MASSIVEATTACK.IE Forum

EX- · 03:01 PM

To be honest I deleted my interpretation of the cover cause I didn't fancy getting controversial at that time for some reason...

... but the way I take the cover is:

A black and white minstrel

...which is D, the musical territory of his choice, made up by all sorts of others but ultimately a territory of his design and G is the necessary black make-up on top of it that makes it entertainment, and the rainbow is colour-blind/monochromatic melancholy, divided into two, because that's how they work and sort of are - separate.

Together a bit, but seperate.

And the question about can it be perceived as racist came from seeing Mr Blacryder's response on the official... not that he says that himself it just gave rise to wondering such a thing and seemed like a valid point of discussion... the fact that it cannot be so because many black people are involved in Massive Attack might be said to be tantamount to the 'my best friends are black' sophistry people often come out with it... and as such perhaps doesn't in itself make the point that it isn't in fact just clumsily offensive irony... at least to some... people such as those that might be a bit upset by the odd comment made in The Cleveland Show and other post-modernisms like that or possibly others...

EX- · 03:17 PM

This turned out to be a bit of a croc which worked in Massive's favour.

I hadn't been on the tube at the time of release but it soon became apparent that the posters WERE on the tube and in fact that MA has just cow-towed and got rid of the spray texture, rather than defiantly upping middle finger and refusing to co-operate. Which rather than making it some attractive punky anti-establishment type stand makes it seem rather more like a drop-the-Attack-please-there's-a-war-on damp squibbish type moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by siddhartha

Tube bans Massive Attack's Album

No, the London Underground haven't started to ban people's choice of music on the Tube. But the band's artwork has fallen foul of the censors because the artwork for the album below looks too much like graffiti.

Robert del Naja, the band's artist explains "They won't allow anything on the tube that looks like 'street art'. They want us to remove all drips and fuzz from it so it doesn't look like it's been spray-painted, which is f**king ridiculous. It's the most absurd censorship I've ever seen."

He's obviously not seen previous censorship on the Tube, which included making a Nip/Tuck ad less sexy, making buns that covered Kelly Brooks boobs bigger, temporarily censoring a nude work of art, not allowing a poster of a fat Jesus and there's more since I've been blogging.

As Londonist said "TfL appear to be taking the lowest common denominator approach over their advertising guidelines and applying the somewhat dubious assumption that such posters will inflame latent graffitical tendencies among us, when the only graffiti most Tube travellers would be tempted to undertake would be to correct the service information board with accurate updates."

Do you think TfL have a point? Are there other ads that you've seen on the Tube which you think should be banned as they might encourage anti social or illegal behaviour?

----

EX- · Quote #13 12-03-2010, 02:57 PM

Can I also apologise for two utterly pointless 'to-be-honest's in the space of five minutes... I can't stand that phrase yet I often seem to trot it out unconsciously!

Richard · Quote #14 12-03-2010, 03:16 PM

When I was over in London last month for the Hammersmith show, I too saw a few of the posters on the tube and didn't seem to notice any difference in them, even though I didn't get an up close look.

EX- · Quote #15 12-03-2010, 03:18 PM

From the looks of that Chancery Lane poster it does appear the drips have been photoshopped off, the orange more plain... it isn't something a layman would notice from a distance...