Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest jmecklenborg

Hipsters

Recommended Posts

Is there a 'proper' term for the following guys haircut: shaved short on sides and back, top is super-greased/slicked semi-pompadour, usually flattened to one side? It's usually accompanied by facial scruff, skinny-ish jeans, thick-framed glasses and a modicum of plaid on a shirt. Some guys can rock it, others... did their stylist *not* offer them an alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a 'proper' term for the following guys haircut: shaved short on sides and back, top is super-greased/slicked semi-pompadour, usually flattened to one side? It's usually accompanied by facial scruff, skinny-ish jeans, thick-framed glasses and a modicum of plaid on a shirt. Some guys can rock it, others... did their stylist *not* offer them an alternative?

 

I like to call them "Hiptler Youth..."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a 'proper' term for the following guys haircut: shaved short on sides and back, top is super-greased/slicked semi-pompadour, usually flattened to one side? It's usually accompanied by facial scruff, skinny-ish jeans, thick-framed glasses and a modicum of plaid on a shirt. Some guys can rock it, others... did their stylist *not* offer them an alternative?

 

I actually tried to look this up a few weeks ago! Best I could get is "a type of Pompadour." I found it by querying about Macklemore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops I did it again -- I was hanging out in a Nashville hipster bar again over Thanksgiving weekend.  As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, the Nashville hipster is a particularly offensive example of the phenomenon, as there are actually people who hate country music who ironically move to Nashville.  These people actually exist, and there are hundreds if not thousands of them.  They hate country music but they adopt a sort-of country or at least sort-of southern aesthetic as a joke and live in The South as a joke. 

 

Here we see that in 2014 we have ironic 26 year-olds who dress like ironic 20 year-olds did in 1998:

hipster99_zpsde61e22a.jpg

 

hipster98_zpsabdd7c63.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops I did it again -- I was hanging out in a Nashville hipster bar again over Thanksgiving weekend.  As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, the Nashville hipster is a particularly offensive example of the phenomenon, as there are actually people who hate country music who ironically move to Nashville.  These people actually exist, and there are hundreds if not thousands of them.  They hate country music but they adopt a sort-of country or at least sort-of southern aesthetic as a joke and live in The South as a joke. 

 

Here we see that in 2014 we have ironic 26 year-olds who dress like ironic 20 year-olds did in 1998:

hipster99_zpsde61e22a.jpg

 

hipster98_zpsabdd7c63.jpg

 

Were these guys posing or about to fight?  If I'm working I am wandering in that direction at moderate speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving to the South and changing the way you dress as an ironic joke?  You've got to give them credit for committing to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving to the South and changing the way you dress as an ironic joke?  You've got to give them credit for committing to it.

 

I first became aware of the phenomenon in the late 90s, when I was informed that certain people in my department were jealous that I was going to Texas on spring break.  The only reason I was going to Texas is because my friend's uncle was selling him his car and I was simply going to drive him to Houston then he was going to drive his uncle's car back.  That's all.  But on the way to Houston I was informed that there was a group of people who had turned Texas into a hobby and had been steadily trying to out-Texas one another, and were concerned that our trip was some effort to steal Texas from them. 

 

This is when I was living in Tennessee, and Tennessee was still exporting hipsters.  Sometime in the mid-2000s that all changed when Nashville suddenly became a hipster magnet.  Jack White seems to have accelerated the trend when he moved there around 2005.  Then just recently Nashville turned into a ridiculously expensive city.  Like between 2012 and now housing prices in many areas have more than doubled and all manner of hipster and yuppie businesses have sprouted up along formerly drab suburban avenues.  So people apparently strive to move to circa-2007 Nashville, but that place is now a memory, and it wasn't all that great to begin with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some friends of mine moved to Nashville in 2007 or so. Their band could not get booked anywhere in town. They played live there maybe once or twice but were able to land gigs everywhere else (including internationally) fairly easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving to the South and changing the way you dress as an ironic joke?  You've got to give them credit for committing to it.

 

I first became aware of the phenomenon in the late 90s, when I was informed that certain people in my department were jealous that I was going to Texas on spring break.  The only reason I was going to Texas is because my friend's uncle was selling him his car and I was simply going to drive him to Houston then he was going to drive his uncle's car back.  That's all.  But on the way to Houston I was informed that there was a group of people who had turned Texas into a hobby and had been steadily trying to out-Texas one another, and were concerned that our trip was some effort to steal Texas from them. 

 

This is when I was living in Tennessee, and Tennessee was still exporting hipsters.  Sometime in the mid-2000s that all changed when Nashville suddenly became a hipster magnet.  Jack White seems to have accelerated the trend when he moved there around 2005.  Then just recently Nashville turned into a ridiculously expensive city.  Like between 2012 and now housing prices in many areas have more than doubled and all manner of hipster and yuppie businesses have sprouted up along formerly drab suburban avenues.  So people apparently strive to move to circa-2007 Nashville, but that place is now a memory, and it wasn't all that great to begin with. 

 

How do the old-time conservative residents feel about these developments? Is there major tension?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving to the South and changing the way you dress as an ironic joke?  You've got to give them credit for committing to it.

 

I first became aware of the phenomenon in the late 90s, when I was informed that certain people in my department were jealous that I was going to Texas on spring break.  The only reason I was going to Texas is because my friend's uncle was selling him his car and I was simply going to drive him to Houston then he was going to drive his uncle's car back.  That's all.  But on the way to Houston I was informed that there was a group of people who had turned Texas into a hobby and had been steadily trying to out-Texas one another, and were concerned that our trip was some effort to steal Texas from them. 

 

This is when I was living in Tennessee, and Tennessee was still exporting hipsters.  Sometime in the mid-2000s that all changed when Nashville suddenly became a hipster magnet.  Jack White seems to have accelerated the trend when he moved there around 2005.  Then just recently Nashville turned into a ridiculously expensive city.  Like between 2012 and now housing prices in many areas have more than doubled and all manner of hipster and yuppie businesses have sprouted up along formerly drab suburban avenues.  So people apparently strive to move to circa-2007 Nashville, but that place is now a memory, and it wasn't all that great to begin with. 

 

How do the old-time conservative residents feel about these developments? Is there major tension?

 

I don't know.  The crazy thing about Nashville and the South generally is that local disputes are almost never heard in the media.  Everything is handled in private, making me suspicious that when a community organizer organizes his community, the big money pulls him aside and pays him to shut up and go away.  Especially in Nashville, which has a big convention and tourism business, cutting a check to some rabble-rouser is a small price to pay to keep a police beating or other issue from becoming national news. 

 

The other thing about Nashville specifically that continues to baffle me is that the place has a general character that is pretty nondescript yet the natives and the people who have moved there because they wanted to are convinced that it has a magical aura.  I just don't feel it.  Where I see a bunch of cheap bungalow houses and strip malls along the exact same sort of suburban arterial we're accustomed to in Ohio, they see glamor and glitz. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jmecklenborg[/member] Is it considered "hipster" to not give a $#@% about sports?

 

I don't think that sports are a major concern of the hipster, since his main concern is impressing/intimidating people within his own realm. 

 

That video does bring up a larger issue: does UO need a Brunch thread?  I mean seriously, where did brunch come from all of the sudden, and why do people suddenly feel compelled to go overspend on food on Sunday mornings at the bars they were just at the night before?  I never before thought that 10:30am on Sundays was a time of the week when I needed to or even could "make a statement". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because of the decline in hobbies that people used to participate in on Sundays.

 

Well football is certainly huge for a lot of people.  I wish football was changed to a night game for both college and the NFL since so many people waste a dozen beautiful fall afternoons inside every year. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jmecklenborg[/member] Is it considered "hipster" to not give a $#@% about sports?

 

I don't think that sports are a major concern of the hipster, since his main concern is impressing/intimidating people within his own realm. 

 

That video does bring up a larger issue: does UO need a Brunch thread?  I mean seriously, where did brunch come from all of the sudden, and why do people suddenly feel compelled to go overspend on food on Sunday mornings at the bars they were just at the night before?  I never before thought that 10:30am on Sundays was a time of the week when I needed to or even could "make a statement". 

 

 

I actually don't think it's a "hipster" thing, I was just surprised that most of the people at MOTR in that video admitted that they have no interest whatsoever in sports. I also fall into that camp.

 

What do you have against brunch? It's delicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like football but I'll come out and say it: It's not a hobby if you are just a fan who watches a lot of TV. It's mostly just TV unless you're playing or coaching it. I suppose if you go to a lot of games it can be a hobby. And I do go positively bonkers sitting inside all day in the fall just because others want to watch football on TV. This is why I need to move to a place with a garage.

 

Just like Black Flag said in "TV Party": "Our favorite shows... like... Monday Night football"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like football but I'll come out and say it: It's not a hobby if you are just a fan who watches a lot of TV. It's mostly just TV unless you're playing or coaching it. I suppose if you go to a lot of games it can be a hobby. And I do go positively bonkers sitting inside all day in the fall just because others want to watch football on TV. This is why I need to move to a place with a garage.

 

Just like Black Flag said in "TV Party": "Our favorite shows... like... Monday Night football"

 

Yeah so few of these guys who spend all day at work making bold predictions hardly ever go to the games.  In fact they look down on those who actually go to the games.  They maintain a cowardly distance from everything and they suck at fantasy football because they can't figure out that it's mostly a game of chance.  Look at how ESPN has come to define "sports" over the past 20 years -- how it's overhyped players and teams and completely ignored others.  Like how Tim Duncan and the Spurs are pretty much the equal of Kobe/Lakers but you never hear about him/them. 

 

Black Flag also hated Saturday Night Live:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Switching subjects slightly, does anyone have an explanation for why EDM ("electronic dance music") has gotten so popular in the past five years?  Why are the frat guys now dancing to stuff that they beat up people for listening to 15-25 years ago?  And oddly young people are now nostalgic for Sandstorm, that dumb song that you heard at minor league hockey games in the late 90s that sounded like the demo on a Cassio keyboard:

http://www.edmtunes.com/2014/12/peking-duk-blows-sandstorm-back-dance-charts

 

And does the revival of Sandstorm portend a "Cotton-Eyed Joe" revival?:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has "Sandstorm" (I just learned that was the name) ever gone out of style?  It seems like forever that whenever stupid people get together in large numbers you would here it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake, your interpretation of what's happening is a little...well, it's wrong.

 

Nobody is nostalgic for Sandstorm. Sandstorm is only still popular as a joke. It's a terrible example of trance music and is mocked because of its heavy usage by rent-a-DJs through the 2000s. Rising the charts doesn't equal "nostalgia" when there's a very particular source of its revival. It'll fade back into mockery just as fast as it is rising the dance charts.

 

And let's say it is nostalgia and I'm completely off. The people who still reference Sandstorm are the ones who were plenty old enough to have formed a general taste profile when it comes to music when Sandstorm came out. How would this be any different than you listening to music from when you were younger? I was in 5th grade when Sandstorm came out and remember it completely. I have that album by Darude on my iPod but never really listen to it because as I matured so did my taste and understanding of trance music, but it's there. It's just like you having Nirvana on your iPod, no? Music from when you were young. Do you consider listening to music you got when you were young to be nostalgia?

 

Frat guys also aren't the ones listening to EDM. They're listening to things like brostep (Skrillex leading that genre), trap music (ugh) and the like. Anything that's overly intense suits their "hard" persona.

 

EDM isn't overly intense. EDM is repetitive and a lot softer in order to allow for easy dancing, as the "D" in EDM implies.

 

Electronic music of all types is gaining popularity for a lot of reasons. There are a lot of extremely talented electronic artists out there who are rising to acclaim through places like youtube that would have never had a chance in the past, more traditional methods of creating music. A single person might have awesome ideas and can easily distribute those to the internet which is changing what people listen to.

 

We live in an electronic society. It makes sense that electronic music fits into today's culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that Sandstorm was not unlike a Rockroll, but that it was generally frowned upon by most on the internet as it originated some place stupid like Reddit rather than having a more natural birth on 4chan. If you found someone enjoying Sandstorm ironically, I don't know if they'd classify as a hipster or just out of touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electronic music of all types is gaining popularity for a lot of reasons. There are a lot of extremely talented electronic artists out there who are rising to acclaim through places like youtube that would have never had a chance in the past, more traditional methods of creating music. A single person might have awesome ideas and can easily distribute those to the internet which is changing what people listen to.

 

We live in an electronic society. It makes sense that electronic music fits into today's culture.

 

The problem is that throughout the 20th century the United States of America produced the best music in the world and now we're just throwing it all away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm literally never going to agree with the latter half of that statement because it requires one to believe that humanity has become less talented and inventive and that's just not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me 1999-2006ish was the "death zone". By 2008 music had really started coming around again. At least in the mainstream, the early 2000s were a cultural toilet all around -- not just in music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm literally never going to agree with the latter half of that statement because it requires one to believe that humanity has become less talented and inventive and that's just not true.

 

 

So where is today's James Brown, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Frank Zappa, Miles Davis, Mick Jagger, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, etc.?  I'd love to hear them, but they're not out there. 

 

So is there somebody I need to know about who's making better dance music than this in 2014?

 

 

Recorded right here Cincinnati, OH.  About a month ago I was driving for Uber and took two guys who were about 25 and totally full of themselves from Downtown to Whole Foods.  They were talking about their recent European tour and what they were going to get at Whole Foods.  When we passed the old King Records building, I pointed it out and said "that's where James Brown recorded a lot of his early hits". The guys immediately started making fun of James Brown.  Right then and there I knew that that they've barely listened to James Brown and so therefore their music, whatever it was, totally sucks.  Because they're hipsters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is you seem to be interjecting your personal taste into what you consider to be good music. That's a really common problem with anything creative. People think that if they don't like something personally then that means it's bad or didn't require talent. It's a really...limiting way of viewing the world. I personally cannot stand the sound of the Beatles. Hearing Hey Jude is like nails on a chalkboard to me. But not because I think they're untalented, it's just not for me.

 

My dad is a guitarist and I grew up with him listening to classic rock and the like. Hendrix being one of his favorites. But to me I have no desire ever to listen to a Jimmy Hendrix song because it doesn't do anything for me personally. But I'd still consider him to be one of if not the most talented guitarists to have ever lived.

 

I'm not going to go astray and list who I think the most talented dance artists are and for what reasons because I have a feeling you don't personally listen to dance music meaning all you hear is the Top 40-esque dance which is awful music. But there's so much more out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^This is really evident when you listen to to Pop2k on SiriusXM.

 

Bahahaha...So true.

 

Time will tell. There is always crappy music people just remember the good stuff, and unfortunately if the good stuff today doesn't line up with your personal taste, you won't appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)if the good stuff today doesn't line up with your personal taste, you won't appreciate it.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just don't have a monoculture/counterculture divide anymore. Just endless niches. I just don't see a significant number of acts today that parallel James Brown, Dylan, Velvet Underground, Miles Davis, etc. that aren't just objectively innovative, creative, and acclaimed, BUT ALSO have a real cultural impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just don't have a monoculture/counterculture divide anymore. Just endless niches. I just don't see a significant number of acts today that parallel James Brown, Dylan, Velvet Underground, Miles Davis, etc. that aren't just objectively innovative, creative, and acclaimed, BUT ALSO have a real cultural impact.

 

Exactly. And it was the power of the recording industry to control what you listened to which let these underground superstars rise. Now you can find extremely talented, innovative, obscure bands from across the country who are self-distributing all their music online. But it's next to impossible for such an act to gain enduring notoriety, no matter how talented or innovative. Thank the hipsters for introducing everyone to this new reality. Once a fringe movement, "blog rock" is now basically the status quo, particularly for the underground, and one of its defining characteristics is not having leaders.

 

It's an obvious progression if you accept that, for every Velvet Underground, there were tens or hundreds of potential Velvet Undergrounds that simply weren't discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's the Big 4 of Thrash, then the Little 4 (Exodus, Flotsam & Jetsam, Testament, Overkill or Vio-Lence depending on who you ask), then there's all the ones normal people forget like Armored Saint and Metal Church that had hundreds of thousands of dollars sunk into them for a while before basically getting de-funded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just don't have a monoculture/counterculture divide anymore. Just endless niches. I just don't see a significant number of acts today that parallel James Brown, Dylan, Velvet Underground, Miles Davis, etc. that aren't just objectively innovative, creative, and acclaimed, BUT ALSO have a real cultural impact.

 

Exactly. And it was the power of the recording industry to control what you listened to which let these underground superstars rise. Now you can find extremely talented, innovative, obscure bands from across the country who are self-distributing all their music online. But it's next to impossible for such an act to gain enduring notoriety, no matter how talented or innovative. Thank the hipsters for introducing everyone to this new reality. Once a fringe movement, "blog rock" is now basically the status quo, particularly for the underground, and one of its defining characteristics is not having leaders.

 

It's an obvious progression if you accept that, for every Velvet Underground, there were tens or hundreds of potential Velvet Undergrounds that simply weren't discovered.

 

It's definitely fragmented, which in my view is a good thing.  The power of the non-creative middlemen has atrophied.  While what's left of "mainstream" pop culture has become more stale (with occasional exceptions like Charli XCX), the more interesting stuff is thriving, if you know where to look.  Plus, foreign bands, even British, are 1,000X more accesible here than they were before.

 

It's another example of the decline of what I call "infrastructure collectivization".  Things like limited radio stations, channels, TV stations, etc.  They happened because it was so expensive to do certain things they tried to cater to as many people as possible.  Now with costs much lower, niches become more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long article by Steve Albini arguing that the environment for independent musicians is better than ever now:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full

 

I disagree because......in the recent past, there was a very obvious common enemy shared by outsiders of all stripes.  Periodically an outsider would "go viral" and be inserted into the pop machine.  Most famously Nirvana -- an almost totally unknown band on a minor label -- knocked Michael Jackson off the top of the charts in 1991.  That sort of event was always a thrilling and controversial development.  We don't have those moments anymore.  Some independent band gets their music in a car commercial? Nobody cares now. What does the fox say?  Get a life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's the Big 4 of Thrash, then the Little 4 (Exodus, Flotsam & Jetsam, Testament, Overkill or Vio-Lence depending on who you ask), then there's all the ones normal people forget like Armored Saint and Metal Church that had hundreds of thousands of dollars sunk into them for a while before basically getting de-funded.

 

It's the March of the Saint

Metal Church unholy Church who'll be the sacrifice?

 

Who's the big 4?  Slayer, Metallica, dont know the rest but I'd put Celtic Frost up there. Guess your saying Megadeth as one of the 4?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax. 

 

Frick. ANthrax.  Ahh I guess, I almost typed them in but could not make the leap.

 

Metallica and Slayer had staying power though.

 

WEll Slayer did!  :-)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long article by Steve Albini arguing that the environment for independent musicians is better than ever now:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full

 

I disagree because......in the recent past, there was a very obvious common enemy shared by outsiders of all stripes.  Periodically an outsider would "go viral" and be inserted into the pop machine.  Most famously Nirvana -- an almost totally unknown band on a minor label -- knocked Michael Jackson off the top of the charts in 1991.  That sort of event was always a thrilling and controversial development.  We don't have those moments anymore.  Some independent band gets their music in a car commercial? Nobody cares now. What does the fox say?  Get a life. 

 

In this case, "nobody cares" means its commonplace and IMO that's a good thing.

 

If anything, it seems to me a talented insider can break through big now without a lot of the BS and just plain luck that used to be required.

 

Ironically, this article is from the UK and the British music media (particularly Melody Maker and NME) used to compete to break the Next Big Thing.  This kept British rock and pop much fresher than it was here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax. 

 

The Big 4 is officially those bands but there is debate on the little 4. Pantera has been posthumously awarded the label of "Groove Metal". Celtic Frost had the unfortunate distinction of releasing their Cold Lake record around the time the titles were being handed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long article by Steve Albini arguing that the environment for independent musicians is better than ever now:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full

 

I disagree because......in the recent past, there was a very obvious common enemy shared by outsiders of all stripes.  Periodically an outsider would "go viral" and be inserted into the pop machine.  Most famously Nirvana -- an almost totally unknown band on a minor label -- knocked Michael Jackson off the top of the charts in 1991.  That sort of event was always a thrilling and controversial development.  We don't have those moments anymore.  Some independent band gets their music in a car commercial? Nobody cares now. What does the fox say?  Get a life. 

 

In this case, "nobody cares" means its commonplace and IMO that's a good thing.

 

If anything, it seems to me a talented insider can break through big now without a lot of the BS and just plain luck that used to be required.

 

Ironically, this article is from the UK and the British music media (particularly Melody Maker and NME) used to compete to break the Next Big Thing.  This kept British rock and pop much fresher than it was here.

 

The main requirements of getting big today are 1) be wealthy already or 2) know influential people. And of course having both helps the most. Today for young bands to get noticed you have to tour constantly. You will spend more than you make for years. Much more. Band members can't have jobs. They ideally "live" with their folks with no rent to pay or responsibilities back home. The folks must pay for studio time, buy them gear and fund their road adventures. One parent must act as manager for free because the band's not making money. It has always helped for bands to be wealthy already (Anthrax knew this) but it wasn't a requirement. This started a while back; I'd say around the time Lenny Kravitz got big. You would not know his name if his mom wasn't on The Jeffersons and his dad wasn't a TV producer. His sound is dull but he was already somebody... but not enough of a somebody that the jig was up. This is unlike Robin Thicke (where everybody knows his dad) -- the name Kravitz didn't ring a bell.

 

Getting noticed as a band now is no different than getting noticed as a race car driver. Your folks have to spend, spend, spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Taylor Swift is from a wealthy family, so is Lady Gaga.  Lenny Kravitz is an interesting case, because he was supported by his parents, but at least had enough sense to realize that the 80s were total crap and was one of the people who really brought a warm 70s aesthetic back into pop music in the early 90s.  The other major group that did the same was The Black Crowes.

 

That said, there is another parallel between those two: they were both overwhelmed by their influences, and neither were able to totally break out and make thrilling records of their own.  That said, their good records were pretty good if not very good, and certainly light years beyond what is is going on now. 

 

This is from 1990 or 1991, and looks and sounds pretty fresh.  1992's Are You Gonna Go My Way was also a solid record -- the one where you thought that he was right on the verge of doing something fantastic.  Instead he regressed like Weezer, but never periodically bounced back like Weezer! Lenny where did you go?

 

From 1991 or 1992, in my opinion their best song, even though it is perhaps their most obvious Rolling Stones bite-off.  The female backing vocals still sound great.  When was the last time you heard a band hire some girls to sing backup?  About the last time I can remember is Marilyn Manson and the Afghan Whigs in the late 90s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...