Arcade Fire

[scatteredscreens]

10 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

I do, four grown up daughters, I'm clearly older and have different attitudes to most on here, I'll try once again to explain,

If one of my kids leaves a club late at night and starts to walk home alone and someone attacks them, my reaction would be "why didn't you get a taxi?" that doesn't mean I think it was their fault they got attacked, but pointing out they could have taken a safer option. (leaving aside the fact that even getting into a taxi on your own has it's risks). It's shit that girls have to think this way, they should be able to walk the streets at any time but the reality is that there are a minority of predatory men about. I'm not suggesting girls should live in fear, but be aware of risk.

 

I recommend you never say that at all. Pointing out a different option after someone has been attacked isn't comforting at all and whether you don't think it was their fault it certainly frames it in such a way. You also are silly if you think women aren't aware of the risks every time they step out of their front door.

[gizmoman]

4 minutes ago, scatteredscreens said:

I recommend you never say that at all. Pointing out a different option after someone has been attacked isn't comforting at all and whether you don't think it was their fault it certainly frames it in such a way. You also are silly if you think women aren't aware of the risks every time they step out of their front door.

Do you think the girls in this case were aware of the risks they were taking by meeting up with Win? 

[scatteredscreens]

23 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Do you think the girls in this case were aware of the risks they were taking by meeting up with Win? 

I can't speak for them, but I think there's a chance they would probably know some of the risks, yes. As they probably would when meeting with most men. Does that make it ok? Absolutely not. You also have to consider this is someone they looked up to, which can give them a false sense of trust.

[gizmoman]

4 minutes ago, OverlyComplicated said:

Parent of the year here.

Daughter in tears "I've been assaulted"

Gizmo with his joyful trolly grin "Why didn't you get a taxi!"

Who said she was in tears? It was my made up scenario., If it happened for real I don't actually know how I'd react, I do know one thing though, I wouldn't want it to happen again and would try to ensure she took a safer option in future.

[Alex DeLarge]

Even if they did "know the risks" - does that excuse Win's behaviour?

If not, then why keep bringing it up?

Edited September 6, 2022 by Alex DeLarge

[gizmoman]

23 minutes ago, scatteredscreens said:

I can't speak for them, but I think there's a chance they would probably know some of the risks, yes. As they probably would when meeting with most men. Does that make it ok? Absolutely not. You also have to consider this is someone they looked up to, which can give them a false sense of trust.

That's a good point, when you are a fan of a band, or a film star etc. you think you know the person, their public persona is assumed to be their real character, these girls may well have assumed Win was happily married and so was only interested in them in a platonic way, they say never meet your heroes, this one's a perfect example of that.

[sadimmock]

1 hour ago, Matt42 said:

Nah man it’s because he has proper tunes. It can’t be that bad if he has proper tunes.

And I don’t want to stop listening and watching a band who have proper good tunes.

A touch of class-ism here? 

[gizmoman]

1 minute ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Even if they did "know the risks" - does that excuse Win's behaviour?

If not, then why keep bringing it up?

Of course it doesn't, I'll give it a rest.

[MEGABOWL]

3 hours ago, Matt42 said:

Nah man it’s because he has proper tunes. It can’t be that bad if he has proper tunes.

And I don’t want to stop listening and watching a band who have proper good tunes.

In the middle of a serious debate, this is a seriously dense and actually quite low thing to post. 

[MEGABOWL]

2 hours ago, scatteredscreens said:

I can't speak for them, but I think there's a chance they would probably know some of the risks, yes. As they probably would when meeting with most men. Does that make it ok? Absolutely not. You also have to consider this is someone they looked up to, which can give them a false sense of trust.

That latter point is a really good one IMO. Human nature is to want to trust people and in this situation a guy in a credible band with a decent message assumed to be happily married would be seen by many as relatively ‘safe.’

[Suprefan]

5 hours ago, Matt42 said:

Nah man it’s because he has proper tunes. It can’t be that bad if he has proper tunes.

And I don’t want to stop listening and watching a band who have proper good tunes.

Said most of the Arcade Fire community apparently. 

 

The crisis PR firm is going to get an award for all this now and youre one of the ones to thank for that. Next time we'll tell somebody from a band you like to do this to a close friend or family member and we'll see how your mental gymnastic skills are.

 

 

And yeah, the trust thing goes right along with the power dynamics, but since there are hardly any women here to even explain that kind of shit it gets lost in a lot of the noise.

[MEGABOWL]

36 minutes ago, Suprefan said:

Said most of the Arcade Fire community apparently. 

 

The crisis PR firm is going to get an award for all this now and youre one of the ones to thank for that. Next time we'll tell somebody from a band you like to do this to a close friend or family member and we'll see how your mental gymnastic skills are.

 

 

And yeah, the trust thing goes right along with the power dynamics, but since there are hardly any women here to even explain that kind of shit it gets lost in a lot of the noise.

This feels like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters 

[wilko8]

Hands up everyone on this thread taking the moral high ground who had a proper good party in the John Peel tent this summer

[Hugh Jass II]

14 minutes ago, wilko8 said:

Hands up everyone on this thread taking the moral high ground who had a proper good party in the John Peel tent this summer

I didn’t go there once.

Although that was more down to clashes and there not being much on I fancied rather than the noncing.

[Mr. B]

55 minutes ago, wilko8 said:

Hands up everyone on this thread taking the moral high ground who had a proper good party in the John Peel tent this summer

I don't think the tent did anything reprehensible though, slightly different to going and cheering at/around Win

[CaledonianGonzo]

58 minutes ago, wilko8 said:

Hands up everyone on this thread taking the moral high ground who had a proper good party in the John Peel tent this summer

[MEGABOWL]

1 hour ago, wilko8 said:

Hands up everyone on this thread taking the moral high ground who had a proper good party in the John Peel tent this summer

What did the tent do?

[stuie]

Just when you think this thread can’t get any more crazy…!

[zzzfest]

What I don’t like about the course of the events is the timing Pitchfork publicized the news. It was Saturday 27th, August, only three days before Arcade Fire commenced the tour in Dublin. It is safe to assume that the Pitchfork team had obtained the information a while back, kept it under wraps for some time and been waiting for the right time aiming at the biggest blow to AF. It worked.

Win Butler has every reason to be criticized for his sexual behaviour, and this scandal would have been exposed to the public sooner or later. Yet there is something unnerving in the way Pitchfork put it into action, “the end justifies the means” sort of vibe. In my humble opinion, they should have done it sooner rather than later if they did at all.

I’m afraid I may be called selfish or a dick (or both) if I say this. I was looking forward to seeing Feist as much as AF. It would have been less damaging had the case been disclosed earlier, leading the tour to be scrapped altogether way before. Whilst Feist’s statement is genuinely honest and thoughtful, and I respect her decision to pull out of the tour, I can’t stop feeling Pitchfork deprived me of the chance to see her.

[scatteredscreens]

35 minutes ago, zzzfest said:

What I don’t like about the course of the events is the timing Pitchfork publicized the news. It was Saturday 27th, August, only three days before Arcade Fire commenced the tour in Dublin. It is safe to assume that the Pitchfork team had obtained the information a while back, kept it under wraps for some time and been waiting for the right time aiming at the biggest blow to AF. It worked.

Win Butler has every reason to be criticized for his sexual behaviour, and this scandal would have been exposed to the public sooner or later. Yet there is something unnerving in the way Pitchfork put it into action, “the end justifies the means” sort of vibe. In my humble opinion, they should have done it sooner rather than later if they did at all.

I’m afraid I may be called selfish or a dick (or both) if I say this. I was looking forward to seeing Feist as much as AF. It would have been less damaging had the case been disclosed earlier, leading the tour to be scrapped altogether way before. Whilst Feist’s statement is genuinely honest and thoughtful, and I respect her decision to pull out of the tour, I can’t stop feeling Pitchfork deprived me of the chance to see her.

Take a step back and think about what you just wrote.

Pitchfork deprived you of seeing an artist you like because they wrote about Win's actions. Pitchfork for all their faults, went and spoke to individuals and didn't just instantly post it the moment they got information. You also have no idea if any victims wanted to hold back on releasing it, I'm sure their consent was key. What do Pitchfork/Conde Nast gain from holding it back for the biggest blow? They literally write and reviewed AFs music prior. Financially it was probably better for them to never write the article and continue to get ad revenue off future reporting of the band. Win deprived you of seeing Feist, not Pitchfork.

[Hugh Jass II]

Pitchfork will have wanted the story to gain maximum exposure, so of course they coincided it with the tour starting.

Release it when the band are inactive and it’s much easier to ignore and squash to the point that when they do become active again it’s largely forgotten. Coinciding it with the tour has kept the story in the public eye much longer than it would have otherwise.

[zzzfest]

18 minutes ago, scatteredscreens said:

Take a step back and think about what you just wrote.

Pitchfork deprived you of seeing an artist you like because they wrote about Win's actions. Pitchfork for all their faults, went and spoke to individuals and didn't just instantly post it the moment they got information. You also have no idea if any victims wanted to hold back on releasing it, I'm sure their consent was key. What do Pitchfork/Conde Nast gain from holding it back for the biggest blow? They literally write and reviewed AFs music prior. Financially it was probably better for them to never write the article and continue to get ad revenue off future reporting of the band. Win deprived you of seeing Feist, not Pitchfork.

Can you explain why Pitchfork chose to publish the article at this timing? Is it a pure coincidence? I don’t think so.

[Hugh Jass II]

Just now, zzzfest said:

Can you explain why Pitchfork chose to publish the article at this timing? Is it a pure coincidence? I don’t think so.

As I just said. They timed it to gain maximum exposure.

[scatteredscreens]

Just now, zzzfest said:

Can you explain why Pitchfork chose to publish the article at this timing? Is it a pure coincidence? I don’t think so.

See Hugh's post above. I don't think it's a coincidence but also don't think this is some character assassination piece like you're reckoning it is.

Can you explain why you're blaming a media outlet instead of an alleged abuser?

[zzzfest]

15 minutes ago, Hugh Jass II said:

Pitchfork will have wanted the story to gain maximum exposure, so of course they coincided it with the tour starting.

Release it when the band are inactive and it’s much easier to ignore and squash to the point that when they do become active again it’s largely forgotten. Coinciding it with the tour has kept the story in the public eye much longer than it would have otherwise.

Agreed. In fact, that’s just about what I thought. However, Pitchfork could have issued the information some time after Arcade Fire released WE and announced the tour, which was not their “inactive” period, not just three days before the tour opening.