Gimme a BBT with mashed potatoes and gravy. - by Nicker
sh0ck3r on 12/4/2009 at 00:44
On the one hand, Billy Bob acted sullen and juvenile. But on the other hand, there may well have been an agreement to steer away from mentioning Billy Bob's movie career, and I know that CBC (like some newstations) often breaks these informal promises with interviewees. But far and away, the most striking aspect of this interview was how Jian was so sterile as to be unable to respond to (or even recognize?) Billy Bob's nonsense; and then especially the way he was obdurate in his own defense, when he should have been quickly steering the interview to a more positive, accomodating note and not trying to call a "truce."
Jian loves the sound of his own voice, but not everyone is as impressed as the average CBC listener. Call Billy Bob a jerk, but this is pretty entertaining and Q blows.
Toxicfluff on 12/4/2009 at 18:34
Quote Posted by jtr7
fuck you shallow consumers, BBT fucks consumerism artistically, society will fall
Once again, consumerism goes both ways. He is doing interviews to promote his band, right? It's no secret how the promotion game tends to run, but he's chosen to dip into the music industry that deep. If you're going to be in the public eye you can't win, because like you say, people have too little to go on. They want to opine one way or the other, and however little or much substance they have to do it on, that's what they'll use. This interview doesn't screw consumerism at all, on the contrary, the celebrity shit mill turns all the faster on this sort of dirt. I'd wager all this has achieved is an alteration of BBT the public product by an extra measure of cock.
By no stretch is it right or savoury, but an obvious cost of being in the public eye in my opinion. It's kind of noble to fight it, but any celebrity that steps out to will lose.
fett on 12/4/2009 at 20:27
jtr7 - it has nothing to do with a "owning" stock in BBT, it has to do with having some class, and he showed none. I could understand him acting that way if it was Fox News or Bill O'Reiley but the interviewer was trying to help him promote his own band and he acted like a shithead. What would have been wrong with simply saying, "You were asked not to talk about my acting career, so I'm concluding the interview" and walking out? Instead he gives the guy shit for fifteen minutes and his pussy bandmates just sat there and said nothing. First of all, BBT was obviously stoned, but he still could have shown some class in the way he handled it. Secondly, it's obvious that BBT thinks of himself more highly than he ought to, because I guarantee that the Boxcutters are not a household name anyfuckingwhere (even among fans of cosmic cowboy music), and yet he acted like he's the second coming of the Beatles or something. He pulled the classic school-yard tactic of tearing down the interviewer to make himself look like an angsty rock star and all he managed to do was make himself look like a bitter old tool.
Nicker on 13/4/2009 at 00:42
Well you might wait to see if the host actually tries to focus on your film work before you rebuke them. And if you must, how about - "I hope I won't have to talk about my film work." - smile knowingly - "May I introduce the band?"
Jason Moyer on 13/4/2009 at 01:14
Quote Posted by fett
All I know is I listened to about four of their songs after reading the OP and I couldn't hum a single line of any of them if you held a gun to my head.
So basically, if you don't like something, it loses all of its artistic credibility?
june gloom on 13/4/2009 at 01:29
Explain the Beatles, then.
fett on 13/4/2009 at 01:37
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
So basically, if you don't like something, it loses all of its artistic credibility?
Of course that's not what I'm saying. These guys have *NOTHING* going for them except the fact that BBT is in the band. They have no best-selling records, no singles burning up the charts, and absolutely nothing going on in the charisma department. Does that mean they are not talented? No, but it does mean that they shouldn't go around acting like they've achieved some monumental artistic accomplishment and can therefore treat people like shit.
The point is that all of the above being true, you would think they would at least be nice to the radio host. Most non-top 40 bands or artists appreciate any publicity (unless they're surviving on BBT's financial benevolence, which wouldn't surprise me at all). Subjectively, their songs aren't bad (though his drumming is fucking atrocious), they're just not memorable, and therefore not likely to attract casual fans. The point of doing publicity is to win over people who don't know who you are and get them to buy the album. How did BBT's attitude achieve that? Is he so prolific that he thinks they don't need the publicity? I argue that they DON'T need it, because they'll keep recording and playing gigs based on the fact that BBT is in the band, not on their musical merit, or their mind-blowing songwriting. There are very few styles of music I don't listen to (polka, jazz fusion) and my *subjective* opinion is that the Boxbakers are nothing special, aside from the fact that BBT is their drummer. I also assert that they would do better by finding a different one who might by chance own a metronome.
Jason Moyer on 13/4/2009 at 01:47
Oh, I think I see what you're saying now.
What's weird is, if he weren't famous, I'd actually appreciate the stunt he pulled during that interview. I do think it's fairly pompous and rude to behave the way he did during an interview that in all likelihood was only granted because of his celebrity.
And uh, rockabilly as a subculture/scene is pretty big. I doubt they would have problems drawing people to shows without BBT in the band as long as they included the word "rockabilly" somewhere on the flyer.
Aja on 13/4/2009 at 09:20
How could anyone possibly blame the interviewer here? BBT was incapable of understanding the questions, let alone answering them: his weird accusation of "you wouldn't ask that to a band 20 years old" is an inappropriate response to a very normal question, and indicative of the fact that, while he has some basic grasp of where he is and what he's supposed to be doing, in his wasted state he can't even recognise the interviewer's obviously positive intentions -- which would seem to suggest that BBT came into this whole thing ready to fight, regardless of questions asked.
So basically he's too high to function here -- watching the interview in HD only confirms that. Stitch says he has tactics, but it seems to me he's struggling to figure out what's going on at all. Or is he actually so cunning that he can fake of this shit in order to make a point?
New Horizon on 13/4/2009 at 14:31
Quote Posted by Aja
How could anyone possibly blame the interviewer here? BBT was incapable of understanding the questions, let alone answering them:
I don't think Billy Bob was high, he simply jumped the gun and took the offensive against the interviewer based on the introduction, which in my opinion belongs to the interviewer...it's his show. I think perhaps Billy Bob's handlers did not make it clear that even the introduction should be free of the film background. That being said, the interviewer respected the request of not asking any questions about the film career, but of course Billy Bob didn't notice that because he had already decided to pick a fight by that point and display his superior intellect by randomly rambling about nonsense to make a point.
It was childish. I'm positive if it had been made absolutely clear that Jian could not even mention the film career in his intro that he would not have done so. It's probably a case of mis-communication and Billy being somewhat egocentric. It's Jian's show...and the world doesn't have to revolve around Billy Bob Thornton.
