[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by narlus

do you want me to ask him? they are playing in two weeks' time.

in the meantime, here's AC drummer Tim Morse sitting in w/ Maryrose and Brian of the Renderers at a house show a few weeks ago:

 

robbie yeats has left, or couldn't make it?

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

Just because he intends to offend, doesn't mean that he isn't being sarcastic though.

i really don't think sarcasm is the right word to describe anal cunt. i think seth putnam is kind of like a suburban equivalent of GG Allin. and by suburban i mean stupid, dull, and angry about nothing in particular.

[atsonicpark]

 

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

What's so wrong about such groups having thicker skin/the ability to poke fun at themselves? In the US (I can't personally speak for any other country) everyone is so worried about not stepping on anyone's toes, and those in the creative/entertainment industries are constantly walking on thin ice with issues such as this. Excessive political correctness is dull.

I think it's great that such words (fag, gay, nigger, etc.) are starting to shift away from their original definitions. It really takes the sting out of their former staying power. I don't consider that a bad thing.

You're right, I wasn't implying that using offensive terminology is wrong, it's just that some people are more amusing at doing it than others. If you use those words all the time it just becomes too cliched and uninspired, which Anal Cunt are a good example of. It's not just now that they are starting to shift away from their original definition, it's become so normal to read 'gay' this, 'nigger' that etc etc etc, you don't immediately notice they have for quite some time. By trying too hard to be funny or offensive, you just end up being dull.

[demonrail666]

The other problem with Anal Cunt's use of such words is that I think, far from attempting to 'normalise' them, they rely on a certain impact that these words still have (within certain communities). It's their constant need to shock that I find so boring, especially considering that the people they're mostly addressing are hardly likely to be anything other than mildly entertained by such words (as I presume is the overwhelming response here). It's a very 'safe' form of provocation at the end of the day, and as such entirely pointless.

[Savage Clone]

I think the fact that most of us are over the age of fourteen would place us outside the target demographic anyway.

I've been trying to think what the next target for wannabe shock-bands might be. Racism, homophobia, misogyny, disability, paedophilia, pornography, nazism all explored, and so seldom in an amusing/interesting way.* What next?

* To me.

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

I think the fact that most of us are over the age of fourteen would place us outside the target demographic anyway.

How old are Anal Cunt? They can't be that young, which makes their sense of humour even more sad.

[Derek]

Seth Putnam is like, 40.

Originally Posted by Derek

Seth Putnam is like, 40.

Bless him.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

I've been trying to think what the next target for wannabe shock-bands might be. Racism, homophobia, misogyny, disability, paedophilia, pornography, nazism all explored, and so seldom in an amusing/interesting way.* What next?

* To me.

That's an interesting question I think, and reminds me of an article I recently read about a Gilbert & George exhibition which attacked Catholicism. The point of the article was that Catholicism is now a 'safe' topic and that therefore, artists who trade in shock by attacking it are themselves playing it safe. The Chapman's did the whole paedophilia thing, while Marcus Harvey broke the taboo of child murder in his Myra Hindley portrait. And yet the only stir that was really caused was among the chattering classes, most of whom condoned the works (in principle if not in terms of their actual quality.) Basically, the worst that can happen to an artist (in this country at least) who targets such topics is a scathing write up in the tabloids - inevitably met by an increase in publicity and prices for the work itself. Far more dangerous would be to target something like Islam which is likely to cause a far greater stir. I'm not condoning the idea of an artist attacking a religion simply for the sake of it, but if they're genuinely in the business of provocation, and if they really do think they're trangressing taboos, then I'd have far more respect for a band like Anal Cunt if they retitled, 'You Converted To Judaism, So A Guy Would Touch Your Dick' to something targeting Islam. Now that really would take some guts.

[Savage Clone]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

How old are Anal Cunt? They can't be that young, which makes their sense of humour even more sad.

Yeah, they're around our age, but the target demo is still under 18 I'd say.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

That's an interesting question I think, and reminds me of an article I recently read about a Gilbert & George exhibition which attacked Catholicism. The point of the article was that Catholicism is now a 'safe' topic and that therefore, artists who trade in shock by attacking it are themselves playing it safe. The Chapman's did the whole paedophilia thing, while Marcus Harvey broke the taboo of child murder in his Myra Hindley portrait. And yet the only stir that was really caused was among the chattering classes, most of whom condoned the works (in principle if not in terms of their actual quality.) Basically, the worst that can happen to an artist (in this country at least) who targets such topics is a scathing write up in the tabloids - inevitably met by an increase in publicity and prices for the work itself. Far more dangerous would be to target something like Islam which is likely to cause a far greater stir. I'm not condoning the idea of an artist attacking a religion simply for the sake of it, but if they're genuinely in the business of provocation, and if they really do think they're trangressing taboos, then I'd have far more respect for a band like Anal Cunt if they retitled, 'You Converted To Judaism, So A Guy Would Touch Your Dick' to something targeting Islam. Now that really would take some guts.

I don't have the time for a longer reply right now, but I just wanted to ask you if you've read some of the essays about the way violence is portrayed in Sarah Kane's work. Also, did you read about the 'outrage' that play we have on at work at the moment (England People Very Nice) has caused? It's mainly to do with the language used in it, which, apparently, cast some doubts as to its non-racist credentials. It isn't a racist play, I've seen it three times and got it straight away.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

I don't have the time for a longer reply right now, but I just wanted to ask you if you've read some of the essays about the way violence is portrayed in Sarah Kane's work. Also, did you read about the 'outrage' that play we have on at work at the moment (England People Very Nice) has caused? It's mainly to do with the language used in it, which, apparently, cast some doubts as to its non-racist credentials. It isn't a racist play, I've seen it three times and got it straight away.

Yes, I have read some responses to Sarah Kane's work and I've seen her short film, Skin. - although I've not actually seen any of her plays.

Again, I've not seen 'England People Very Nice' but have followed the 'outrage' in the papers. And from what I can gather it isn't racist. I also don't think its author set out simply to shock, in a way that arguably Gilbert and George, the Chapman's, Harvey and Anal Cunt do. 'England People Very Nice' is being defended by the arts establishment because it's a 'responsible' piece of work. But in order to meet its approval it appears that every line is being scrutinised in a way that I simply don't see happening with an artwork dealing in areas of misogyny, homophobia, class-hatred and the targeting of other religions - and not in a way that concentrates less on its validity as an artform so much as for its potential to 'unreasonably provoke'. I can't say too much about the play itself because I've not seen it (although I want to, very much) but I do respect both Richard Bean for writing it and The National Theatre for putting it on. At the end of the day though, a recent article in the Independent ended up 'defending' the play on the grounds that the reviewer felt that it wasn't 'racist'. But what about the alleged sexism of a playwright like Harold Pinter? His plays are evaluated simply as being either good or bad according to their artistic merits not on 'they're actually not really sexist, so they're ok' grounds.

I suppose my point is that if all an artwork does is offend it probably isn't very good, but as an artwork it does have the right to offend, regardless of who it is that's being offended. Isn't that ultimately why we abolished the Lord Chamberlain all those years ago?

But anyway, yes, as soon as my wages go in on Thursday I'll be booking to see it, so I'll be able to say more about it then.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Yes, I have read some responses to Sarah Kane's work and I've seen her short film, Skin. - although I've not actually seen any of her plays.

Again, I've not seen 'England People Very Nice' but have followed the 'outrage' in the papers. And from what I can gather it isn't racist, which is why journalists such as Yasmin Alibhia-Brown has (reluctantly) condoned it. I also don't think its author set out simply to shock, in a way that arguably Gilbert and George, the Chapman's, Harvey and Anal Cunt do. 'England People Very Nice' is being defended by the arts establishment because it's a 'responsible' piece of work. But in order to meet its approval it appears that every line is being scrutinised in a way that I simply don't see with an artwork dealing in areas of misogyny, homophobia, class-hatred and the targeting of other religions - and not in a way that concentrates on its validity as an artform so much as for its potential to 'unreasonably provoke'. I can't say too much about the play itself because I've not seen it (although I want to, very much) but I do respect both Richard Bean for writing it and The National Theatre for putting it on. At the end of the day though, a recent article in the Independent ended up 'defending' the play on the grounds that the reviewer felt that it wasn't 'racist'. But what about the alleged sexism of a playwright like Harold Pinter? His plays are evaluated simply as being either good or bad according to their artistic merits not on 'they're actually not really sexist, so they're ok' grounds.

I suppose my point is that if all an artwork does is offend it probably isn't very good, but as an artwork it does have the right to offend, regardless of who it is that's being offended. Isn't that ultimately why we abolished the Lord Chamberlain all those years ago?

But anyway, yes, as soon as my wages go in on Thursday I'll be booking to see it, so I'll be able to say more about it then.

Before you do, let me check tomorrow if there are any comps available.

[demonrail666]

I love you.

[Glice]

I like where this has gone. I agree with pretty much everyone here - offending people is pretty facile, juvenile. I oscillate between liking and disliking Whitehouse for this very reason. I personally find Anal Cunt tickle my funny bone in the right way, but they rarely get played except maybe when I'm hoovering. It's like with Prussian Blue - they are, in a sense, really not very good, and no-one would know of them if they weren't (allegedly manipulated to be*) racist. The fact that I enjoy them because they fail in a way I find charming (it's like the Shaggs, in that sense) is inseperable from the fact they're dealing with this hokey Volksmusik and that they're jailbait, all dangersexy** points for me.

I think for me, I like it when you get something that's a bit more capable in being challenging. It's not the subjects that Sarah Kane writes about that are challenging per se, it's how she writes. 448 psychosis floors me every time, not because she's writing about suicide & depression, but because she's writing about it with an honesty and empathy that's a hair's breadth from spastic. Good art - anything from Chaucer to Henry Miller or whoever - will always be more challenging than pubescent stasis.

* I wanted to strikethrough this.
** English doesn't do this with words. I mourn my lack of German.

[demonrail666]

'Pubescent stasis' describes Anal Cunt perfectly, although i suspect that they're a very specific kind of pubescent: the kind that meet together in the park to giggle over a copy of Razzle, unaware that the rest of their classmates are busy fucking the shit out of one another in a flat just down the road. There's something almost Victorian about them; obsessed with the sheer (unattainable?) 'naughtiness' of it all. (Non-)Taboo-breaking puritans. Just what we need.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

'Pubescent stasis' describes Anal Cunt perfectly, although i suspect that they're a very specific kind of pubescent: the kind that meet together in the park to giggle over a copy of Razzle, unaware that the rest of their classmates are busy fucking the shit out of one another in a flat just down the road. There's something almost Victorian about them; obsessed with the sheer (unattainable?) 'naughtiness' of it all. (Non-)Taboo-breaking puritans. Just what we need.

Exactly. It's not the times that have to catch up with them, it's them who have to catch up with the times.

[atsonicpark]

Jesus, didn't think this thread would have such longevity.

The best thing Seth Putnam ever did was Impaled Northern Moonforest.. granted, I haven't listened to them since I was 13, but I remember thinking it was brilliant. Acoustic joke black metal.