May 9, 2002

8:29 AM

Bumfights.com. There's been alot of talk about this site in the news the last couple of days. To me, it makes me a little sick to my stomach seeing some of this stuff, could this really be legal? It seems almost like kidnapping to me.
posted by jonah (68 comments total)

These kids are scum.

The worst punishment you can hope for for them is that one day they will realize what they have done.

The lowest thing I can imagine is to prey on these people.
posted by Kafkaesque at 8:38 AM on May 9, 2002

Well, I think Kafka summed it up. There is a decidedly nauseated feeling attached to viewing that site. I clicked a couple of links, and then left. Disgusting.
posted by precocious at 8:43 AM on May 9, 2002

this cant be real...
posted by monkeyJuice at 8:45 AM on May 9, 2002

Disgusting. The degradation of the down-and-out is not funny, amusing, or interesting. It's evil.
posted by evanizer at 8:45 AM on May 9, 2002

Admittedly, I haven't watched the clips but I heard the audio this morning on Stern and felt like someone was raping my ears.
posted by jonah at 8:47 AM on May 9, 2002

i've heard of this before. a bunch of frat guys had boozed up some homeless guys they'd found and encouraged them to fight with each other.
posted by moz at 8:47 AM on May 9, 2002

Damn, that's despicable. As a warning, slightly unsafe for work. Depends on where you do, though.
posted by bittennails at 8:49 AM on May 9, 2002

Wow. Taking the jackass and Tom Green style thing way past funny and clear into the "mean" column, add some stupid agression and misogyny, sprinkle liberally with lack of compassion for your fellow man.

Let's all gather around the tv to laugh at drunken homeless people (which we'll never be, so it's funny and ok to laugh at them) goaded into beating each other, then oogle some wanna be porn star's boobs.

Pretty fucking lame.
posted by mathowie at 8:50 AM on May 9, 2002

This is the soul of sociopathy. It's one thing to see a fight break out and watch it, it's another thing entirely to stage them for your own amusement. That's the behavior of someone who views other humans as playthings.

The worst punishment you can hope for for them is that one day they will realize what they have done.

That would be true if the people who created this were capable of empathy. So I say we leave 'em skid row for a couple days with no way out instead.
posted by jonmc at 8:57 AM on May 9, 2002

[this is bad]
posted by adampsyche at 8:57 AM on May 9, 2002

The worst punishment you can hope for for them is that one day they will realize what they have done.

I was hoping that they would pick a fight with some wicked vicious ex-biker that beat the fucking shit out of them all and made his own tape.
posted by will at 9:01 AM on May 9, 2002

Where's Perry when we really need him?
posted by yhbc at 9:04 AM on May 9, 2002

This is the soul of sociopathy. It's one thing to see a fight break out and watch it, it's another thing entirely to stage them for your own amusement. That's the behavior of someone who views other humans as playthings.

How is this different from, say, professional boxing?
posted by swift at 9:05 AM on May 9, 2002

How is this different from, say, professional boxing?

professional boxers clearly consent to their occupation and they're probably much better paid.
posted by moz at 9:12 AM on May 9, 2002

I don't wanna turn this into a debate about boxing. But in the ring, everyone's more or less a willing participant, surrounded by trainers and doctors, trained for months and paid very well.

These people are manipulated by folks who don't care whether they live or die and watched by an audience that views them as cartoon characters rather than humans.
posted by jonmc at 9:15 AM on May 9, 2002

I think the idea that professional boxers aren't manipulated by folks who don't care whether they live or die and watched by an audience that views them as cartoon characters rather than humans is debateable at best.

The obvious example is Tyson and his handlers (Don King+), they've turned him into a literal animal. As for the audience, of course people want to see boxers get hurt, why else do people get worked up over two big guys pounding the crap out of each other?
posted by jonah at 9:20 AM on May 9, 2002

How is this different from, say, professional boxing?

Sober, clear-headed, detached consent to be a participant, for one.

Physical preparation of the participants.

Regulation of the sport (as shoddy as it can be sometimes).

Compensation.

I am disturbed by this link, and I am a fan of pro boxing and have boxed myself on an amateur level (and imagine how silly you look punching yourself, baDUMbump). Even having partcipated in, um, unsanctioned events as I have been known to do (having consented to do so and having someone who can stop things/save my ass if it came down to it), is a world of difference away from this sociopathic and manipulative behaviour.

(and on preview, I note that others have chimed in with more or less the same points.)
posted by ebarker at 9:24 AM on May 9, 2002

jonah- I'm not gonna insult everyone's intelligence and say that there isn't a lot of sleazy things going on in boxing, because there are. But it's not comparable to this.This is not about athleticism or competition. This is like somebody putting pitbulls in a ring.

why else do people get worked up over two big guys pounding the crap out of each other?

Same reason I enjoy watching baseball and basketball, when practiced by the right people athletics is an art form. Boom-Boom Mancini once said that boxing was a noble pursuit, even comparing it to jousting or sword fighting and for the most part I agree with him.
posted by jonmc at 9:29 AM on May 9, 2002

did anyone see the 'bumhunter' video? i saw it sans sound (i'm in a computer lab) and honestly felt sick - they sneak up on unsuspecting bums and hold them face down with their knees on their backs? or ducktape them up?

not to say that two wrongs make a right, or to be an advocate of violence; but i'd love to see them sneek up on the wrong bum, and have the hell beaten out of them.
posted by Dom at 9:37 AM on May 9, 2002

I just hope a group of civically-minded lawyers identify those who were filmed and sue these idiots' asses off.

On a not unrelated note, does anyone remember Gavin Bryars's great orchestral work which builds on a song he recorded in the 60s in some train station in London, sung by a wonderful drunken bum? The song goes "Jesus's blood...never failed me now; never failed me now...because I know he loves me so..."

When the most recent release made #1 in the classical charts(in the early 90s)there was a lively debate about royalties. The man who'd sung the song had died but I remember Bryars, encouraged by others' opinions, gave a large proportion of his royalties to a Britisj charity for the homeless.

I can't remember the exact title of the composition - I gave away all my CDs - but I remember why I don't have a copy. It's much too moving.

In any case, it would be wonderful if some money would be extracted from these brats - that's all they are; no need to demonize them - and passed on to the human beings who are being so blatantly exploited.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:41 AM on May 9, 2002

You know, thinking about this more, it seems like if you mix the TV show Jackass (laughing at people becoming cartoons, literal wille coyotes), the TV show COPS (feeling superior because you're not down on your luck like the people being arrested), pro wrestling (aggression is good), angry white boy rap-rock (aggression is good, women are objects), and a Howard Stern mentality (yeah, I know he can be funny, but he can be mean, by laughing at those more unfortunate), then take those trends clear into meanness, you'll get this.

Imagine the dumbest followers of any of those things, you know the ones, those that didn't quite get that it was all a joke and in good fun. You probably work with someone like that, or went to school with someone that didn't see the joke in something, took things a bit too seriously, and might have misinterpretted the point of any one of those things. Someone just made the perfect tape for them.

We can discount pro wrestling as fake and goofy, and discount it as a somewhat safe release of aggression, and do the same with lame music like the Insane Clown Posse, but there's an undercurrent of violence (and to a lesser extent, misogyny) in all these things, and I wouldn't be surprised if this bumfights tape was wildly successful, tapping into the darker side of what's out there now.
posted by mathowie at 9:41 AM on May 9, 2002

Miguel, I have that CD. Contact me if you want a burn.

Honestly, the whole thing goes on for about 45 minutes. A little OTT, in my opinion.

Tom Waits vocals on one of the versions.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:45 AM on May 9, 2002

I hear what your saying, matt, but stuff like WWF and ICP can be cathartic for a sane person, whereas this has none of that value whatsoever, it's not even funny.

While all the things you've mentioned have their problems, I believe they have some value(even if its just entertainment value) as well. This bumfighting thing does not.

I just remember what a very wise man told me once-" anything taken to enough of an extreme is equally destructive..."
posted by jonmc at 9:55 AM on May 9, 2002

We can discount pro wrestling as fake and goofy...

WHAT? Next thing you'll tell me there's no Santa....

*cries*
posted by ebarker at 10:04 AM on May 9, 2002

stuff like WWF and ICP can be cathartic for a sane person

But the problem with those things is that they are marketed to everyone, especially the most impressionable, lowest common denominator element of society. You can slum it and watch WWF and listen to ICP and have a giggle, but someone teetering on the brink of breaking? I don't know.

I can't abide the Howard Stern style. I think it's irresponsible and catering to fools. I think the worst part about it is that Stern and those like him know this and do it anyway. Any way you look at things, being mean-spirited and cruel is just that. I try to discourage these things in myself, so why would I want to receive more of it from entertainment?
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:20 AM on May 9, 2002

There are some truly sick fuckers out there. Were they to be eliminated from our society, we'd be far better off.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:20 AM on May 9, 2002

While all the things you've mentioned have their problems, I believe they have some value(even if its just entertainment value) as well. This bumfighting thing does not.

Right, I didn't mean to compare them on value, but that this tape seems like the next logical continum, if you took the most negative aspects of each thing I mentioned, and put it all together.
posted by mathowie at 10:23 AM on May 9, 2002

I try to discourage these things in myself, so why would I want to receive more of it from entertainment?

Because he who does not acknowledge and respect his dark side will be forever prey to it. As long as we keep it in the realm of make-believe, venting our uglier impulses(and we all have them) is healthy.*

I know that after a rough day at the counter, It feels damn good to crank up Halls of Illusions and blast away at pixilated targets on a screen. And I imagine that the 'lowest common denominator' people we refer to have a lot more suppressed rage than I do. I'd rather we were all enjoying our make believe violence than out committing the real thing.

Now, I consider you a freind, Kaf, so don't take this as an attack. Just wanted to let you know the other side of the question.

*none of this applies to the bumfighting video, which does cross the line, IMO
posted by jonmc at 10:34 AM on May 9, 2002

Speaking of Howard Stern, I was stunned to see the other day that not only did he graduate from Boston University, but he graduated magna cum laude. Was that common knowledge?

Matt, this is my vision is for the next iteration of Fear Factor, once we all become innoculated to its shock value:

Five guys stand in front of a waist-high table. Each man's testicles are on the table. In front of them is a person holding a sledge hammer, between them and $50,000 in cash. Whomever it is that allows their most precious of preciouses to be flattened wins the prize. Can you honestly say your glutton-bowl/fear-factor/survivor-loving buddy wouldn't watch?
posted by Sinner at 10:38 AM on May 9, 2002

Yes, jon, it is an interesting question. Of course, no offense taken. My comment was purely my own opinion.

I play Quake and more violent games frequently, but to me they don't have the same connotation as TV or Radio. It is a slippery slope though. I don't condone the banning of stuff like ICP or Stern, even though I can't stand them, because once you start where do you stop?

It's just too bad that weak-minded and unbalanced people are affected so horribly by all of these things.

Upon preview, Sinner, I wouldn't watch. Neither would I have gone to the Colosseum to watch the Gladiators. And I have said before that the next show like that will be "Cut off your finger for a million!"
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:41 AM on May 9, 2002

Absolutely turns my stomach. But am I surprised by this? No. That's the even sicker part.
posted by gramcracker at 11:00 AM on May 9, 2002

Matt's comments have me thinking that there is an interesting line between what is crude, crass humor and what is unacceptable and unfunny. It's interesting to me that there hasn't been even one commenter that thinks this is funny. I'm sure that there are people out there who do think it's funny, but may be timid to go up against the prevailing mood of this thread.

If bumfighting is so wrong, what about pr0n? It could be argued that producers take advantage of down and out girls who may have drug or abusive backgrounds, putting them on film not fighting, but f*cking. Long term, I imagine that being in a pr0n film is more damaging than being in a fight or being tagged and measured like on the bumfighting site.
posted by jonah at 11:03 AM on May 9, 2002

I think there is certainly a comparison to be drawn between offering an alcoholic bum a flask to run into a wall head-first and offering a junkie porn star 100 bucks to go down on someone. They are both exploitative and inhuman.

But both of those examples share the lack of consent, of victimization of the helpless.

I think there are two different types of porn: erotica and exploitation. The exploitation has never appealed to me.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:18 AM on May 9, 2002

I recall an episode of Seinfeld where Kramer and Newman had an idea for homeless-driven rickshaws...? I laughed. Not such a far step to laugh this morning at Stern.

Good morning Mr. Moloch, your conveyance is here!
posted by UncleFes at 11:18 AM on May 9, 2002

I put this crap on the same page as Girls Gone Wild tapes and the Backyard Wrestling tapes. It's all exploitative drivel made by people without concern for their subjects. Oh yeah, and don't forget the Bang Bus.

What I wonder is how much of all of these things is staged (well, the backyward wrestling stuff, obviously). While it doesn't lessen the exploitative nature, I'd be a little less disgusted if it was a case of "we'll give you 10 more bucks if you pretend we've just jumped you".

It really is depressing to think that there is apparently this vast market out there composed of people who like to see others being used and abused.
posted by SiW at 11:25 AM on May 9, 2002

...angry white boy rap-rock (aggression is good, women are objects)

It's not only 'white boy' rap-rock, but a certain proportion of non-white-boy hip-hop/rap also trafficks in male agression and misogyny to almost baroque proportions.
posted by evanizer at 11:36 AM on May 9, 2002

This seems to be a natural continuation of the concept of the right to be mean. I'm not going to start spouting off about how we should all be nice to each other. I am going to note, though, that this sort of thing happens when there are no clearly-defined moral limits.

Is this illegal? It should be. In the event that it's not (and I get the feeling that it isn't), there's really no way to prevent it, or things like it catching on.

Food for thought, before one begins propagating the ideal that it's our "God-given right" to be an asshole.
posted by precocious at 11:58 AM on May 9, 2002

perhaps it was desighned for sheltered idiots who dont see enough "street Life" on their own. man, a busload of marines with rolled up sleaves is what id like to see happen to these guys...oh, now that would be a show. the bus rolls up to these guys house...knock...knock
could we have a talk with you sir... about your website.

(Bus O' Marines inspired by fes' conveyance)
posted by clavdivs at 12:03 PM on May 9, 2002

I don't see a lawsuit coming. I watched most of the clips and its looks highly manufactured to me. The homeless guys look like they've been paid something and are expecting it. Watch the Bumhunter clip to see how manfactured this "real life" video is.
posted by skallas at 12:06 PM on May 9, 2002

Oh yeah, and don't forget the Bang Bus.

Do I even want to know what that is?
posted by bargle at 12:22 PM on May 9, 2002

Oh yeah, and don't forget the Bang Bus.

Do I even want to know what that is?


No.
posted by bittennails at 12:52 PM on May 9, 2002

Even if this video was entirely staged, the concept is the absolute nadir of decency on just about any human level. What is even more ironic is that this racket runs out of Las Vegas. This "review" seems to suggest that it is real, that this bread and circuses barbism is orchestrated by some guy named Danny Tanner, who pulls homeless people from the seedier areas of Vegas. Danny Tanner is rather ironically the name of Bob Saget's character on Full House. If there is any justice, someone will put a stop to this sick son of a bitch.
posted by ed at 1:04 PM on May 9, 2002

"Danny Tanner is rather ironically the name of Bob Saget's character on Full House."

Where's the irony? Was Saget beaten up by a homeless guy? IS Saget a homeless guy? I haven't seen him in a while, come to think of it...
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:09 PM on May 9, 2002

On the jonmc-kafkaesque dialogue, I think there's a difference between entertainment that expresses our pent-up anger and violence as individuals (say, the MC5), and that which channels it into a mob mentality, specifically taking it out on "otherness" or the less fortunate (eg. much of Howard Stern). There's a difference between sharing the expression and sharing a target. Violent games fall somewhere in the middle, because the target is usually fantastical. That said, I'd encourage a more individual and creative release of anger, especially for the young and impressionable.
posted by liam at 1:11 PM on May 9, 2002

Oh yeah, and don't forget the Bang Bus.

The bangbus situations aren't real though, right? I thought they were scripted, however amateur....
posted by lotsofno at 1:29 PM on May 9, 2002

liam, well stated as always, my man. Although I dunno if it's so much about creativity as it is just plain release. Mosh Pits, roller derby, slasher flicks, crude humor shows...it's all just a way of letting your id run around in the backyard for a while so it dosen't escape and maul the neighbors when your not looking.

You mentioned the immortal MC5. The Five were about a lot of things, but first and foremost, they were about rocking out with a vengence. On one level, "High School" is about the institutionalized oppression of the educational system and "Teenage Lust" about the use of sexuality to repress youthful revolutionary energy.
But that sure ain't what I'm thinkin' about when I play 'em, y'unnerstand. "High School" lets me take vicarious revenge on every teacher who ever called me a loser and "...Lust" is Rob Tyner articulating my plea to every girl who ever looked right through me.
Those are relatively mild sentiments, but it's still better that they spin on my turntable and not out on the streets.
posted by jonmc at 1:31 PM on May 9, 2002

what gets me is how prophetic that old show Max Headroom was, some of hte shit we are seeing now on TV screams of the shit they were shwoing one Network 23 and he orher cometititors ont hat show, just sickening.
posted by Dome-O-Rama at 2:12 PM on May 9, 2002

At the risk of derailing this thread, I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy in a culture that says "it's better that I release my pent-up anger playing violenet video games" and "it's better that I listen to angry music instead of raging in the streets," yet says "it's wrong to look/read simulated kiddie porn, because then those sick fuckers will go out and do it."

(Me, I lean toward the side of "what you see/read is what you will think/do/find acceptable." Carmageddon, for instance, horrifies me. I'm even more horrified at what parents will put into their children's heads wrt movies, books, television, and video games. Talk about giving them the wrong mental programming!)
posted by five fresh fish at 2:15 PM on May 9, 2002

"what you see/read is what you will think/do/find acceptable."

That's ridiculous FFF. For instance I greatly enjoyed both Rocky Horror Picture Show and Reservoir Dogs and have watched both over 20 times.
By your logic, I should be walking down the street in black silk lingerie slicing peoples ears off.
posted by jonmc at 2:26 PM on May 9, 2002

I was just going to mention the Bang Bus. I'd always kind of presumed that the situations were constructed from whole cloth, that nobody could possibly be that exploitative. The existence of things like BumFights makes me want to re-evaluate that line of thinking.
posted by youhas at 2:48 PM on May 9, 2002

There's a fundamental difference between escapism or enjoying fictional violence and violence that is stepped in reality, actual loss or the exploitation of real people. Fictional violence? Me, I can't get enough of it. Give me explosions, John Woo action scenes and grant me the occasional opportunity to frag up a few players online. But real violence? Shit, man, I can't even get my blood withdrawn without passing out. With the stink, the fleshy mess and the very real mortality of losing another human being or witnessing someone in pain, just about any intense violent incident makes me both repelled and queasy.

There's a fundamental difference in acceptablity here, hombre. Maybe it's because we're absolutely aware of the contrived artificialities of watching a movie or playing a game. But if you've had the misfortune of witnessing a violent act in the real world, then it's absurd to think that the indelible memory of that incident will somehow impair the ability to distinguish between real and fictional violence.

Does enjoying fictional violence make me a closet psychopath? Absolutely not. By that theory, I suppose I'll transform into an overgrown version of one of those Littleton kids.
posted by ed at 3:01 PM on May 9, 2002

That's ridiculous FFF. For instance I greatly enjoyed ...Reservoir Dogs....
By your logic, I should be ...slicing peoples ears off.

There's a difference between something which simply depicts violence / depravity and something which comments on it. A Fox special called Grisly Torture Tactics VI would be entirely different from Reservoir Dogs even if they both included someone getting their ear sliced; the movie is a fascinating exploration into what loyalty is and what it means in relation to other people, to the law, to promises and rules, etc. Same as the difference between child porn and Nabakov.

Unfortunately, the problem is that some not insignificant portion of the audience only seem to catch the depiction, not the commentary, which like Matt said earlier, encourages them to push it further without comprehending that what they're doing is devoid of whatever value the original had...
posted by mdn at 3:02 PM on May 9, 2002

Speaking of Howard Stern, I was stunned to see the other day that not only did he graduate from Boston University, but he graduated magna cum laude. Was that common knowledge?
He might be crass, but he's no idiot.
posted by darukaru at 3:28 PM on May 9, 2002

Very interesting discussion, thanks for the dialogue.
posted by jonah at 3:40 PM on May 9, 2002

He might be crass, but he's no idiot.

Thanx for the compliment, darukaru....Oh wait, you're talking about Howard Stern....carry on
posted by jonmc at 3:46 PM on May 9, 2002

All this "shock and dismay" is more entertaining than the Bumfighter website and more fake than the WWF, oops, I mean the WWE.
posted by mischief at 3:55 PM on May 9, 2002

here in vegas they have handbills advertising this website plastered on almost every corner. I thought it was fake until today. :(
posted by monique at 4:47 PM on May 9, 2002

some not insignificant portion of the audience only seem to catch the depiction,

No offense, mdn, but isn't that a bit like saying "This violent stuff is OK for us smart people, but it would be just too dangerous for you ordinary morons to see.." I'm sure that's not what you meant but that's kinda what it parses out as.
Sadly though, that's the nature of a free society. Throw your ideas out and let people make of them what they will.
posted by jonmc at 6:23 PM on May 9, 2002

No way bangbus is real; but they do a great job of faking it.
posted by tcobretti at 9:24 PM on May 9, 2002

Why has no-one mentioned A Clockwork Orange yet? It seems Kubrick's predictions were spot on.
posted by wackybrit at 12:27 AM on May 10, 2002

These people are manipulated by folks who don't care whether they live or die and watched by an audience that views them as cartoon characters rather than humans.

Again, how is this different from professional boxing?
posted by syzygy at 5:47 AM on May 10, 2002

...not to say that the previews don't sicken me.

I think there are two different types of porn: erotica and exploitation. The exploitation has never appealed to me.

Where is the line drawn? Are you able to distinguish with every piece of pornography you view whether that pornography is erotica or exploitation? What's your feeling on pornography that mimics exploitation without resorting to actual exploitation? How would you feel to find out that the tasteful peice of erotica you just rubbed one out to actually depended on exploitation of someone in the cast? Farther afield, how would you feel to discover that the sneakers you're wearing are the products of the exploitation of children (child labor)?

Is this illegal? It should be.

Which part? How would you justify the laws making it illegal? It's sick, but the previews leave too many questions open: Is it real? How were the actors compensated? Did they sign a release consent form? Were they of sound enough mind to consent? Is it the filmmaker's responsibility to guage the actors' soundness of mind?

In comparison with some other discussions on this site, I find the discussion in this thread disappointing.
posted by syzygy at 6:29 AM on May 10, 2002

These people are manipulated by folks who don't care whether they live or die ...

My impression is that Don King (how he manages not to leave a slime trail behind him is still a mystery) cares enough about Tyson to keep him functioning and earning money. I don't think King wants Tyson to die. Yet. Not until King can get every bit of coin out of the situation.

And I mention this as an extreme example. Craziness happens in the heavyweight division, but there are amazing athletes and honest, dedicated promoters in the lower weight classes.

...and watched by an audience that views them as cartoon characters rather than humans.

Not this audience. The artistry in the ring is captivating, but sometimes what happens in the corners between rounds is much more interesting to me.
posted by ebarker at 8:51 AM on May 10, 2002

No offense, mdn, but isn't that a bit like saying "This violent stuff is OK for us smart people, but it would be just too dangerous for you ordinary morons to see.." I'm sure that's not what you meant but that's kinda what it parses out as.

I'm not attempting to segregate the population into smart / moron, or suggest that some people are not (whatever) enough to enjoy a movie. I just think it's unfortunate that some people equate really interesting art with blunt depictions of aggression, and then turn out their own depressingly mean depictions of violence and think it's as valuable.

Personally, I don't like violence for violence's sake; I think it's an important aspect of human nature and moments of violence or tragedy are often central to a truly interesting story, but when it's just for the fun of exploding shit, I don't really get it. But I'm pretty much all for free speech - ratings and labels for parents are fine but I wouldn't support banning anything.

And I'm not trying to say people who like violence for fun are morons or anything like that. I understand it's a release, an escape, we can't always be thoughtful and reflective etc. I just prefer tetris.
posted by mdn at 10:12 AM on May 10, 2002

wow. there are some sharp peeps here on metafilter!
posted by specialk420 at 3:12 PM on May 10, 2002

"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a Peep."
posted by DaShiv at 4:57 AM on May 13, 2002

Miguel, that's Jesus Blood Never Failed Me Yet from Gavin Bryars album The Sinking of The Titanic--on Brian Enos' Obscure--was reissued on CD with the dubious distinction of a bonus track of Tom Waits singing duet.

I also remember a reggae version of the original entitled Rasta Never Fail--

He never fail I yet
He never fail I yet

...and so forth.

but forget who did it.

You are so right about the Bryar's piece--it is incredibly moving.

Thanks for the jog of my memory. I loved that record and Eno's Discreet Music, too--two of many treasures I found through Creem magazine in 1976. Of course, of all those, Jonathan Richman was and is the greatest.

Oh, on point: what Kafkaesque said the first time.
posted by y2karl at 1:51 AM on May 14, 2002

[this is bad]
posted by tranquileye at 5:15 AM on May 24, 2002