930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer on March 04, 2004, 01:37:00 pm
-
Up From Rock
RobbieFulks.Com by Robbie Fulks
March 3rd, 2004
"You must have heard it SOMEWHERE."
Those of us who are out of step with the herd hear that one a lot. I heard it last spring, traveling between cities with my band. We were listening to a CD called "The Very Best of Cher." It had been given me by a friend in Boston who works for a corporate concern, specifically, a record label, one that stakes its survival on the issuance of CDs like "The Very Best of Cher." Why my friend passes this stuff on to me is unclear, but she did, and several months later, after it had bounced around unopened on the floor of my van long enough, I put it on. The first song was called "Believe," and it wasn't long until the groaning began.
"Put on something else, for Christ's sweet sake!"
"Hey, this doesn't sound half bad to me," I said. "It's kind of a catchy song."
"It's not so much the song," the drummer told me. "It's how all of civilization couldn't escape it five years ago."
"I don't know where I was five years ago," I said. "Probably in this van. But I missed it then, and I'm liking it now."
"Oh, come on. You must have heard it SOMEWHERE."
If the expectation is that every American must know "Believe," I can name several just in my immediate family that don't. Maybe it's in a well-rounded musician's own best interests to maintain some passing acquaintance with mass taste. I'll have to call up Zubin Mehta and ask him. But I bet he didn't keep up with Cher much past "Bang Bang."
That keeping a foot in the stinking YMCA pool of pop culture is the informed citizen's duty is certainly the cherished premise of its peddlers. "Entertainment Weekly," America's most profitable magazine, smugly and openly exploits the anti-hierarchical justification: he who would be whole must surrender not only his brow to Montaigne for furrowing but his rib to Ivan Reitman for busting. The smart modern has "experienced" -- connotations of bovine passivity intended -- a smattering of the centuries-dead set as well as the best works of Santana, John Grisham, and Tom Hanks. You don't need to take a very long view on the matter to see that this line has no merit whatsoever, except to keep corporate media revenues robust and to soothe the troubled souls of people who have not read Montaigne once but have seen "Caddyshack" several times.
This is not to indulge in easy snobbery. (As though! The number of hours I have spent in the celluloid company of Bill Murray over the years dwarfs the time I have spent with a volume of Montaigne in my lap.) It is just to admit that culture and entertainment, no matter that they fortuitously conjoin from time to time, are separate and separable species, and that as a man ripens in age, pari passu with his powers of discrimination, he will naturally come to prefer one over the other. He will tend to abjure radio and television except for news and weather. He will stay clear of discotheques, and effortlessly tune out department store music. These are healthy habits that harden as one grows slowly deaf to the frequencies of youth. They are symptoms not of a studied snootiness but of a happy temperament.
Music is my beat, my daily working environment, and you might think it takes some doing for me to avoid pollutants in the air. Not so. My ignorance has been easily attained, by following the prophylactic steps described above -- keeping the radio off, etc. I don't think my isolation from the Zeitgeist has affected my professional prospects, which have proved steadfastly dim no matter what I listen to. In fact, I don't honestly think of myself as cut off, but liberated. The shedding of the old compulsion to familiarize myself with whoever is on the cover of Spin magazine this month is a big relief. Like Malcolm Muggeridge, who at the age of 80 was delighted to find his sex drive finally waning, I feel as though I have been allowed to dismount a wild horse.
I like to think that what I am missing out on is Rock Music. That is a term, like "government," that connotes everything and nothing, a big bland badness. Rock is, of course, not really a kind of music. Jazz and bluegrass and Baroque can claim some identifiable, even if loose, formal boundaries. They come with compositional and instrumental outlines. Anyone who wants to get in the ring needs first to train, since any style that meets a hard definition of "music" demands a specific set of hard skills. And not only the players but the listeners too need specific contextual knowledge of the form. Without this sense, music is little more than a goad to foot-tapping and body-slamming: an appealing noise, maybe, but fundamentally incomprehensible.
Rock requires relatively less of its players than a clearly-bounded style like Baroque. And it demands almost nothing of its audience, since, almost by definition, its function is to cater, not demand. Whatever it might once have been, Rock in the early 21st century is an amorphous sociological category, a catchall for a distilled product marketed to people who don't care too much about music. It's just about anything bought in quantities of hundreds of thousands or higher, from any one of five corporate sources. It is to music as entertainment is to culture: an awesome force and an insatiable beast that tyrannizes the jungle. Surrounded by smaller and prettier fauna, it perpetuates its hegemony by devouring whatever it can grab. What goes into its great maw comes out, predictably, as shit. In goes Miles Davis, out comes Chuck Mangione; in Howlin' Wolf, out Rolling Stones; in Chris LeDoux, out Garth Brooks. All right, maybe "shit" is a tad opprobrious. But even Rock's worthiest figures (Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan) are clearly downmarket models of non- or pre-rock prototypes (Louis Jordan, Woody Guthrie).
When I was a kid I spent hours of intense enjoyment poring over Bob Dylan lyrics for oblique truths. Rock inspires and encourages this kind of hero worship, which is, not coincidentally, an easier sell than tough-minded discrimination, just as excitability is a bigger high than jaundice, and conformity more comforting that wondering what the hell everybody else is talking about. Rock is, then, the perfect love object for hero-starved excitable conformists, or "kids," to use the Saxon term. I like to think that it is more than the sluggish metabolism of middle-age that has changed my relationship to music. It now seems self-evident that appreciation (or the attempt at it) is an improvement over idolatry. The one focuses attention simultaneously and deeply outward and inward, reckoning with objective forces and the response to them, curiously examining and arguing with both. The other gratifies a crude need.
No doubt about it, Rock has its endearing traits: its ever-escalating outrageousness, its comic priapism, its lip service to democratic ideals, its sentimental dedication to the outcast. But these are theatrical and theoretical strengths. If you love music for its own sake, why even waste time with this weak variant? Take a look at what everyone is enjoying, as recorded on this week's1 Billboard Top 50 Albums: Hillary Duff (#1), Evanescence (#5), YoungBloodZ (#11), Linkin Park (#12), 3 Doors Down (#22), something called Mya (#41), Michelle Branch (#43), Jessica Simpson (#45), the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club (#47), and Fabulous (#50). What on earth is all this? Does there lurk here a single piece of music that will enlarge my life and gladden my heart? It's possible, but not too likely. And the couple of names I do recognize -- Beyonce (#4), Christina Aguilera (#25), Toby Keith (#32), Kenny Chesney (#46), and matchbox twenty (#48) -- shout emphatically: Not very fucking likely at all! (And look, there's "The Very Best of Cher," still hanging in gamely at #36. Apart from "Believe," this mostly-decades-old recyclage is, like the singer's career, another expensive waste of time, and its 23-week tenure on the chart illustrates that pop's cognate stodginess exceeds even my own.)
As surely as this music is the soundtrack for the fantasy lives of the comatose, it is just as surely unsporting of an old grumpus-wumpus like me to take pot shots. Okay then, take a look at another list, one of nearly all the prestigious rock establishment people I can think of without lifting a very heavy book by a very bad writer: the Rolling Stones, James Taylor, Eric Clapton, the Allman Brothers, Bruce Springsteen, the Doors, the Grateful Dead, the Doobie Brothers, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, Fleetwood Mac, John Mellencamp, Smashing Pumpkins, the Clash, Sting, Dave Matthews Band, Neil Young, U2, Prince, Counting Crows, Phish, R.E.M., Billy Joel, Green Day, Lenny Kravitz, Beastie Boys, Oasis, Tom Petty, Nirvana, Eminem -- have I missed any? I have nothing in particular against these people. I'm even partial to a few of their songs, here and there. But I've never bought any of their records, and I don't happen to believe that music as a whole would be any the poorer if all their master tapes were rocketed to the sun tomorrow.
The truth of rock's incurable inferiority is confirmed by the attitudes of its more sensitive practitioners, who reserve most of their admiration and respect for comparatively obscure musicians outside rock. We are told that Bob Dylan, far from sitting secure in the catbird seat of worldwide superstardom and significance, privately worries that his legacy will not match up to Jimmie Rodgers's or Willie McTell's. Garth Brooks admires not Toby Keith (I am speculating on this one) but Buddy Mondlock, and Paul McCartney is a fan of Lloyd Green. Bruce Springsteen looks up to Joe Grushecky, and Tom Petty is nervous around Mavis Staples. This unabashed artistic appreciation -- which doesn't often run the other way, from obscurity to star, though a stealthy envy does -- suggests that, if music insiders know their onions, the rest of the world has it almost exactly backward.
It is a fine thing that there are people who can sell records. Almost everyone needs music, and for almost everyone there are the popularizers. But there's more afoot in the jungle, for anyone who cares to listen in; strange creatures, deeper in, exuding tone like it was carbon dioxide. There is no accounting for voices like Willie McTell's or Mavis Staples's, and maybe no marketing them either. They are what floats my boat as I drift ever farther from civilization. And a nice benefit of that drift is that, every once in a while, something like Cher's "Believe" happens to blow in unexpectedly. Out here in the sticks you can hear it, as it were, acoustically, free of the whirr of star machinery. You can appreciate its assured melodic authority and architectural integrity, which derive from other dim forms upriver, forms with names like Goffin and McCartney, and, a bit farther up, Ellington and Berlin. Maybe I have heard it somewhere, after all.
-
boooooooooooooooooooooooorrring....
booooooooooooooooooooooooorrrring...
something rhett would read...
-
Like a Death Cab for Cutie show?
Originally posted by J'Mal:
boooooooooooooooooooooooorrring....
booooooooooooooooooooooooorrrring...
-
Ben Gibbard can say more in two lines than robbie fulks or whoever can say in all that big gob of self-important text.
-
And the lines would go something like: "I'm a sad little emo boy with a girly voice, won't you shed a tear for me, pretty please?"
Originally posted by J'Mal:
Ben Gibbard can say more in two lines than robbie fulks or whoever can say in all that big gob of self-important text.
-
So what Robbie Fulks is saying is anything popular is crap, if he has listened to it or not? Isn't that somewhat myopic? He also sees no beauty in fine pop songs, which is a shame for him.
-
I'd guess more people find more meaning and emotional fulfillment in DCFC than do in all of fulks's self-important verbiage.
If you don't get DCFC, that's sad for you.
You posted that fulks bullshit here, I'm just pointing the obvious (that it is overlong boring drivel).
-
Originally posted by J'Mal:
boooooooooooooooooooooooorrring....
booooooooooooooooooooooooorrrring...
something rhett would read...
pssst...J'Mal...your ignorance is showing...either that, or maybe you just forgot to take your Ritalin...
-
I think Rhett was feeling threatened after GGW had made some uber-long and boring posts, and therfore challenging him as the most boring poster.
Nice one Rhett...you came back strong.
-
I think either you didn't read the whole article, or you missed his point.
Robbie quite regularly features covers like Cher's "Believe", Abba's "Dancing Queen", Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean", Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper" etc. live in concert. He laid out 30K of his own money to make a Michael Jackson tribute record (which will end up being a total financial loss). He doesn't play these songs mockingly; he plays them with the same zest and love that he does for his own songs. To say that he doesn't appreciate the beauty of a pop song is absurd. He does appreciate the beauty, he just doesn't see the cultural IMPORTANCE.
His point was that rock (pop, if you will), is really created with an audience in mind, first and foremost. He seems to think that to elevate rock to some form of "culture" may be too lofty of a goal. As people have argued even on this board, he seems to be saying that rock is more about a younger group conformist need to rebel and be entertained (if I may try to smush a handful of his ideas into one sentence) rather than being some type of high art/culture.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
So what Robbie Fulks is saying is anything popular is crap, if he has listened to it or not? Isn't that somewhat myopic? He also sees no beauty in fine pop songs, which is a shame for him.
-
He made a Michael Jackson tribute record!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHA
What was he thinking...Michael Jackson isn't selling any cd's these days so why the hell would a trbiute album sell?
Not very business savvy is he?
-
It waas recorded a couple of years ago, before these accusation started flying. He had a major label ready to buy it, right when all this shit went down.
His previous record was released right around the time of 9/11, contributing to it going nowhere.
His only major label album came out a month before a big company shakeup in which he was dropped from the label, and the record received no support.
Just one of those people with impeccably bad timing.
Originally posted by mankie:
He made a Michael Jackson tribute record!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHA
What was he thinking...Michael Jackson isn't selling any cd's these days so why the hell would a trbiute album sell?
Not very business savvy is he?
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
he just doesn't see the cultural IMPORTANCE.
How could any entertainment form that virtually everyone in the first world is subjected to and probably buys oh a billion CDs a year be culturally unimportant.
That is like saying TV or cinema is culturally unimportant.
I think you, not I, missed the point.
As for being Art vs high art, how very pretentious. Its all just entertainment. Either it connects with you or it does not.
-
I think you disagree with his point, and are therefore subjecting your own viewpoint as the eminent viewpoint. I think what I said was his point was actually HIS point. Whether you or I or anybody agrees with it is another story, but I do think the "pretentious" interpretation of what he is saying actually was his point.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
he just doesn't see the cultural IMPORTANCE.
How could any entertainment form that virtually everyone in the first world is subjected to and probably buys oh a billion CDs a year be culturally unimportant.
That is like saying TV or cinema is culturally unimportant.
I think you, not I, missed the point.
As for being Art vs high art, how very pretentious. Its all just entertainment. Either it connects with you or it does not. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
It waas recorded a couple of years ago, before these accusation started flying. He had a major label ready to buy it, right when all this shit went down.
His previous record was released right around the time of 9/11, contributing to it going nowhere.
His only major label album came out a month before a big company shakeup in which he was dropped from the label, and the record received no support.
Just one of those people with impeccably bad timing.
Originally posted by mankie:
He made a Michael Jackson tribute record!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHA
What was he thinking...Michael Jackson isn't selling any cd's these days so why the hell would a trbiute album sell?
Not very business savvy is he?
[/b]
When was the last time Wacko Jacko had a monster hit?
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
I think you disagree with his point, and are therefore subjecting your own viewpoint as the eminent viewpoint. I think what I said was his point was actually HIS point. Whether you or I or anybody agrees with it is another story, but I do think the "pretentious" interpretation of what he is saying actually was his point.
Yes, actually I think I forgot who I was arguing.
If so why carry on, as an artist, in an irrelevant medium? Why make a piece of work if its unlikely that even yourself would enjoy it?
-
"Just one of those people with impeccably bad timing."
Or, one might say, bad taste. I've never heard a Robbie Fulks record, but I've seen him perform, and while he was a fine guitar player and decent enough singer, his songs were imminently forgettable -- what I do recall is that they seemed mostly to be unfunny novelty tunes. I think it's fair to say that Fulks' skills as a songwriter have had a big influence on his relative level of success.
Re: the irrelevance of rock music to Culture: as Tom Disch said, in reference to a common complaint about science fiction, 90% of everything is crap. To point out that the Top 40 charts (of anything) are full of it is to state the obvious. What are more difficult to define -- and what Fulks does not address -- are the criteria for distinguishing great art from everything else. One test is the degree of devotion and appreciation a work evokes from more than one generation, so to slag off what is popular now merely because it is popular is incredibly myopic.
-
OK, I gave people a lot of grief over liking the Darkness because they bought into hype, but that article is just ridiculous. I can appreciate many, many different kinds of music, but just because it doesn't have cultural importance or significance doesn't mean it's not worth listening to! As for bands like the Doors or the Clash making rock music to target an audience in mind...well, that is baloney. How is it then that Iggy Pop goes to see the Doors, who won't play their biggest hit ("Light My Fire") and instead choose to antagonize and ridicule the very audience there to see them? And many (and I mean MANY) of the "alternative" artists that I love and cherish also were influenced by bands like the Clash, the Doors, the Rolling Stones, etc. Don't tell me Kurt Cobain became a rock star for the babes and for the money. He didn't last long enough to enjoy it...he was an artist that didn't want to compromise on anything. There ARE people out there that become musicians because this is their calling in life...you are seeing it again nowadays. You think most musicians make a ton of money off the records they sell? Think again. How could anyone in their right mind become a rock star these days for the money? Your chances of winning the lotto are higher. Unless you sell 10 million copies of a record, you really aren't going to get much of a chance to cash in. It's sad but true. Rock'n'roll can be about any number of things...sex, drugs, life, love, partying, death, happiness, sadness, anger, etc. There are no rules...there is no code that was written as to what and why an artist should contribute to society through music like rock'n'roll. The whole point was to break the rules, not follow them. And truly...I have set a bad example for myself by writing so much about what rock is. What it boils down to is honesty. Dylan has it, Johnny Thunders had it, Iggy has it, Cobain had it, Bowie has it, Chrissie Hynde has it, Neil Young has it...think how different all of them are. Sometimes they lose sight of it, but it's still a part of them. Rock is not about what is cool, "alternative", etc. Anyone like Robbie Fulks needs to get drunk and laid and put on "Led Zeppelin II", "Sticky Fingers", or even "Paul's Boutique" and maybe he will realize he's looking at music (and probably the world) through a very narrow field of vision.
-
Ask Mavis Staples that. Ask Blind Willie McTell that. Ask any number or bluegrass, Baroque, jazz, or players of whatever other forms of marginalized genres there are. Ask any band that plays places like the Grog and Tankard, or JV's in Falls Church or the Halfmoon Barbeque in Silver Spring even after being in the business for twenty years. Who says that these people don't enjoy the process of making the piece of work, just because the masses don't get it?
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
I think you disagree with his point, and are therefore subjecting your own viewpoint as the eminent viewpoint. I think what I said was his point was actually HIS point. Whether you or I or anybody agrees with it is another story, but I do think the "pretentious" interpretation of what he is saying actually was his point.
Yes, actually I think I forgot who I was arguing.
If so why carry on, as an artist, in an irrelevant medium? Why make a piece of work if its unlikely that even yourself would enjoy it? [/b]
-
FYI...I really WAS joking around with that last part of my statement :)
-
You're probably right. He does have a narrow scope of vision when it comes to music. I imagine many musicians do.
Originally posted by bunnyman:
FYI...I really WAS joking around with that last part of my statement :)
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
How could any entertainment form that virtually everyone in the first world is subjected to and probably buys oh a billion CDs a year be culturally unimportant.
That is like saying TV or cinema is culturally unimportant.
I think you, not I, missed the point.
As for being Art vs high art, how very pretentious. Its all just entertainment. Either it connects with you or it does not.
what I took away from it is that much of Rock and current TV/cinema stems from what is sellable...thereforce commerce gives birth to culture, rather than people's passions, interests or views of life creating the culture...I guess this has a long history dating back to when patrons may have "controlled" what an artist would produce, but at least that was based on the ideals of the patron, not on the goal of making a profit...
I think this profit-driven culture denegrates us all...
Do I say no to it, though? Unfortunately no...but I try to keep it in perspective...
-
"Hey, this doesn't sound half bad to me," I said. "It's kind of a catchy song."
That speaks volumes and not in a good way.
-
Originally posted by bunnyman:
OK, I gave people a lot of grief over liking the Darkness because they bought into hype, but that article is just ridiculous. I can appreciate many, many different kinds of music, but just because it doesn't have cultural importance or significance doesn't mean it's not worth listening to! As for bands like the Doors or the Clash making rock music to target an audience in mind...well, that is baloney. How is it then that Iggy Pop goes to see the Doors, who won't play their biggest hit ("Light My Fire") and instead choose to antagonize and ridicule the very audience there to see them? And many (and I mean MANY) of the "alternative" artists that I love and cherish also were influenced by bands like the Clash, the Doors, the Rolling Stones, etc. Don't tell me Kurt Cobain became a rock star for the babes and for the money. He didn't last long enough to enjoy it...he was an artist that didn't want to compromise on anything. There ARE people out there that become musicians because this is their calling in life...you are seeing it again nowadays. You think most musicians make a ton of money off the records they sell? Think again. How could anyone in their right mind become a rock star these days for the money? Your chances of winning the lotto are higher. Unless you sell 10 million copies of a record, you really aren't going to get much of a chance to cash in. It's sad but true. Rock'n'roll can be about any number of things...sex, drugs, life, love, partying, death, happiness, sadness, anger, etc. There are no rules...there is no code that was written as to what and why an artist should contribute to society through music like rock'n'roll. The whole point was to break the rules, not follow them. And truly...I have set a bad example for myself by writing so much about what rock is. What it boils down to is honesty. Dylan has it, Johnny Thunders had it, Iggy has it, Cobain had it, Bowie has it, Chrissie Hynde has it, Neil Young has it...think how different all of them are. Sometimes they lose sight of it, but it's still a part of them. Rock is not about what is cool, "alternative", etc. Anyone like Robbie Fulks needs to get drunk and laid and put on "Led Zeppelin II", "Sticky Fingers", or even "Paul's Boutique" and maybe he will realize he's looking at music (and probably the world) through a very narrow field of vision.
Very eloquent piece of writing.
Let me try to sum-up what I think you are saying.
"Fulks is a twat!"
Am I right?
;)
-
LOL...well sure...but I was explaining WHY I think he is a twat, and there's a difference. ;) By the way, it is so friggin' gorgeous out today, the last place I should be is at a computer. I recommend we all go out, go to a pub with outdoor seating, and have a pint.
-
Here, Harriet has made the most astute statement on the board all day.
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by mark e smith:
How could any entertainment form that virtually everyone in the first world is subjected to and probably buys oh a billion CDs a year be culturally unimportant.
That is like saying TV or cinema is culturally unimportant.
I think you, not I, missed the point.
As for being Art vs high art, how very pretentious. Its all just entertainment. Either it connects with you or it does not.
what I took away from it is that much of Rock and current TV/cinema stems from what is sellable...thereforce commerce gives birth to culture, rather than people's passions, interests or views of life creating the culture...I guess this has a long history dating back to when patrons may have "controlled" what an artist would produce, but at least that was based on the ideals of the patron, not on the goal of making a profit...
I think this profit-driven culture denegrates us all...
Do I say no to it, though? Unfortunately no...but I try to keep it in perspective... [/b]
-
On the subject of TV culture.
Who else is happy that the BITCH from DC got fired from the apprentice last night? She's had it coming a long time that one.
Sad bastard aren't I...but it's the only reality show I've watched, which isn't bad considering the airwaves are full of the shite these days.
-
Funny, my wife liked both her AND Martha Stewart...
Can't really comment myself, I aint been watching the show.
Originally posted by mankie:
On the subject of TV culture.
Who else is happy that the BITCH from DC got fired from the apprentice last night? She's had it coming a long time that one.
Sad bastard aren't I...but it's the only reality show I've watched, which isn't bad considering the airwaves are full of the shite these days.
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Funny, my wife liked both her AND Martha Stewart...
Can't really comment myself, I aint been watching the show.
Originally posted by mankie:
On the subject of TV culture.
Who else is happy that the BITCH from DC got fired from the apprentice last night? She's had it coming a long time that one.
Sad bastard aren't I...but it's the only reality show I've watched, which isn't bad considering the airwaves are full of the shite these days.
[/b]
Can't speak for Martha, but your wife must like lazy, lying, manipulative hyperchondriacs who flash the race card all to easily.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Can't speak for Martha, but your wife must like lazy, lying, manipulative hyperchondriacs who flash the race card all to easily.
well, I hardly ever watch the show, so I don't really know for sure...at first I was kind of glad she got shit-canned because she seemed like a prima donna...HOWEVER...I could relate to her wanting to sit down to eat lunch, and I don't really care for that Heidi chick...also, she was the only one who had the right instinct about the artist they chose and she was also the only one who could even sell a piece, even though she personally didn't like the art...
that team really blew it! imagine making their choice on price points alone...it's generally easier to sell safe and friendlier art, or at least art they could somewhat understand and like
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by mankie:
Can't speak for Martha, but your wife must like lazy, lying, manipulative hyperchondriacs who flash the race card all to easily.
well, I hardly ever watch the show, so I don't really know for sure...at first I was kind of glad she got shit-canned because she seemed like a prima donna...HOWEVER...I could relate to her wanting to sit down to eat lunch, and I don't really care for that Heidi chick...also, she was the only one who had the right instinct about the artist they chose and she was also the only one who could even sell a piece, even though she personally didn't like the art...
that team really blew it! imagine making their choice on price points alone...it's generally easier to sell safe and friendlier art, or at least art they could somewhat understand and like [/b]
That Heidi girl is a little rough alright, but at least she was the only one not afraid of that one that got canned last night...Omarosa or whatever her name is.
I personally would never have picked the artist they picked...not only did I think her art was shite, it was also pretty provocative so not too many people are going to buy it...for a sales contest they needed to go more middle of the road, like Omarosa suggested.
If you haven't watched the whole series you've missed a lot of the bullshit she's come up with though. In fact, her suggestion last night was only only sound idea she had. She was the leader for a flea market project they had to do. She said because she was brought up in the projects :roll: and her mother had to buy her clothes at flea markets she would ace the contest....needless to say they got hammered. The only project she's seen was her art project at the private school she probably went to.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by mankie:
Can't speak for Martha, but your wife must like lazy, lying, manipulative hyperchondriacs who flash the race card all to easily.
well, I hardly ever watch the show, so I don't really know for sure...at first I was kind of glad she got shit-canned because she seemed like a prima donna...HOWEVER...I could relate to her wanting to sit down to eat lunch, and I don't really care for that Heidi chick...also, she was the only one who had the right instinct about the artist they chose and she was also the only one who could even sell a piece, even though she personally didn't like the art...
that team really blew it! imagine making their choice on price points alone...it's generally easier to sell safe and friendlier art, or at least art they could somewhat understand and like [/b]
That Heidi girl is a little rough alright, but at least she was the only one not afraid of that one that got canned last night...Omarosa or whatever her name is.
I personally would never have picked the artist they picked...not only did I think her art was shite, it was also pretty provocative so not too many people are going to buy it...for a sales contest they needed to go more middle of the road, like Omarosa suggested.
If you haven't watched the whole series you've missed a lot of the bullshit she's come up with though. In fact, her suggestion last night was only only sound idea she had. She was the leader for a flea market project they had to do. She said because she was brought up in the projects :roll: and her mother had to buy her clothes at flea markets she would ace the contest....needless to say they got hammered. The only project she's seen was her art project at the private school she probably went to. [/b]
yeah, well Mr. Balls kind of misspoke when he said I "liked" her...I generally don't like prissy women of any kind...and, someone had to go last night...so it may as well have been her...
I worked with a girl who was in the Miss DC pageant and Omorosa was her coach!!!!
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
I worked with a girl who was in the Miss DC pageant and Omorosa was her coach!!!! [/b]
I'm guessing she was disqualified during the personality part of the pageant then.
-
actually, the girl I know is very nice and has a great personality...so I'm not sure what happened there