Kidman is Smokin'

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 1.Marketing genius and lyrical genius are two different things. You could just read the words without looking at who wrote them, you know. They were quite applicable. 2.Nice to see a snapshot of your CD collection, but people whose music is different also make some good points. I think encouraging people to get over the notion that famous folks are "gods" IS working for a positive change. And, if you do it by cussing, that's just a different approach. 3.Riiiight. You know, I could go quote other lyrics where he agrees a lot with you. Maybe I'll put another name on them, so you'll open your mind and read them. 4.I agree it is stupidity to compare a singer singing about the ills of idolotry to a writer writing about the ills of reading. You have a bad analogy that is inapplicable, Yorick. Here's a fair analogy: a writer writing about the ills of image-worship, and about how manipulating image can remake someone to society's detriment and to their own detriment. Hmmm.... I've read that tale. The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald), or was it House of Mirth (Edith Wharton). [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] In sum, you are acting as if the theme (which you correctly identify) he has adopted has not been made by "White Tower" "educate" pinheads -- it has. Just because some white trash wigger from Detroit can make the same point using the F-word doesn't invalidate it. 5.Again, read the words before trashing the writer. Quinton Tarentino may be a crappy little twerp of a stuck-up snob (if you've ever seen an interview), who made a lot of crap movies, but that fact doesn't take Pulp Fiction off of the all-time great movies list. 6.That's why we sing for these kids, who don't have a thing Except for a dream, and a f---in' rap magazine Who post pin-up pictures on their walls all day long Idolize they favorite rappers and know all their songs Or for anyone who's ever been through s--t in their lives Till they sit and they cry at night wishin' they'd die Till they throw on a rap record and they sit, and they vibe We're nothin' to you but we're the f----n' s--t in they eyes That's why we seize the moment try to freeze it and own it, squeeze it and hold it Cause we consider these minutes golden And maybe they'll admit it when we're gone Just let our spirits live on, through our lyrics that you hear in our songs and we can

1. ?? I never mentioned marketing. I mentioned his producer Dr.Dre. Dre has nothing to do with marketing. He's his P-R-O-D-U-C-E-R. Eminem is a puppet. Dre is the real McCoy.

2. That's not my CD collection. I don't own any Geldof or Billy Bragg for starters. Though Bragg is exceptional.

3. The content is precisely what I have a problem with. If it was good, I wouldn't have a problem...

4. No it's a good analogy. He's using the medium to attack the medium. Hypocritical contradiction. If you can't see that... He's accepted the whole "starmaking" process and is using it to attack the "starmaking". He's also ignoring the fact that the kids he's criticising have made him who he is. He follows in the tradition of Morrison, Pearl Jam and others holding their fans and the process in derision. Nothing new or revolutionary there. The solution is as always to stop. Quit. Cease making CDs. Easy as one two three. Can he live without the money, the influence and the power he's gotten used to? Seems he wants his cake and to eat it too.

5. Yep. I did.

6. Biting the hand that feeds. If he really believed it, he'd find another way to get that message out. If he succeeds he proves himself wrong. If he fails, he proves himself wrong. Hypocritical, counterproductive contradiction.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: Errr, you aren't refering to their "Save the Rainforest" efforts?

Nope.

[ 05-27-2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Timber Loftis]

So, Yorick, you are saying that no artist can criticize himself and the medium he is a part of?

More importantly, are you saying a famous person and their art are inseperable?

In both regards, I simply must disagree. Biting self-criticism is one virtue I respect the most. Of course, that's probably because I personally tend to try to do it. See, just like that. Ooops, did it again.

Hmmm... final thoughts.
1. You, IIRC, are religious -- Christian in fact. How does a 13-year-old's wallpapering of their room with pictures from Bop and Vibe relate to that commandment about false idols. Or is the idolotry prohibition simply outdated in the modern era.

2. I'm getting a bleak picture of "freedom" in your world. Banned smoking, banned guns, banned SUVs, cameras everywhere enforcing the law, and anyone famous is forced to be a proper role model.

3. What is a proper role model?

Maybe Kidman smoking IS being a good role model. "Hey, kids, look, this thing is not a drug everyone does 24/7 -- for some people, smoking is done in moderation. You wouldn't even know some people smoke, because they do it rarely." Wouldn't that be a great thing -- if we could relegate smoking to the occassional use other recreational drugs such as alcohol enjoy? Hmmm... responsibility, a new concept.

More generally, some great "role models" were morally corrupt in their day. Dorothy Parker broke the law. What about all of the "out" famous fags back in the day when we thought all gay folks were going to be AIDS patients sooner or later?

Simply, who defines the role a role model should play. If you can actually define it for me, I will argue you are not open-minded enough to be defining it.

[ 05-27-2003, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I agree it is stupidity to compare a singer singing about the ills of idolotry to a writer writing about the ills of reading. You have a bad analogy that is inapplicable, Yorick. Here's a fair analogy: a writer writing about the ills of image-worship, and about how manipulating image can remake someone to society's detriment and to their own detriment. Hmmm.... I've read that tale. The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald), or was it House of Mirth (Edith Wharton). [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] In sum, you are acting as if the theme (which you correctly identify) he has adopted has not been made by "White Tower" "educate" pinheads -- it has. Just because some white trash wigger from Detroit can make the same point using the F-word doesn't invalidate it.

I disagree with this last part, Timber. Eminem's excessive use of profanity DOES invalidate his message in my opinion. You asked me before if I could not appreciate the "unsubtle wit" used by Mathers. The answer is "No", not when every other line has one or two words "edited" out of it for content. If there is a quality message underneath all the cussing, I can't hear it because I'm too busy filtering out the trash.

I also think it is ridiculous for Mathers (or any other celebrity, singer, or sports star) to say "Hey, I ain't no role model - that's the parents job". Yes, to a degree it is. But after the Slim Shady album came out, I saw a 10yr old boy in the local Wal-Mart doing the "Slim Shady Shuffle" (rocking his shoulders side-to-side and using the same hand gestures as Mathers) as he walked through the store. Whether Eminem wants to accept it or not, kids ARE imitating his behavior..and are also "internilizing" the message of his songs. I cringe to think what that same 10yr old was thinking about after hearing "the Slim Shady" say he wanted to kill his mother in one of his songs. I can just visualize this kid pantomiming pointing a gun at his mom's head the next time she tells him he can't do something he wants to or go somewhere he wants to or have something he wants.

Some of Mathers music may have an {somewhat} positive message underlying, but the majority of his songs are just filled with anger, hate, frustration, and violence against those that p--- him off (which seems to be just about everybody at some point in time). Is THAT the kind of message that young kids should be "vibing to"?

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Again, read the words before trashing the writer. Quinton Tarentino may be a crappy little twerp of a stuck-up snob (if you've ever seen an interview), who made a lot of crap movies, but that fact doesn't take Pulp Fiction off of the all-time great movies list.

[img]graemlins/doh.gif[/img] Oh geez, Timber, I can't believe how much we disagree on entertainment greats. Calling Tarentino a "crappy little twerp of a stuck-up snob" is generous beyond imagination compared to my opinion of him. And Pulp Fiction will NEVER be on my list of "all-time great movies". [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

I respect your right to enjoy and appreciate whoever you identify with, but you couldn't have picked two artists that I personally dislike more if you had tried. Sorry my friend, that's just my opinion - so don't take it for any more than it's worth.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: So, Yorick, you are saying that no artist can criticize himself and the medium he is a part of?

No. I'm saying he's using the very medium to make his message. The only way people will do as he's asking is by doing exactly what he is preaching against.

Catch-22.

[ 05-27-2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by LordKathen: quote: Originally posted by LordKathen: This is crazy. The notion that someone famous has to live a life up to someone elses standards or morals is rediculous. They are not responsable for others actions at all. If your child runs out and lights up a smoke becouse they saw Kidman smoking, means you have some parenting to work on. Maybe if the T.V. wasnt considered a babysitter, and parents spent more quality time teaching the values they want their children to have to them people would truly be free to be themselves. This is what I am afraid of most. The "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" syndom is just not reality, and our children will grow up completly unprepared for the real world if they are sheltered from it.

Did anyone read this? I hate to quote myself, but I want to be heard. I cant believe some one the opinions here stating that there is a moral responsability by the artist. Unbelievable! This country will most certainly be under a dictatorship if ideas like this make it to the top. And whos "morals" are we talking about? Yours, mine, gods, the presidents, my nieghbers? We have laws to keep people in line. We have parents to keep influencial kids in line. Stop blaiming everyone else for your inability to govern your children. (general statement there) And why Kidman? We see lots of "immoral" things on T.V., why is this any different? [/QUOTE]Lord Kathan - "Who's morals are we talking about?" For the most part, the morals that are considered to be the societal norm for the time. In the 1950's, smoking was literally a part of everyday life. It was also a very important status symbol. Corporate board rooms used to have a row of ashtrays down the middle of the table because all the corporate V.I.P.'s were expected to be smokers. An award for excellence in journalism is presented every year in honor of Edward R. Murrow. And the picture they always show when this award is presented is one of Murrow with an ever-present cigarette hanging out of his mouth.

I believe it was Aelia Jusa that mentioned the fact that Kidman didn't "light up" until the interview was basically over and all the questions had been asked. As she pointed out, there was no good reason for the media to even record her smoking - much less paste it all over the news and entertainment shows. But today's "societal norm" is that smoking is "bad" and should be avoided. So they caught a celebrity "being naughty" and that one action got far more coverage than the actual movie she was promoting.