Join 3,564 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Creatively Heinous
March 26, 2010 5:27 AM   Subscribe

Toronto band Fucked Up was everywhere at the South By Southwest music festival this year--playing at official and unofficial showcases, even once on the street, but often at unofficial massive advertising areas by, say, Pepsi or Levis. Some might think: How can a hardcore band justify their position in these marketing schemes? The answer, posted on the band blog by Mike the Guitarist, is simply titled: SXSW WHY?

Previously
posted by Potomac Avenue (47 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

 
I was just listening to their FACT mix yesterday, which still seems to be downloadable despite the stated three-week limit. Really good, too.
posted by Shepherd at 5:37 AM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


In addition, one of the most amazing things I've ever seen was Pink Eyes rolling around in the mud at the Spin Party: mainly because he found a way to make a show which was 30% photographers and 70% people just there for the free beer and barbecue and to get their picture taken with Lou Ferrigno. Instead of lazily playing a set to the uncaring crowd, and going home, he busted through the 4th wall with his muddy happy belly to confront the all media crowd around the stage with an up-close photo op. And some people even hugged him! Come to think of it, I really wish I had.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:40 AM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


That's an interesting way to celebrate World Water Day.
posted by nitsuj at 5:51 AM on March 26, 2010


Because punk rock hardcore has never been commercialized before?

The sell outs. At least the Clash are still pure!
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:57 AM on March 26, 2010


The music industry is by definition an operation invented to divert money spent on music away from actual musicians

The problem with this is that it implies that, left to its own devices, money tends to go towards musicians, which is demonstrably not true.
posted by acb at 6:08 AM on March 26, 2010 [4 favorites]


Good article. Thanks, Potomac Avenue.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:14 AM on March 26, 2010


Altamont [a shoe and clothing company] gave us $1000 to help out with our show, which we used to rent $1000 worth of back line for all the bands to use. As I mentioned, it's not about completely disavowing participation from outside agents, it's about using them to your advantage. If Altamont sells a few pairs of shoes because of our show, we're fine with that - we feel like we got what we needed out of our relationship with the company.
It's the reaction to this statement, in particular, that I'm interested in seeing. As somebody that works in marketing (and is conscious that the profession is a constant moral quagmire), it seems like a straightforward understanding of how the industry, and the world in general, works -- Altamont wants to sell shoes, Altamont will give you money to help your band in exchange for you promoting Altamont, and your band's tacit approval of Altamont products will (Altamont hopes) lead to increased sales.

But it's not hard to see how accepting cash from Altamont to help your and other bands, and thereby help Altamont sell shoes, leads to Mountain Dew having a forty-foot billboard in the middle of the event. It's the same thing, on a slightly different scale.

Talking Altamont cash to sell Altamont shoes, and in the same blog entry complaining about
One of the more creatively heinous examples of branding I learned about this year was the Green Label Sound record label, which is a branding exercise of Mountain Dew soda. When my friend was offered to do a record with Green Label Sound for many thousands of dollars, I was happy to concede that it was a great deal for his specific band. Then I saw the giant 4 panel billboard for Green Label Sound right next to Stubbs on Red River St. Great for Chromeo, Neon Indian and the two other bands on the advert I forget ("great" in the sincere and non-facetious sense) and realized how maybe it was a bit more of a serious issue than I'd thought. Think of all the bands that had to blow their wallets apart to get to their one sxsw showcase, and all the partiers who had to pay to fly or hitchhike from Greenpoint or Plymouth to get to Austin in order to create the cultural critical mass that allowed Mountain Dew to greenlight a giant billboard in the epicenter of American indie rock.
seems like you're being a bit deliberately obtuse. I champion Mike's statement that "it's about making an conscious decisions," but I have no evidence that his friend wasn't making a conscious choice to sign with Green Label, accepting that he was helping promote Mountain Dew and this was an acceptable compromise to give his band the exposure and whatever cred being on "Green Label" would provide.

"Selling out" is one of the slipperiest concepts in pop culture to grasp, and it's about picking where on the slope to put your foot down and say "here I stand, and will slip no further." For Fucked Up, for now, that's Altamont. For his friend, that's Mountain Dew/Green Label. But I'm not sure that standing slightly higher on the slippery slope and pissing downhill is the best way to make the case for your integrity.

There's a much bigger issue here, too, which is what constitutes a "conscious decision," and how the economic actors in the sxsw equation decide what constitutes legitimate support and what is crass manipulation. The thing is -- as a marketer -- I can tell you that we're almost as confused about this as the bands are. As I get older and greyer in both beard and morality, it gets harder to see where the lines get drawn.

Dollars to donuts there are people on the Mountain Dew brand team that feel like supporting sxsw financially in exchange for a billboard is a Good Thing, and other people on the same team that are looking at it strictly in terms of leveraging share-of-mind in a key target audience.

There are likely people at this Green Label thing who sincerely believe they're using "evil" corporate money to promote "good" bands that deserve to be heard, and vice-presidents greenlighting the project because they think the increased optics among the M18-34 bracket will drive consumption and give them a bigger bonus.

Danged if I know if this stuff is good or bad any more, but it really isn't about bad corporations exploiting good indie rockers; as soon as he cashed the Altamont cheque, Mike must have known this on some level, and you can see the struggle in his blog post as the lines between "pure" indie rocker and "sell-out" start to blur slightly.
posted by Shepherd at 6:18 AM on March 26, 2010 [20 favorites]


just saw yesterday that they're curating part of the sled island festival this year as will quintron & miss pussycat in conjunction with king khan.
posted by msconduct at 6:28 AM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


music sucks

a lot
posted by flyinghamster at 6:28 AM on March 26, 2010 [4 favorites]


Like every other part of the music industry, it's musicians and artists that are the oil in the machines of this festival. But all too often artists are treated exactly like that - as a simple combustible energy source to keep something much larger afloat.

Just to note, oil is not combustible fuel, or even remass, it is a lubricant which keeps the machine from burning itself out from friction. I think it is a better analogy to think of the musicians of SXSW as a lubricant in the machination of capitalism, because that's really the part they play.

It is one of the genuine places where a band can become a success overnight. Just ask Freelance Whales or Wavves.

Who?

[THIS POST BROUGHT TO YOU BY MOUNTAIN DEW. DO THE DEW DUDE]
posted by fuq at 6:36 AM on March 26, 2010


Eh, they're no Mother 13.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:37 AM on March 26, 2010 [3 favorites]


You know, musicians think they are special because they get the chicks and the dudes want to be them and people buy them free drinks, but their situation is no different than the rest of us proletarians how are just grist for the mill of capitalism. All too often most workers in any industry are treated like fodder. And the reason is two fold: 1) they don't organize and 2) they are replaceable. When it comes to musicians particularly, they are eminently replaceable. There are hordes and hordes of kids and others lined up to take the next spot that opens up. Hell, they even pay to play. And this makes musicians disposable. So let's not throw all the evil on the industry. Like someone said above, left to its own devices, money does not flow to musicians. Shit, left to its own devices, music would be free (and almost is nowadays) because it is NOT a scarce commodity.
posted by spicynuts at 6:48 AM on March 26, 2010 [8 favorites]


Rob Reiner has a punk band!
posted by e.e. coli at 6:50 AM on March 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


left to its own devices, music would be free
there'd be plenty for you, there'd be plenty for me
matter of fact, these days, it pretty much is, i'm tellin' you true
but you're still gonna pay about a buck and half
for that bottle of Mountain Dew
yeah you're still gonna pay about a buck and half
for that bottle of Mountain Dew
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:54 AM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


Rob Reiner has a punk band!

Robb Reiner has a heavy metal band.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:01 AM on March 26, 2010


The problem with his theory about a fixed pool of money that the industry tries to take from musicians is that if the content is ad-supported (as opposed to selling units) it's actually positive sum. Rather then "Money flowing away from the artist" you're actually bringing non-entertainment money into the picture, by altering people's softdrink choices you're taking softdrink money and giving some of it to musicians, rather then simply shifting entertainment money.
posted by delmoi at 7:13 AM on March 26, 2010


Interesting. I went to SXSW once, about 5 years ago. It seemed to me that it was a trade show, like other trade shows I'd been to, but a lot funkier and, well, more fun. Mind you, I was working for "the Man" at the time (that is, for a big corporation). I see no problem with a hardcore band putting their wares on at a trade show and I'm glad there are trade shows that feature hardcore bands. The corporate sponsorship pays the bills, so that's good too. This is, I guess, the "new" (internet-age) music industry and this is how musicians are going to support themselves. You gotta do what you gotta do.
posted by MarshallPoe at 7:20 AM on March 26, 2010


I saw Fucked Up at SxSW. It was about 30 degrees outside with the wind roaring and the guy comes out there in his underwear and hairy chest / back and ends doing a cover of a Ramones song.
What's wrong with being punk and pragmatic. If you want your message to reach a huge audience (whether it be sex drugs and rock n roll), you need a means... money. Here here to them. I enjoyed their show but would have never heard of them had they not taken some free gifts.
By the way, good for them for calling themselves out on accepting corporate / sponsor gifts.
posted by hillabeans at 7:25 AM on March 26, 2010


spicynuts I agree with your rant up to the point that you claim that music should be free because it is so readily available. There' are so many bands and songs around... But what % of them are any good, by any criteria you choose? A very small number I'd guess. People want what they want and are willing to pay whatever is necessary to get it. If its nothing, fine, but they will also pay a lot. Some of that you could argue is brainwashing by the music industry to see, say, Metallica as a lifestyle instead of just a band. But a lot of it is human nature too. Music, pop, feeds our favorite myths. A crafty band can, and in this climate HAS TO position themselves to take advantage of this disparity in tastes and corner the market on whatever it is they are doing.

It's either the triumph of gross commercialism or a new era of artistic autonomy, or both.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:37 AM on March 26, 2010


I saw Fucked Up at SxSW. It was about 30 degrees outside with the wind roaring and the guy comes out there in his underwear and hairy chest / back and ends doing a cover of a Ramones song.

That's not punk rock. That's just Canadian.
posted by jimmythefish at 8:18 AM on March 26, 2010 [4 favorites]


Shit, left to its own devices, music would be free (and almost is nowadays) because it is NOT a scarce commodity.

Music is not fungible.
posted by malocchio at 8:30 AM on March 26, 2010


Am I misremembering, or weren't there injuries of some sort at an unlicensed sxsw party a few years ago? I thought a structure collapsed due to the crowd.
posted by Pronoiac at 8:49 AM on March 26, 2010


I played an official showcase last year, didn't go this year. This talk of free beer bums me out, because that's mostly what we were after last year, and it was hard to find. Everyone attributed it to "the recession."

Anyhow, I thought that was a good article, if a bit non-commital in the end. I got really bummed thinking about the people playing to no one at 11 AM. Who among us hasn't been that guy?

But I don't see the hypocrisy or whatever in the paragraph that Shepherd highlights. He's not saying his friend is being taken advantage of by signing to the Mountain Dew label. He's saying that the Mountain Dew billboard is a good investment for Mountain Dew because of all the bands that play SXSW and don't sign with the Mountain Dew label, or any label, and don't get on the billboard, and don't make any money. SXSW wouldn't be so massive and visible and profitable for the Mountain Dews of the world if it weren't for all of the little guys who do it for a loss.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:20 AM on March 26, 2010


1. I flew out if Austin on the same plane as Fucked Up. If I had the chance I was going to compliment Pink Eye on his hat. It was neat. It said Altamont. I'm glad I didn't.

2. Altamont is simultaneously the best and worst name for the company. The worst because the Kids just dont know!

3. I had a chance to see Freelance Whales this year and didn't because that is a terrible band name. What is their deal?

4. A wise man once told me, "SXSW doesn't break bands, it breaks up bands." I'd need more evidence to the contrary before o believe the hype. Did Wavves really break in Austin?
posted by wemayfreeze at 9:38 AM on March 26, 2010


Awesome I think I went to the Dewars Pampers Ultra Soft stage!

This was my second SXSW living in Austin.

I mostly feel that I see the bands I want to see, in Austin, year round when they come. But, for the benefit of an out of town friend, I decided to schedule up a week of free shows. (especially with the help of a super top secret list from a MeFite!)

I started with bands I wanted to hear, and then added parties and shows with free beer and swag. I felt terrible for some bands. One particularly awful show was one I was most excited about. XX (squee!) was playing at the Other Music Lawn Party at the French Legation. I pictured blankets on a grassy hillside, relaxing in the late afternoon. It was much more like a bum rush of a tiny stage, with terrible sound and feedback issues the whole show. The crowd just kept talking and more or less ignoring the band the whole time. People cheered for a solid minute or two for an encore, and they didn't give us one. And I don't blame them.

One of the best shows was much like the naïve bands this article describes. A tiny club, 11 am, sponsored by the Berklee School of Music. Free drinks, and every band was talented and showed musicianship. The crowd, though many had never heard of these bands, was respectful and happy.

Shitty fans make SXSW suck. I think the problem is much less about bands who know they are a product to be consumed/make money, but when the audience is there to consume a large quantity of "music"* and free beer, rather than see musicians and artists (and coincidentally consume large quantities of free beer).

Maybe SXSW's and sponsor's marketing has trained audiences to treat music in this way, or maybe SXSW draws in that type of person.

Either way, my favorite stage is still Domy Book store's improv bungee cord and blue tarp stage thrown between their wall, and a neighbor's roof. This model of sxsw party makes sense to me, a few local businesses get together, buy some kegs, rent some sound equipment, and get bands to play for a mostly local audience, or out of towners who are actually here for the music. The label scout was easy to spot in the small crowd. Good things happening all around.

*(ala Zoidberg's: one "art" please!)
posted by fontophilic at 9:39 AM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


Good article. I'm in a much lower profile band that Fucked Up (who I saw last year, and think are aweome). I'm always fascinated in the economics behind mostly self-propelled bands. Bands end up being little economic units and it's a constant struggle to keep your head above water. I always like hearing how bands solve this problem.

Fucked Up is one of those bands where they actually make a bit of a living by being on the road all the time. It's not a great living, but they make it. The hard truth ends up being that you have to compromise with this stuff now and then. Where any band makes those compromises is more or less up to them. I have my own opinions and they may not line up with them, but that's life. The thing that drives me crazy is when people who hardly ever go to live shows, don't buy tshirts, and buy most of their music off itunes recommendations start yelling 'Sell-Out'. My feeling is that unless you've tried financing your own recordings and tours, you should shut up.

We pay for everything we do and after 5 tours and two albums we're not even on the same continent as breaking even. I feel good because we have great shows, have fun, and aren't beholden, but that crap is hard. I have sympathy for any band's solution.
posted by lumpenprole at 9:54 AM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think it comes down to an issue of scale. The Altamont shoe company gave one band $1000, which the band went to put on their own showcase, and they promoted Altamont to some degree. This might have been the most Altamont could spend on marketing at SXSW. On the other hand, Mtn Dew pays a bunch of bands "many thousands of dollars" each, and then has the funds to pay for prime real estate in the heart of the action.

Mtn. Dew is huge, everyone already knows of it, but they're still trying to increase their sales. Altamont is the little guy, fighting to get known by a wider audience, and has little capitol to reach that goal. Mike the Guitarist is annoyed that a well known mega-brand can come into something that was all about indie bands (and brands) and plaster their label everywhere, along with some fairly well known bands who probably aren't as desperate for a break (Chromeo have a few big albums to their name, and Neon Indian is/was big recently, from what I've seen).

Music is not fungible.

Ah, but to a degree it is. I'm not saying that you can swap The Clash for Fucked Up and no one will be the wiser, but when the scale is thousands of bands vying for attention, at some level they blend together. There was the band who only wore underwear and played some heavy stuff, then the band who wore a lot of brightly colored feathers that played some really heavy stuff. And the nice indie girl-band who played pleasant, soft songs, and the nice indie girl-and-boy band who played nice, soft songs. Or the other nice, soft band.

There are unique sounds and styles, but when SXSW expands every year, can you really keep track of every band who played there? You can't hear it all, and even if you prepared for it by sampling material before going to plan your time there, it will probably blend together to some degree.

Shitty fans make SXSW shows suck.

I understand SXSW has a certain mentality behind it (free beer + lots of music + hip times for all), but the same can be said about many festivals (that I've been to) and a good number of shows. There are some dicks who go to shows or festivals and chat the whole. God. Damned. Time. At festivals they might be killing time until that one band they really wanted to see comes on, or maybe they drank too many $7 beers and no longer realize how loud they are. Or maybe they never cared in the first place. But they're everywhere it seems, even at shows, talking over the frikkin headliner!
posted by filthy light thief at 9:55 AM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


The more the music industry dies, the more this will come up. The flip side of the free, utopian future that often gets espoused here on MeFi—the one where everyone is in it for the love of music—is that the companies that can still make a buck off music will be the ones financing bands. That's the Mountain Dews and Levis for now, but probably the Walmarts and, hell, Bank of Americas later.
posted by wemayfreeze at 10:19 AM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


One of the best shows was much like the naïve bands this article describes. A tiny club, 11 am, sponsored by the Berklee School of Music. Free drinks, and every band was talented and showed musicianship. The crowd, though many had never heard of these bands, was respectful and happy.

That's the difference, innit? I think he's talking more about shows that aren't sponsored by anyone and don't have free drinks. The ones that are just dudes playing in a bar/restaurant/store at the same time as SXSW.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:21 AM on March 26, 2010


free, utopian future that often gets espoused here on MeFi

I don't think there's a lot of that on MeFi, maybe I'm wrong. I feel like most people here are considerably more nuanced than that. The thing is, that future is coming no matter what you think of it. And I say this as someone who has very mixed feelings about it. Bits will never get harder to copy, failing the apocalypse.

Recognizing the future and trying to figure out how to navigate it for your benefit is a little different than wearing rose-colored glasses.
posted by lumpenprole at 10:35 AM on March 26, 2010



spicynuts I agree with your rant up to the point that you claim that music should be free because it is so readily available.


I did not claim that it should be. I claimed that it for all intents and purposes at this point IS free.
posted by spicynuts at 11:27 AM on March 26, 2010


I'm not sure that standing slightly higher on the slippery slope and pissing downhill is the best way to make the case for your integrity.

True, but it IS punk as fuck.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:45 AM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


have mountain dew given daniel johnston a record deal yet or what?
posted by Hammond Rye at 12:50 PM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


I was all confused for a minute before I realized you're not talking about Holy Fuck. Fuckin' Toronto bands.
posted by GuyZero at 1:47 PM on March 26, 2010


>>I saw Fucked Up at SxSW. It was about 30 degrees outside with the wind roaring and the guy comes out there in his underwear and hairy chest / back and ends doing a cover of a Ramones song.
>That's not punk rock. That's just Canadian.


...because he assumed that meant 30 degrees Celsius
posted by Flashman at 2:32 PM on March 26, 2010


It was about 30 degrees outside with the wind roaring and the guy comes out there in his underwear
Wasn't that great? "I've been preparing for this (freezing, in underwear) moment my whole life- every time I ordered that 7th order of fries..."

I went to that show to see them, in particular (although GWAR was a lot of fun) I had no idea that was Fucked Up's probably 9th SXSW show... and they pretty much rocked the fuck out, it made me really happy.

I don't really have a dog in the sponsorship/whoredom fight - feels like a matter of 'we already know what (music) is, we're just haggling about the price'- if it isn't a major label using you to sell CDs, it's a chewing gum company using you to sell gum, and it's hard to imagine how you'd skip that whole process, and still make any money at all.

If you're going to be in the music business, you're basically feeding yourself into the machine, somehow. Props to these guys for trying to keep their eyes open, and their integrity more-or-less intact while they attempt to figure it out.

Really, though, I don't have a point, I just wanted to chime in about how awesome Fucked Up are.
posted by hap_hazard at 2:37 PM on March 26, 2010


I haven't heard the phrase "sell out" in quite some time. I mean, people are still trying not to do that? It feels like such an archaic term.
posted by functionequalsform at 2:48 PM on March 26, 2010


3. I had a chance to see Freelance Whales this year and didn't because that is a terrible band name. What is their deal?

Williamsburg indie buskers. Here's a video of them doing First Floor Generator at the Bedford stop.

Did Wavves really break in Austin?

I don't think so. It seems like they got noticed in the fall of 2008. Google Trends doesn't show a huge bump last spring.

I thought the article was pretty bad. I just didn't get the point. Yes, bands lose money to go to Austin to have a good time and try to sell themselves. OK. So the answer is to take money from some advertisers but not others? I just don't get it.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:45 PM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


Did Wavves really break in Austin?

Of course not, silly. Austin is in the middle of Texas, very far from the nearest ocean.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:43 PM on March 26, 2010


God. Is this really punk now? Pragmatic Punk? This Is The Way The World Works and Let's Just Accept It Punk? FUCK THAT. FUCK. THAT. I will continue listening to my old Crass records and Fucked Up can go get fucked. I'm tired of hearing about them anyway.
posted by DecemberBoy at 7:44 PM on March 26, 2010


I mean, that statement about "what's so bad about if we both get something out of selling out?" is just infuriating. If that's you're fucking attitude than buy a tennis visor, wear it upside down and go play Hoobastank music or something, don't piss in my fucking pool.
posted by DecemberBoy at 7:49 PM on March 26, 2010


Teach, DB, TEACH!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:09 PM on March 26, 2010


This was my third SXSW with a wristband. The way to do it successfully is to either find a showcase with a band you like, get in early, and stay for the evening, or to go take a chance on bands nobody's ever heard of. Ignore the big name brand things unless you have a badge, and even then expect to stand in line forever for your REMs, your Smokey Robinsons, or your Muses. If you just like music, the joy of discovering something new in a hole-in-the-wall or busking on Sixth will be plenty for you.

The success stories do happen. The best thing we saw last year was an all-female folk band from Norway called Katzenjammer that we found while they were busking on Sixth and checked out at an unofficial showcase on Sunday. Apparently David Byrne was in town for the festival and saw them too, and hired them for the stage he curated at Bonnaroo. This summer they're touring with Lilith Fair. It's not a major label deal, but they're not Britney Spears x4 either. I'm glad they're getting the exposure and hope they make some money.

One of the things we did this year was watched the premiere of a documentary about Anderson Fair, a legendary singer-songwriter folk club/listening room in my hometown (Houston) where a lot of the great names in Texas music spent some of their formative years. Many of the folks interviewed for the film (more the non-musicians than the actual singer-songwriters) had a missionary zeal for the music. The downside of this, which I've felt more than once as a regular at another Houston folk club, is (some of) their contempt for the people who actually make the money. Anderson Fair's a great room, and I enjoy seeing people there, but I want my musicians to make a living and if they can make more money playing the Duck than they can at Anderson Fair, there's a point at which they financially need to let Anderson Fair go so they can eat and buy instruments and keep the tour van on the road. If playing at the Duck lets them do that, more power to them when they decide to do it.

Does this guy from Fucked Up have all the answers? I don't even think he thinks he does. But he's dead right that musicians have to think about doing SXSW as a financial investment, not just whether they get the prestige of "played SXSW" on their band's CV. If we want people to be full-time musicians, we as consumers need to be willing to support that one way or another, even if the music itself is fungible. And the bands setting the terms for their relationship with SXSW or promoters or whatever isn't selling out. There are ways to compromise your artistic integrity--and I've heard bands that have compromised--but choosing how you deal with the system, such as it is, isn't one of them.
posted by immlass at 8:20 PM on March 26, 2010


Hey, GuyZero, I like Holy Fuck. Would I like Fucked Up?
posted by Pronoiac at 12:41 PM on March 27, 2010


Pronoiac: I can't say for sure, but they are pretty different. Fucked Up is loud gruff shouty 'hardcore' with early-90s emo-ish guitar work. Cf. Leatherface, Jawbreaker. I like em, but I would rather go to a Holy Fuck show and dance a lot.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:39 PM on March 29, 2010


Yeah, sorry for not replying earlier. You might like 'em but about the only thing they have in common is the whole 'Fuck' thing. They're not really alike at all.
posted by GuyZero at 2:01 PM on March 29, 2010


Fuck Buttons are better than both. So is plain old Fuck.

See also: The Fucking Champs, The Crucifucks, Starfucker, Total Fucking Destruction, Fuck the Facts, Fuck Off and Die, Fuck...I'm Dead, Fuck U is my Name, Fuckhead ... I'm sure there are lots more.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:15 PM on March 29, 2010


« Older Give us 15 minutes of your time, and we will give ...  |  Foodzie.com has been described... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments