and horrible affair it is. They started grumbling about that one but both admitted that they'd rather have gastro than the flu.

Why? Well to quote:

At least you loose a bit of weight! one proclaimed.

It's a kick start on the diet - the other readily agreed.

I'm not all that upset when I get gastro. At least it's doing something good for you she said.

I get secretly happy when I have it, even though it hurts the other finished up.

And there you have it. Conclusive evidence that girls are fucked up in the head and you know what? I couldn't in all honesty say that I totally disagreed with them either. I don't think it's a healthy way to think about ones body but it's how we do think about them nonetheless.

* In praise of good men: The other night I found myself in a spot of bother when I'd lost the lens cap of my camera in the middle of a pitch black park. Who forgot her torch I wonder? hmm. I made a comment about having to look for it when one of my fellow classmates gallantly braved the cold night air and boring conversation to stay with me and helped me look until I found it. Who else would do that? No one! This man; I've seen him do quite a few nice things for other people - including walking a woman to her car even though it was late and he must have been tired, and helping someone with instruction when no one else would and engaging in conversation with many different kinds of people - both men and women in a non-arrogant way. He's just a good guy and I'm sorry to say I haven't met a lot of those kinds of guys lately.

Some guys, are really nice sometimes. They're nice to only certain types of women or certain types of people. I don't want anything to do with those people. You can always tell the character of a person not exactly by how they treat only you but by how they treat all people and living creatures. Some people are just in it for themselves - I could say the same about women who are friendly and sweet to men but total bitches to other women. I've said it before but I'm extremely wary of women who don't get along with other women or who say 'I'm a boys girl'. Pfe.

In the same way, I'm wary of men who only treat certain women nicely and other women meanly or even ignore them - because they perceive these women as 'easy' or 'ugly' or 'dumb' or whatever doesn't make the grade. Some men treat women nicely only if they are the kind of women that man would go on a date with, even if they don't actually want to date them. You can smell the fake nice on these guys a mile away and it's not pretty. They will be friendly to someone because they want to impress them but not to another person because they don't care about impressing them. As humans we're all kind of selfish but this kind of behaviour is a bit rotten. We don't have to all be best friends but shouldn't we all be decent to each other?

So this good guy - wow. I had shamefully forgotten that some men are worth their weight in gold. Good men: Big tick!

Labels: bodies, good guys, mean men, men, vicious women, women

posted by M at 3:52 pm 24 comments

No, not Elmo, EMO!



That's right. Asymetrical hair sporting, black eyeliner wearing, Emotional hardedge music listening Emos. After the tragic suicides of teenagers Stephanie Gestier and Jodie Gater in Melbourne a few weeks ago it's all anyone seems to be talking about these days. What is Emo? Who listens to it? Why does everyone hate Emos so much anyway?

I'm afraid I'm no expert on the matter. I first came across the term about 8 or so years ago on an online message board where everyone made fun of them. I learned there that Emos were somewhere between wannabes and social lepers. I guess 8 years on that basic definition hasn't changed.

From what I understand Emo refers to Emotional hardcore or just Emotional. Where the music is kinda hardcore punkish but with a mainstream edge and their look is punk meets goth at Supre and then both go for a Boost Juice at the local Shopping Mall before heading off home to update their MySpace. Or in short; Got any blacker? I don't quite understand it and that's either because I'm way too old and cynical or because I haven't bothered to understand. I guess for me if you like a punk sensibility in your music then what's the point of listening to farking Jimmy Eat World when The Ramones are ready to rock?

An Emo may argue that they are a valid subculture and don't want to listen to the music of other already established subcultures which are associated with another era. Fair enough every generation wants a valid representation of it's members after all - I guess though when even the bands that we associate with Emo music are trying to disassociate themselves from the Emo subculture something has clearly gone wrong at headquarters. I keep reading that bands who are associated with the Emo scene keep denying they are Emo. I also keep reading the name Ian MacKaye being being associated with the Emo movement and this shocks me a bit. He's responsible for the band Fugazi and Minor Threat which I guess are more Straight Edge punk-type music rather than Emo.

This brings me to the point - is Emo something you call yourself or is Emo something that someone else calls you?

I was talking about Emo the other day with someone when it became apparent through our conversation that most all important musical genres had gone through an initial struggle to be accepted by their peers. They were ridiculed for the way they dressed, they were ridiculed for their different to the mainstream, they were blamed for the ills of society (suicide etc). I had to laugh when I though about it but in 30 years are people going to regard Emo with ..respect?

God, that would trip my mind. That would mean that I'd be one of those stick-in-the-mud old naysayers who just don't get it. I'm *gulp* un-hip.

Emo, love it or hate it?

Now here's some music that isn't Emo in the least, but I like anyway. Apparently I like being un-hip.

Golden Brown - The Stranglers

Labels: emo, music, musical monday

posted by M at 10:51 pm 35 comments

My morning cup of hot Milo suddenly got extra delicious when I read the news that the judge in the Paris Hilton driving like a loon case had sentenced her to 45 days in jail - forcing her lawyers to announce that they would appeal. Paris wailed when she heard the sentence. HAHA There is nothing I'd like to see more than socialites and other celebrities get their just desserts when it comes to breaking the law. Of course, I expect the appeal will go through and she'll be back sleeping under Egyptian Cotton soon enough, but the fact that a judge finally came out and slapped a spoiled rich kid on the face just about made my morning.

I hate seeing people who already have everything in life get all the breaks. Anyone else would have had their car impounded if they'd had as many misdemeanors as ol' Paris - or better yet they'd already be in jail. Why they get such special treatment is beyond me (OJ simpson killed someone and walks free! Yes, yes you know he did) - it's not like they add anything worthwhile to society. For the most part they're just a waste of space, perhaps occasionally providing glossy fodder for tabloid magazines, but that's about it.

An example closer to home (media saturation plus!) is the AFL footballer Ben Cousins who has an addiction to the drug "Ice". I guess there are two camps of thought on what footballers add to society. One is that they are athletes and heroes. The second is that they provide gross misconduct towards women in and around pubs. Probably they are both as valid points as the other (yes I'm being serious).

Ben Cousins - instead of being dropped from the West Coast Eagles when it was found that he was taking ice and being violent in and around town while on it - was send to Miami for a month to rehab. Apparently we don't have adequate drug rehab in Australia (pfe!). Now that he's back is laying low until it all dies down so they can slip him back onto side when no one's looking. Hello! If he's an athlete BUT found out to be a drug taker then he should be shunned by the light of sport and celebrity and left to get a real job. Of course his club has an obligation to get him help but that's it. He's not doing his job as an athlete. Next! If someone is found to embezzle funds from a company are they given a multitude of second chances? No, they are sent to jail. Here's Ben C. He admits to taking an illegal substance for which he purchased illegally and was flaunting it and got into trouble for it many times but in the end gets a tap on the wrist (and a holiday to Miami). Ugh.

* In other news, Prin announced that since she liked my photographs (I had put a couple up to show the kids) I was going to be taking individual photos of all the kids for their portfolios. I'm getting a whole day off school to do it. First, wow! Secondly, oh fuck!

Labels: media, rant

posted by M at 8:57 am 29 comments