To attend the Alice in Wonderland themed house party on Saturday or not? I'm experiencing major costume fail, especially given the way work seems to sap up my schedule. I have toyed with the idea of attending for a couple of hours, out of costume, and then going to the Bunker... and I'd resolved to do that until I found out an important piece of information that might make me err on the side of staying at the party all night.
Teasingly, I am going to leave that nugget to your imaginations. But you can probably guess what it is. So everyone... what do you think?
1. Desperately try to clobber something together in terms of a costume and attend (despite not being at the Bunker a couple of weeks ago too? Shocking, I know!)
2. Attend out of costume and go to the Bunker?
3. Stay away altogether and just Bunker it?
Thoughts please.
Thursday 6 November 2008
Tuesday 4 November 2008
Sometimes, the good guys win.
What a relief.
Some excellent news to wake up to. All that crossing clearly made a difference...
I'm a little bit stunned really. Delighted, but stunned. It happened. They did it.
Prepare for four years of scowling faces on FOX News.
Some excellent news to wake up to. All that crossing clearly made a difference...
I'm a little bit stunned really. Delighted, but stunned. It happened. They did it.
Prepare for four years of scowling faces on FOX News.
Prayers before bedtime.
Well, it's a bit of a historic day.
Come tomorrow morning, when I open my eyes and curse that wretched alarm clock of mine for waking me out of my peaceful slumber again, America will have elected a new President.
Let's just hope it's the right one. I'm crossing my everything as I climb under the covers.
Don't let me down guys.
Come tomorrow morning, when I open my eyes and curse that wretched alarm clock of mine for waking me out of my peaceful slumber again, America will have elected a new President.
Let's just hope it's the right one. I'm crossing my everything as I climb under the covers.
Don't let me down guys.
In my mailbox, this afternoon.
Hello everyone
We thought you would like to know that we have been making music. We have been in the studio with Mr Steve Albini recording live – to tape – analogue – no digital hiss – no Pro Tools – no safety nets. Quite scary, daunting but invigorating.
All the songs we are recording are lyrics left to us by Richey. Finally it feels like the right time to use them (especially after the last 18 months being so amazing with Send Away The Tigers). Musically, in many ways it feels like a follow up to the Holy Bible but there is also an acoustic side – tender, romantic, nihilism, “Small Black Flowers That Grow In The Sky” esque. It’s a record that celebrates the genius of his words, full of love, anger, intelligence and respect. We have to make this great. Wish us luck.
We hope to release the record next April or May. The working titles are “Journal for Plague Lovers” or “I Know I Believe In Nothing But It Is My Nothing”.
Love
Nicky, James and Sean.
There is a distinct temptation to be unkindly pessimistic about this endeavour. I caught myself thinking, 'Oh God guys, what have you let yourselves in for'? Can they do Richey's words justice? Are Richey's words even that good (much was made of the 'rambling' nature of some of his work post-The Holy Bible and pre-his disappearance)? And what about the notion of that second album title suggestion? (Awesome lyric, bad name for an LP). But you know what, I'm not going to be the spoilsport here. I'm going to take this for what it is, or rather, what it could be: something potentially fantastic from a band (probably) in its final days. They seem committed to doing a damn fine job and I honestly don't believe that (a) they'd give it a go if they didn't think they were up to it and (b) if Richey's words weren't up to scratch, that we'd even be here, having this discussion. So I'm looking forward to seeing what my favourite band of all time ever can come out with. Here's to 2009.
We thought you would like to know that we have been making music. We have been in the studio with Mr Steve Albini recording live – to tape – analogue – no digital hiss – no Pro Tools – no safety nets. Quite scary, daunting but invigorating.
All the songs we are recording are lyrics left to us by Richey. Finally it feels like the right time to use them (especially after the last 18 months being so amazing with Send Away The Tigers). Musically, in many ways it feels like a follow up to the Holy Bible but there is also an acoustic side – tender, romantic, nihilism, “Small Black Flowers That Grow In The Sky” esque. It’s a record that celebrates the genius of his words, full of love, anger, intelligence and respect. We have to make this great. Wish us luck.
We hope to release the record next April or May. The working titles are “Journal for Plague Lovers” or “I Know I Believe In Nothing But It Is My Nothing”.
Love
Nicky, James and Sean.
There is a distinct temptation to be unkindly pessimistic about this endeavour. I caught myself thinking, 'Oh God guys, what have you let yourselves in for'? Can they do Richey's words justice? Are Richey's words even that good (much was made of the 'rambling' nature of some of his work post-The Holy Bible and pre-his disappearance)? And what about the notion of that second album title suggestion? (Awesome lyric, bad name for an LP). But you know what, I'm not going to be the spoilsport here. I'm going to take this for what it is, or rather, what it could be: something potentially fantastic from a band (probably) in its final days. They seem committed to doing a damn fine job and I honestly don't believe that (a) they'd give it a go if they didn't think they were up to it and (b) if Richey's words weren't up to scratch, that we'd even be here, having this discussion. So I'm looking forward to seeing what my favourite band of all time ever can come out with. Here's to 2009.
Monday 3 November 2008
In which, I plea for sanity.
Sometimes, I despair.
I honestly cannot believe that in this supposedly enlightened day and age, 44,998 people still chose to listen to the ass-backwards, self-professed 'moralising' and dangerous reactionary conservativism of a worthless rag like The Daily Mail. 44,998. Read that number and weep, people. Nearly forty five thousand of middle England's finest purveyors of 'good taste' and 'decency' chose to pick up their phones, dial the BBC and register their disgust at the decision to air Ross and Brand's skit about Andrew Sachs. "Filth!", claimed 'Outraged' of Tunbridge Wells. "In appallingly bad taste!", roared 'Aghast' of Kingston-Upon-Thames. "Kill these feminist homosexual swan-eating Polish Muslim immigrants!", bayed 'R. Littlejohn' of... oh, wait.
And all this days after the sketch was actually broadcast. Yes, that's right ladies and gentlemen, two whole individuals registered their complaints with the BBC initially. Then, when The Daily Mail's ultra-right-wing, ultra-pro-censorship media correspondent happened to tune in and found it at odds with his own personal proclivities (Songs of Praise, tragically, it was not), he made the Alps out of a molehill, splashed the story over the front page of the Sunday edition of his newspaper (not that there were any more important issues to be rabbiting on about that day or anything) and created the biggest moral panic to hit Blighty since Marilyn Manson first dipped his toes in the English Channel about ten years ago. So now, just about everyone in the Home Counties has joined the gang and had a bit of a go... and they're still complaining. Yes, that's right, the number continues to grow as the days go on, and with every additional complaint, The Daily Mail's editorial staff get a step closer to realising that yes, actually, they do control the country.
And yet, it seems, not that many of the morally outraged have actually had a listen to the actual broadcast. Here, by the glorious power of Youtube, is the skit in all its glory:
Now then. I don't know about you but... I honestly cannot see the scope of the problem. It's hardly Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' or, my personal favourite, The Daily Mail's own "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!" But we do have to concede Andrew Sachs, and his daughter's, feelings amongst all of this. Except, their feelings do seem to fluctuate a bit. Read one report and you think the BBC aired the show despite their protests that they didn't want it broadcast. Naughty BBC then, you may think... everyone should have the right to refuse the presentation of materials about themselves, or those related to them, that they object to. Although you wouldn't think that from reading The Daily Mail, or any of the gutterpress for that matter, day in, day out, as fresh sex scandals drip from their grubby pages; as over-paid 'mistresses' kiss and tell about their one night stands with married, rich celebrities. But that's another story altogether. Read the next report and you find that Sachs only objected after the broadcast; that he initially gave it his approval. Naughty Sachs then, you may think, for smelling the potential exposure and ££££ in kicking up a stink and getting both his and his daughter's name in more column inches in a week than they have managed in about two decades. (What's the betting one of the two, if not both, will appear on either Celebrity Big Brother or I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here! in the not too distant future?!) And if you read report number three, you'll think Sachs 'wasn't happy' about the material, but gave it the go ahead anyway... and then did a 360 degree turn after broadcast. And probably after he smelled the £££££££. Hmm....
To call the sketch 'morally reprehensible' is just plain idiotic. Perhaps Ross and Brand overstepped the mark by alluding to a personal relationship between Russell and Sachs' daughter that needn't have been exposed to the public if either of the parties objected. But then, all he says is that Brand slept with her. They then go on to state that he used a condom. Heaven forfend! Oh my God, the blasphemy! What filth, what degrading, disgusting, guttural immorality! Get this refuse off our airwaves! Or... not. You would think that a member of a burlesque troupe calling themselves the 'Satanic Sluts' might be used to the concept of consensual sexual intercourse. And that the listeners of a late night radio show might be used to the concept of consensual sexual intercourse. And, particularly, the kind of listeners that tend to tune in to Brand and Ross' show. All this is lost on The Daily Mail and its middle England readership, however; all they see is a penis and a vagina, all they hear is the suggestion of - shock! - homosexuality and, whoops, they're barfing into their begonias. Some go on to object to the rest of the sketch, in which the comedians suggest ways they can apologise to Sachs, one of which is to creep up on him in his bedroom and give him a cuddle... which, obviously, leads to more sexual innuendo. Sure, you might think it's purile but, get this guys and girls, try this concept on for size... it is not to be taken seriously. Woah, never thought of that one, ey? The concept of this part of the skit is 'how can we make it better?'; the comedy lies in the suggestions ultimately only making it worse... thereby defeating the point and making Brand and Ross appear, by association, a bit dumb. To take the suggestions at face value is just plain ludicrous. But then, what do you expect from 44,998 people who only complain after a newspaper has told them to?
This is not the most troubling aspect of the, I can barely bring myself to type it, 'scandal', however. Putting aside for one moment the disgraceful fact that Gordon Brown has actually addressed this issue, and that it has been brought up in the Houses of Parliament of all places, when, you know, our economy is falling down around us and that, let's just have a look at what The Daily Mail is doing now. A day after Brand resigned and the poor Radio 2 head followed suit (neither of these should ever have happened), the paper ran this article,
Outrage at Mock the Week repeat!
in which the airing of an old episode of topical, satirical panel show Mock the Week was objected to because of its inclusion of a two minute piece in which jokes are made about the Queen. 'Morally reprehensible' jokes, obviously... which, in The Mail's eyes, is just about anything that pokes any semblance of fun. Once again, the point is missed entirely: the sketch asks the performers to come up with lines that you wouldn't hear the Queen make in her Christmas speech and therefore, the humour is open to interpretation. It is not necessarily that the suggestions are truths that would never be voiced... if so, I'm sorry, but I'd have a hard time believing that the Queen knew the words to 'Boombastic' by Shaggy. And yes, the comedians can be ruthless. But that's Mock the Week for you. No one and nothing is safe... and that's the point. Take a joke. That's all it is. The Daily Mail, however, once again, sees the world in black and white rather than its actual shades of fabulous technicolor.
And it's just getting worse and worse. Try this article, from Friday's edition, on for size:
"We apologise to any readers who may be offended."
I nearly choked on my Wotsits when I read over these examples of, to quote the paper, 'smutty and degrading obsencities'. Offended? Really? By any of that? You'd think we were living in the 1950s, were in nuclear families and that women had 'their place' in the kitchen, perpetually cooking the husband's dinner. 'A sympathy shag'? I find the whole concept of Sarah Palin about 10,000 times more offensive. But dear, dear, delicately-sensibilitied Mail reader, here's a thought... if you don't like this stuff, change the channel. I'm personally offended every time that trumped up, self-aggrandising bigot Jeremy Clarkson is given any airtime whatsoever on British television but instead of picking up the phone and whining because "I don't like it!", I reach for the remote and find The Graham Norton Show instead. And again, as with Brand/Ross and Mock the Week, the point is so achingly, depressingly missed in virtually all of the examples listed. The comedy lies in the ridiculousness of the scenarios: in marrying one extremity with another. They're not... oh why do I even bother? We're never going to get through to these people. I mean, just look at this article from today:
Now HMV's in deep trouble...
Granted, this is a step away from the world of television, but it's the same root cause of the same ludicrous moral panic. Because yes, banning these badges will reduce knife crime in Britain. Obviously. And The Dark Knight? Well, it's a shocking glorification of knives and should be given an 18 certificate! In fact, just ban this sick filth now! Head, here's two hands... meet your new best friends.
Of course, it is tempting to glance a sensible, sane eye over these articles and brush them off as the ridiculously ill-informed, psuedo-moralistic knee-jerk garbage that they are... but that ignores the underlying, really rather worrying issue, which is that, if 44,998 people can be buoyed into action by a single article in The Mail, and those numbers can then effectively bring the BBC to its knees and force them to make radical changes, however unnecessary or objectionable, what else can middle England's favourite 'journalists' achieve? What other programmes (or other forms of media output) whose political, moral or social stance they object to, can they force to 'change'? The articles above indicate that they're already trying it: what is the Mock the Week article but a blindly Royalist viewpoint taken to its most ridiculous extremity? ("We cannot mock our Monarch!" "But it's in the title of the show!" "Then she is off limits to you, heathens!") Is there any way of explaining the objections listed in Friday's article other than that they contradict an almost evangelical Christian ideology? The politics here aren't the Mail's... so they must be silenced. It's absolutely, unequivocally abhorrent... and it's damn worrying. Especially if another 45,000 people actually buy into any more of this crap.
Please, people. Don't be daft bastards. Put down this poor excuse for toilet paper, pick up the remote and change the damn channel if you need to. Just don't be responsible for landing us in a Mary Whitehouse-led media climate where 'knock knock' jokes are about the only acceptable form of humour and Little House on the Prairie fills up our daily schedules.
Don't listen to The Daily Mail. Thank you.
Addendum
Just found this
Well well well, Daily Mail. You bleat about the insensitivity of joking about murdering prostitutes now, but it wasn't that a year or so ago when you published this Littlejohn column, now was it?:
"That doesn't make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss."
I still can't get over that one. But did 44,998 people complain about this delightfully insensitive, utterly inappropriate load of garbage? Did they hell.
Oh, and it's worthwhile noting that this article about Top Gear was the lead story on the website... just above something about genetically modified mice and, oh yes, a couple of little bits about that economic crisis and, oh yeah, that little election thing that's going on in some country somewhere... these guys man, they've really got their priorities straight.
I honestly cannot believe that in this supposedly enlightened day and age, 44,998 people still chose to listen to the ass-backwards, self-professed 'moralising' and dangerous reactionary conservativism of a worthless rag like The Daily Mail. 44,998. Read that number and weep, people. Nearly forty five thousand of middle England's finest purveyors of 'good taste' and 'decency' chose to pick up their phones, dial the BBC and register their disgust at the decision to air Ross and Brand's skit about Andrew Sachs. "Filth!", claimed 'Outraged' of Tunbridge Wells. "In appallingly bad taste!", roared 'Aghast' of Kingston-Upon-Thames. "Kill these feminist homosexual swan-eating Polish Muslim immigrants!", bayed 'R. Littlejohn' of... oh, wait.
And all this days after the sketch was actually broadcast. Yes, that's right ladies and gentlemen, two whole individuals registered their complaints with the BBC initially. Then, when The Daily Mail's ultra-right-wing, ultra-pro-censorship media correspondent happened to tune in and found it at odds with his own personal proclivities (Songs of Praise, tragically, it was not), he made the Alps out of a molehill, splashed the story over the front page of the Sunday edition of his newspaper (not that there were any more important issues to be rabbiting on about that day or anything) and created the biggest moral panic to hit Blighty since Marilyn Manson first dipped his toes in the English Channel about ten years ago. So now, just about everyone in the Home Counties has joined the gang and had a bit of a go... and they're still complaining. Yes, that's right, the number continues to grow as the days go on, and with every additional complaint, The Daily Mail's editorial staff get a step closer to realising that yes, actually, they do control the country.
And yet, it seems, not that many of the morally outraged have actually had a listen to the actual broadcast. Here, by the glorious power of Youtube, is the skit in all its glory:
Now then. I don't know about you but... I honestly cannot see the scope of the problem. It's hardly Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' or, my personal favourite, The Daily Mail's own "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!" But we do have to concede Andrew Sachs, and his daughter's, feelings amongst all of this. Except, their feelings do seem to fluctuate a bit. Read one report and you think the BBC aired the show despite their protests that they didn't want it broadcast. Naughty BBC then, you may think... everyone should have the right to refuse the presentation of materials about themselves, or those related to them, that they object to. Although you wouldn't think that from reading The Daily Mail, or any of the gutterpress for that matter, day in, day out, as fresh sex scandals drip from their grubby pages; as over-paid 'mistresses' kiss and tell about their one night stands with married, rich celebrities. But that's another story altogether. Read the next report and you find that Sachs only objected after the broadcast; that he initially gave it his approval. Naughty Sachs then, you may think, for smelling the potential exposure and ££££ in kicking up a stink and getting both his and his daughter's name in more column inches in a week than they have managed in about two decades. (What's the betting one of the two, if not both, will appear on either Celebrity Big Brother or I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here! in the not too distant future?!) And if you read report number three, you'll think Sachs 'wasn't happy' about the material, but gave it the go ahead anyway... and then did a 360 degree turn after broadcast. And probably after he smelled the £££££££. Hmm....
To call the sketch 'morally reprehensible' is just plain idiotic. Perhaps Ross and Brand overstepped the mark by alluding to a personal relationship between Russell and Sachs' daughter that needn't have been exposed to the public if either of the parties objected. But then, all he says is that Brand slept with her. They then go on to state that he used a condom. Heaven forfend! Oh my God, the blasphemy! What filth, what degrading, disgusting, guttural immorality! Get this refuse off our airwaves! Or... not. You would think that a member of a burlesque troupe calling themselves the 'Satanic Sluts' might be used to the concept of consensual sexual intercourse. And that the listeners of a late night radio show might be used to the concept of consensual sexual intercourse. And, particularly, the kind of listeners that tend to tune in to Brand and Ross' show. All this is lost on The Daily Mail and its middle England readership, however; all they see is a penis and a vagina, all they hear is the suggestion of - shock! - homosexuality and, whoops, they're barfing into their begonias. Some go on to object to the rest of the sketch, in which the comedians suggest ways they can apologise to Sachs, one of which is to creep up on him in his bedroom and give him a cuddle... which, obviously, leads to more sexual innuendo. Sure, you might think it's purile but, get this guys and girls, try this concept on for size... it is not to be taken seriously. Woah, never thought of that one, ey? The concept of this part of the skit is 'how can we make it better?'; the comedy lies in the suggestions ultimately only making it worse... thereby defeating the point and making Brand and Ross appear, by association, a bit dumb. To take the suggestions at face value is just plain ludicrous. But then, what do you expect from 44,998 people who only complain after a newspaper has told them to?
This is not the most troubling aspect of the, I can barely bring myself to type it, 'scandal', however. Putting aside for one moment the disgraceful fact that Gordon Brown has actually addressed this issue, and that it has been brought up in the Houses of Parliament of all places, when, you know, our economy is falling down around us and that, let's just have a look at what The Daily Mail is doing now. A day after Brand resigned and the poor Radio 2 head followed suit (neither of these should ever have happened), the paper ran this article,
Outrage at Mock the Week repeat!
in which the airing of an old episode of topical, satirical panel show Mock the Week was objected to because of its inclusion of a two minute piece in which jokes are made about the Queen. 'Morally reprehensible' jokes, obviously... which, in The Mail's eyes, is just about anything that pokes any semblance of fun. Once again, the point is missed entirely: the sketch asks the performers to come up with lines that you wouldn't hear the Queen make in her Christmas speech and therefore, the humour is open to interpretation. It is not necessarily that the suggestions are truths that would never be voiced... if so, I'm sorry, but I'd have a hard time believing that the Queen knew the words to 'Boombastic' by Shaggy. And yes, the comedians can be ruthless. But that's Mock the Week for you. No one and nothing is safe... and that's the point. Take a joke. That's all it is. The Daily Mail, however, once again, sees the world in black and white rather than its actual shades of fabulous technicolor.
And it's just getting worse and worse. Try this article, from Friday's edition, on for size:
"We apologise to any readers who may be offended."
I nearly choked on my Wotsits when I read over these examples of, to quote the paper, 'smutty and degrading obsencities'. Offended? Really? By any of that? You'd think we were living in the 1950s, were in nuclear families and that women had 'their place' in the kitchen, perpetually cooking the husband's dinner. 'A sympathy shag'? I find the whole concept of Sarah Palin about 10,000 times more offensive. But dear, dear, delicately-sensibilitied Mail reader, here's a thought... if you don't like this stuff, change the channel. I'm personally offended every time that trumped up, self-aggrandising bigot Jeremy Clarkson is given any airtime whatsoever on British television but instead of picking up the phone and whining because "I don't like it!", I reach for the remote and find The Graham Norton Show instead. And again, as with Brand/Ross and Mock the Week, the point is so achingly, depressingly missed in virtually all of the examples listed. The comedy lies in the ridiculousness of the scenarios: in marrying one extremity with another. They're not... oh why do I even bother? We're never going to get through to these people. I mean, just look at this article from today:
Now HMV's in deep trouble...
Granted, this is a step away from the world of television, but it's the same root cause of the same ludicrous moral panic. Because yes, banning these badges will reduce knife crime in Britain. Obviously. And The Dark Knight? Well, it's a shocking glorification of knives and should be given an 18 certificate! In fact, just ban this sick filth now! Head, here's two hands... meet your new best friends.
Of course, it is tempting to glance a sensible, sane eye over these articles and brush them off as the ridiculously ill-informed, psuedo-moralistic knee-jerk garbage that they are... but that ignores the underlying, really rather worrying issue, which is that, if 44,998 people can be buoyed into action by a single article in The Mail, and those numbers can then effectively bring the BBC to its knees and force them to make radical changes, however unnecessary or objectionable, what else can middle England's favourite 'journalists' achieve? What other programmes (or other forms of media output) whose political, moral or social stance they object to, can they force to 'change'? The articles above indicate that they're already trying it: what is the Mock the Week article but a blindly Royalist viewpoint taken to its most ridiculous extremity? ("We cannot mock our Monarch!" "But it's in the title of the show!" "Then she is off limits to you, heathens!") Is there any way of explaining the objections listed in Friday's article other than that they contradict an almost evangelical Christian ideology? The politics here aren't the Mail's... so they must be silenced. It's absolutely, unequivocally abhorrent... and it's damn worrying. Especially if another 45,000 people actually buy into any more of this crap.
Please, people. Don't be daft bastards. Put down this poor excuse for toilet paper, pick up the remote and change the damn channel if you need to. Just don't be responsible for landing us in a Mary Whitehouse-led media climate where 'knock knock' jokes are about the only acceptable form of humour and Little House on the Prairie fills up our daily schedules.
Don't listen to The Daily Mail. Thank you.
Addendum
Just found this
Well well well, Daily Mail. You bleat about the insensitivity of joking about murdering prostitutes now, but it wasn't that a year or so ago when you published this Littlejohn column, now was it?:
"That doesn't make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss."
I still can't get over that one. But did 44,998 people complain about this delightfully insensitive, utterly inappropriate load of garbage? Did they hell.
Oh, and it's worthwhile noting that this article about Top Gear was the lead story on the website... just above something about genetically modified mice and, oh yes, a couple of little bits about that economic crisis and, oh yeah, that little election thing that's going on in some country somewhere... these guys man, they've really got their priorities straight.
Screenaged Noise: Everclear - 'Wonderful'
I was woken from a Manics-orientated slumber some time in late 1997 by the sound of a curious Beach Boys-cum-Green Day rock song emanating from a cobwebbed car stereo. Said vehicle belonged to my achingly cool uncle, who was already responsible for my introduction to the world of both Nirvana and - for my sins - the Crash Test Dummies. Said rock song was 'So Much For The Afterglow', the lead track from American four piece Everclear's (probably) greatest album. After having been loaned this LP and had it set constantly to 'repeat' on my Super Deluxe Hi-Fi System for about six months, the Manics released 'This Is My Truth' and I promptly forgot all about Art Alexsias and co. Until this lovely ditty came along. As the first single from a set of two concept albums released by the band in 2000-01, 'Wonderful' acted as both the perfect re-introduction to the band and a startling, but glorious, change of direction. Far poppier than much of their previous material, but no less poignant or catchy, the song instantly burrowed its way into my skull and made one heck of an impression. Its genius lies in both its simplicity and its sincerity... qualities to be found in spades on both of the 'Songs From An American Movie' records (though personally, I am slightly more partial to part one, 'Learning How To Smile' than I am part two, 'Good Time For A Bad Attitude'). So... a fine, fine introduction to a God-damn-it-much-more-than-fine band. Spend all your money on their records, you scamps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)