M.I.L.F. $

LastMantra

" It was just batter "

??

IvisonGuitars

And the 'music industry' wonders why it's in decline when it's funding absolute fucking horseshit like this.

They only have themselves to blame.

Nitefly

Do they understand what the word "motherf****r" actually means?

Just abysmal.

digitalscream

I'm genuinely confused with this sort of thing. Back in the 80s and 90s, women taking their clothes off for TV was demeaning. Hell, even 10 years ago it was like that.

Suddenly, it's supposed to be "empowering" (in specific circumstances, usually determined by how much the press and feminists happen to like the individual who forgot to get dressed). How, exactly?

And why the fuck does it even matter? Why does every state of clothed-ness have to have something to do with the empowerment (or lack thereof) of women? Does anybody seriously believe that blokes walking round in their pants is somehow empowering for them? Nobody's managed to explain to me why it should be different for women.

Dominic

Wisdom awarded for the above ........."empowering ".....yet more silly American speak that has crept into the vernacular

Ro_S

The "empowering"  thing is about women being able to behave like sluts and whores without being slut shamed.

If one wants to behave like a slut, then I'll regard it as such.

Fergie & Kim Kardashian:  you're both sluts.

imalrightjack

Dominic said:

Wisdom awarded for the above ........."empowering ".....yet more silly American speak that has crept into the vernacular

I hope you realise the original post was tongue-in-cheek...

digitalscream

imalrightjack said:

Dominic said:

Wisdom awarded for the above ........."empowering ".....yet more silly American speak that has crept into the vernacular

I hope you realise the original post was tongue-in-cheek...

Well, I did However, it's not the first music video to be labelled like that, and it's rarely done ironically...

chillidoggy

digitalscream said:

I'm genuinely confused with this sort of thing. Back in the 80s and 90s, women taking their clothes off for TV was demeaning. Hell, even 10 years ago it was like that.

Suddenly, it's supposed to be "empowering" (in specific circumstances, usually determined by how much the press and feminists happen to like the individual who forgot to get dressed). How, exactly?

And why the fuck does it even matter? Why does every state of clothed-ness have to have something to do with the empowerment (or lack thereof) of women? Does anybody seriously believe that blokes walking round in their pants is somehow empowering for them? Nobody's managed to explain to me why it should be different for women.

Indeed, I can't imagine I'd feel empowered wandering around in my underdungers, and in any case any onlookers could well feel sick.

Moltisanti

the song is absolutely awful, even for that style of music.

here's Fergie being equally slutty, but to a much better song

Flink_Poyd

I feel like empowering myself so I'm going to walk around with my bollocks dangling half out of the bottom of my shorts whilst pouring gravy over them. Pics and video to follow.

Flink_Poyd

Dominic;1139716" said:

Wisdom awarded for the above ........."empowering ".....yet more silly American speak that has crept into the vernacular

Empowering only happens to rich women, if your average woman does it she would just be called a bit of a slapper

PolarityMan

I think this kind of thing has almost become convention or self satirizing...kinda like this but less self aware and obviously with shitter music

imalrightjack

Moltisanti;1139952" said:

the song is absolutely awful, even for that style of music.

here's Fergie being equally slutty, but to a much better song

This is way more offensive. The guitar-playing especially.

Heartfeltdawn

merlin said:

I fondly remember a time before vocoder, autotune and Melodyne. It's truly saddening how any below mediocre shit singer can be made to sound like the rest of the mediocre shit singers out there. 

Particularly when Melodyne can be used to create some really remarkable stuff. It's on my to buy list after a month with the demo. 

lloyd said:

Just shit innit? It's got 2 pages of comments on a guitar forum though, so it's doing what it's supposed to I guess.

Farting got two pages in SC. 

So does that make farting as important to the forum as Fergie?

littlegreenman

Heartfeltdawn said:

merlin said:

I fondly remember a time before vocoder, autotune and Melodyne. It's truly saddening how any below mediocre shit singer can be made to sound like the rest of the mediocre shit singers out there. 

Particularly when Melodyne can be used to create some really remarkable stuff. It's on my to buy list after a month with the demo. 

Vocoder has been used to awesome effect many times in the past, notably here.



I'm not against using Melodyne to fix "a few" slightly off notes in an otherwise perfect studio take for an album release to save doing another 20 to get an equally good take at extreme expense. I've had to spend hours in the past re-playing solos to fix the fact I didn't quite nail a bend in an otherwise spot on take. The studio technology is there, so why not use it? If you subsequently can't pull it off live, then tough, you're still a bit shit

I went to a seminar by Presonus a while back that had one guy with an acoustic lay down a one take guitar and vocal performance and then demo'd Melodyne. They manipulated single notes within chords and vocals in one track! And turned a major song into minor one, vocals and all, that was quite freaky.

Used well, the tech is brilliant. To say otherwise is like saying we should record all music live, no overdubs, no sffects. Back to the '40's.

Heartfeltdawn said:

Particularly when Melodyne can be used to create some really remarkable stuff. It's on my to buy list after a month with the demo.

It can be awesome if used creatively for sure. If Studio One didn't suck by not having a notation editor I'd have had the Producer version with full Melodyne integration a few years ago!

The reliance on it by modern producers to fix bad performances by mediocre performers is where I have the issue. People were gradually desensitized to it by Cher and Co. to the point where it became the norm to no longer hear, or rather ignore the "glitches", and it's now what the general public accept as what singing sounds like. Until they hear someone really sing, and then they're like "OMG!!!". Hence the meteoric rise every now and again of Singists who can actually do the job.

Anyhoo, rant over. And Fergie? Yep, I well would

ToneControl

ha ha 

very funny to watch

Like a scarier older rip off of Nicki Minaj (who doesn't hold copyright on these elements of course)

Slightly less cartoonish, slightly more intimidating

Not musical though

Winny_Pooh

This is the way to do it

breakstuff

Philly_Q

I read the whole thread before watching the video and thought I'd imagined exactly what it would be like.

I hadn't.  I'm not sure I could have imagined that.  It's not quite offensive, it sure as hell isn't "empowering"... it's mostly just moronic.  And the music is totally, utterly worthless.

 

digitalscream said:

I'm genuinely confused with this sort of thing. Back in the 80s and 90s, women taking their clothes off for TV was demeaning. Hell, even 10 years ago it was like that.

Suddenly, it's supposed to be "empowering" (in specific circumstances, usually determined by how much the press and feminists happen to like the individual who forgot to get dressed). How, exactly?

This.  We've almost gone back to the standards of the '70s, only worse... films and TV in the '70s were chock full of sexism and nudity, but at least it was presented in a matter-of-fact, warts and all way which somewhat resembled real, everyday life.  Now we're bombarded by these images of celebrity-for-no-reason women who all look like freakish, rubbery sex dolls.  The most popular website is the Daily Mail, which only talks about women in terms of how much cleavage, side-boob or "toned" legs they're "flaunting".  And they think they're "empowered".