Chappers for the Pumpkins

Philly_Q

OilCityPickups said:

For those who think women should stand at the back in rock music and be covered and demure ... I'm afraid things have changed ...  
https://youtu.be/wxtVqibxndg

I think you are (deliberately?) missing the point.  No one is saying "women should stand at the back in rock music" and certainly absolutely no one is saying women should be "covered and demure".

I can't speak for everyone, but my only comments about Kiki Wong's image and manner were in respect of how does she fit with the rest of the band.  Nothing to do with fading into the background.  Most bands have a certain consistency in their image, it's part of the business of "putting on a show".  To go back to the "How Women are Conquering Metal" video, if you took Nervosa or Burning Witches and replaced the singer with a tall, black-clad, whiney-voiced Uncle Fester lookalike, it would not work.  Simple as that.

Bigsby

OilCityPickups said:

For those who think women should stand at the back in rock music and be covered and demure ... I'm afraid things have changed ...  

...since the days of The Slits, X-Ray Specs, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Penetration, Blondie, The Selector, and all the other demure and covered women hiding in the background of rock's past.  

Offset

Philly_Q said:

...if you took Nervosa or Burning Witches and replaced the singer with a tall, black-clad, whiney-voiced Uncle Fester lookalike, it would not work.  Simple as that.

I think Marilyn Manson is pretty much persona non grata in any case :-)

darthed1981

As someone who has been (somewhat accurately) accused of liking bands with quirky female members - I'd have to put in my twopenneth...

There is nothing wrong at all with a woman choosing an image where their sexual attractiveness is on display.  There is no obligation for them to cover up, lest what?  Our uncontrollable animal urges take over?  Go have a cold shower if you are that worked up lads...

Conversely, there should be no pressure or obligation for a woman to look a certain way or behave a certain way.  I've known attractive women who deliberately play it down on stage in baggy clothes because they want people paying attention to their playing not their boobs, bigger girls who proudly show off their larger figures, and women who know damn well that guys fancy them who use it to help sell their band... if it's their choice, that's what empowerment is.

I'm passionate about music and I'm pretty passionate about women (fortunately I'm also ugly and anti-social or I'd have ended up caught and divorced years ago, monogamy sucks ass, jokes) and mixing the two together is quite the cocktail for me, for everyone else, your mileage may vary, but it's upto them how they dress, not some old blokes on a guitar forum (not aimed at any specific poster BTW - I'm not criticising any post here).

A sort of example - check out the comments on this Sophie Lloyd post... she's a beautiful and talented woman and she uses both to sell herself, but in the modern age isn't everyone getting this worked up because you can see she has nipples a bit too much??

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C56FAA0skCT/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

OilCityPickups

LionAquaLooper said:

I don't think anybody here ever said women should "stand at the back, be covered and be demure" (or anything even remotely along those lines)? There was mention of her being annoying though Women being at the front of bands scantily clad is old news. I don't think anyone even debated that and certainly wasn't the crux of people's statements. 

Well having 'eye candy' (as two posts referred to women at the front of bands) appeared to be not to some peoples tastes ... so the alternative would stand at the back, be covered and be demure would it not? 

DrCornelius said:

Ha , sorry don’t know why but I pictured you as around 35 in my head - probably because you said I was an ‘aging male’ so I assumed you were showing off !

We are all aging males ... the sad bit is that although out in the real world I have quite a few female customers ... mostly in the metal genre, none of them would consider this a pleasant environment to converse about guitar related matters - yes I've asked them. 
  

darthed1981 said:

As someone who has been (somewhat accurately) accused of liking bands with quirky female members - I'd have to put in my twopenneth...

There is nothing wrong at all with a woman choosing an image where their sexual attractiveness is on display.  There is no obligation for them to cover up, lest what?  Our uncontrollable animal urges take over?  Go have a cold shower if you are that worked up lads...

Conversely, there should be no pressure or obligation for a woman to look a certain way or behave a certain way.  I've known attractive women who deliberately play it down on stage in baggy clothes because they want people paying attention to their playing not their boobs, bigger girls who proudly show off their larger figures, and women who know damn well that guys fancy them who use it to help sell their band... if it's their choice, that's what empowerment is.

I'm passionate about music and I'm pretty passionate about women (fortunately I'm also ugly and anti-social or I'd have ended up caught and divorced years ago, monogamy sucks ass, jokes) and mixing the two together is quite the cocktail for me, for everyone else, your mileage may vary, but it's upto them how they dress, not some old blokes on a guitar forum (not aimed at any specific poster BTW - I'm not criticising any post here).

A sort of example - check out the comments on this Sophie Lloyd post... she's a beautiful and talented woman and she uses both to sell herself, but in the modern age isn't everyone getting this worked up because you can see she has nipples a bit too much??

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C56FAA0skCT/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

At last sense! 

LionAquaLooper

OilCityPickups said:

LionAquaLooper said:

I don't think anybody here ever said women should "stand at the back, be covered and be demure" (or anything even remotely along those lines)? There was mention of her being annoying though Women being at the front of bands scantily clad is old news. I don't think anyone even debated that and certainly wasn't the crux of people's statements. 

Well having 'eye candy' (as two posts referred to women at the front of bands) appeared to be not to some peoples tastes ... so the alternative would stand at the back, be covered and be demure would it not? 

Hahaha really??  No it absolutely does not. Again you've completely missed the point. No one said they're against attractive women being at the forefront.

OMG if this is really how your logic works then it's maybe you who you should be more worried about, not us  

OilCityPickups

LionAquaLooper said:

OilCityPickups said:

LionAquaLooper said:

I don't think anybody here ever said women should "stand at the back, be covered and be demure" (or anything even remotely along those lines)? There was mention of her being annoying though Women being at the front of bands scantily clad is old news. I don't think anyone even debated that and certainly wasn't the crux of people's statements. 

Well having 'eye candy' (as two posts referred to women at the front of bands) appeared to be not to some peoples tastes ... so the alternative would stand at the back, be covered and be demure would it not? 

Hahaha really??  No it absolutely does not. Again you've completely missed the point. No one said they're against attractive women being at the forefront.

OMG if this is really how your logic works then it's maybe you who you should be more worried about, not us  

Dictionary definition of 'eye candy':
 
a person who is or people considered highly attractive to look at, often implying that they are, but lacking in intelligence or depth. something intended to be attractive to the eye without being demanding or contributing anything essential.

And that is meant to be complimentary to women is it? 

Bigsby

OilCityPickups said:

LionAquaLooper said:

OilCityPickups said:

LionAquaLooper said:

I don't think anybody here ever said women should "stand at the back, be covered and be demure" (or anything even remotely along those lines)? There was mention of her being annoying though Women being at the front of bands scantily clad is old news. I don't think anyone even debated that and certainly wasn't the crux of people's statements. 

Well having 'eye candy' (as two posts referred to women at the front of bands) appeared to be not to some peoples tastes ... so the alternative would stand at the back, be covered and be demure would it not? 

Hahaha really??  No it absolutely does not. Again you've completely missed the point. No one said they're against attractive women being at the forefront.

OMG if this is really how your logic works then it's maybe you who you should be more worried about, not us  

Dictionary definition of 'eye candy':
 
a person who is or people considered highly attractive to look at, often implying that they are, but lacking in intelligence or depth. something intended to be attractive to the eye without being demanding or contributing anything essential.

And that is meant to be complimentary to women is it? 

Firstly, 'rock music' tends not to be particularly deep, intelligent, or demanding on the listener, so describing a guitarist as 'eye candy' isn't detracting a great deal from them in the first place, it's also often tended towards the visual, e.g. KISS.

Secondly, no one in this topic is describing 'women' as eye candy. Just a guitarist who dresses in a bikini* and films clips of herself playing to then post on social media to gain attention. (And to be clear, as far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with doing that at all - neither is there anything wrong with subsequently describing the guitarist as eye candy).

*N.b. I haven't sen the clips concerned, just the stills in this topic, but earlier someone mentioned not being able to find footage of her in underwear, just a bikini.

Ddigger

Bigsby said:

OilCityPickups said:

For those who think women should stand at the back in rock music and be covered and demure ... I'm afraid things have changed ...  

...since the days of The Slits, X-Ray Specs, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Penetration, Blondie, The Selector, and all the other demure and covered women hiding in the background of rock's past.  

Penetration - I had forgotten all about them.  I never owned any of there stuff, one of my big brothers had some singles and an album.

I can't remember how any of their songs go and I had no luck getting past the home wi-fi search filter.

Needless to say, based on the photos posted here, I won't be googling Kiki either.

blueskunk

merlin said:

I would vote for Steven Seagal. 

Sensei Seagul. 

Bigsby

Ddigger said:

Bigsby said:

OilCityPickups said:

For those who think women should stand at the back in rock music and be covered and demure ... I'm afraid things have changed ...  

...since the days of The Slits, X-Ray Specs, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Penetration, Blondie, The Selector, and all the other demure and covered women hiding in the background of rock's past.  

Penetration - I had forgotten all about them.  I never owned any of there stuff, one of my big brothers had some singles and an album.

I can't remember how any of their songs go and I had no luck getting past the home wi-fi search filter.

Needless to say, based on the photos posted here, I won't be googling Kiki either.

 Penetrating voices going through my head, I haven't listened to a thing they've said...

Don't dictate, don't dictate, don't dictate, dictate to me.... Don't dictate, don't dictate, don't dictate, dictate to me....

That's the only one I can remember, and funnily enough it seems appropriate right now.

topdog91

OilCityPickups said:

For those who think women should stand at the back in rock music and be covered and demure ... I'm afraid things have changed ...  

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

mgaw

OilCityPickups said:

LionAquaLooper said:

OilCityPickups said:

LionAquaLooper said:

I don't think anybody here ever said women should "stand at the back, be covered and be demure" (or anything even remotely along those lines)? There was mention of her being annoying though Women being at the front of bands scantily clad is old news. I don't think anyone even debated that and certainly wasn't the crux of people's statements. 

Well having 'eye candy' (as two posts referred to women at the front of bands) appeared to be not to some peoples tastes ... so the alternative would stand at the back, be covered and be demure would it not? 

Hahaha really??  No it absolutely does not. Again you've completely missed the point. No one said they're against attractive women being at the forefront.

OMG if this is really how your logic works then it's maybe you who you should be more worried about, not us  

Dictionary definition of 'eye candy':
 
a person who is or people considered highly attractive to look at, often implying that they are, but lacking in intelligence or depth. something intended to be attractive to the eye without being demanding or contributing anything essential.

And that is meant to be complimentary to women is it? 

No

guitarjack66

No idea who the young lady is nor really care much about her,but she is obviously talented enough to play in a famous touring band otherwise she wouldn't be chosen. If people here are a bit skittish about the phrase 'eye candy' being used then they obviously arent working in Publicity departments or advertising. I don't see too many larger ladies in highly publicised touring bands either,or maybe I am wrong?
I'd be more upset about linking a long time band member of Asian ancestry to hiring a new one,if I chose to be outraged about anything at all.

WezV

Bigsby said:

Firstly, 'rock music' tends not to be particularly deep, intelligent, or demanding on the listener, 

I don't think that can be applied to the Pumpkins in any way.   

Genre - It's  hard to classify them just as "rock music". Fans who loved the early grungier hit songs will have been challenged by the variety of genres the pumpkins have traversed on almost all of their albums.

Depth and intelligence - it's worth looking up the meaning behind many of the bigger songs.  I'm not sure what extra depth or intelligence you would need

TeleMaster

WezV said:

Bigsby said:

Firstly, 'rock music' tends not to be particularly deep, intelligent, or demanding on the listener, 

I don't think that can be applied to the Pumpkins in any way.   

Genre - It's  hard to classify them just as "rock music". Fans who loved the early grungier hit songs will have been challenged by the variety of genres the pumpkins have traversed on almost all of their albums.

Depth and intelligence - it's worth looking up the meaning behind many of the bigger songs.  I'm not sure what extra depth or intelligence you would need

Yea I agree. Rock is a very broad term too, Rush is rock, AC/DC is also rock. They might then fall into different sub genres of rock but you can't just dismiss all rock as not being demanding on the listener just because some isn't. 

Thru The Eyes Of Ruby, or Porcelina isn't just 'rock'. It's prog, it's psychedelia, it's expansive.

Describing rock in the above way isn't really accurate.