Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


'NSYNC Party With Hugh Hefner, Olsen Twins and Britney Spears At Celebrity Soiree
July 24, 2001 2:38 PM   Subscribe

'NSYNC Party With Hugh Hefner, Olsen Twins and Britney Spears At Celebrity Soiree
WTF?
posted by lheiskell (43 comments total)

 
Huh? Maybe I'm missing something, but why is this noteworthy?
posted by jpoulos at 2:43 PM on July 24, 2001


It's not noteworthy, it's guffaw worthy.

I'm wondering how soon the *NSYNC star will fade. Maybe when moms and dads figure out that their teenybopper daughters are all gaga over a bunch of guys who hang with Playboy centerfolds, allegedly manhandle fans and have at least two illegitimate children attributed to them.

That said, I won't let my kids listen to them, but I will admit that No Strings Attached is in my collection and I may have to get Celebrity just because that "Pop" song is so freaking catchy. Damn their oily boy band hides!
posted by Dreama at 2:49 PM on July 24, 2001


let's just hope that Hef pulled Britney aside and made her...(ahem) an offer she couldn't refuse.

Then, maybe he sent drinks over to the Olsens with a note that said, "See ya in three short years..."

i am a sick little man...
posted by ColdChef at 2:51 PM on July 24, 2001


MP3 the g'dang `NSYNC song dreama.
Retain some modicum of dignity.
posted by dong_resin at 2:53 PM on July 24, 2001


Surreal juxtopositions of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but a dubious cliche!

The Olsen twins? Who let them out late? Disturbingly I was wating their show on Nickelodeon UK's 'Watch Your Own Week' (I voted for Sabrina The Teenage Witch!). It was a disturbingly good show. Much better than the usual drivel they put on (Keenan and Kel anyone? Thought not). The older women person is actually quite attractive. Scary. I need to get out more. Much more.
posted by nedrichards at 2:54 PM on July 24, 2001


They were all in one place, and no one took action? I'm so disappointed in the Mad Bombers of the world.
posted by harmful at 3:02 PM on July 24, 2001


'NSYNC Party With Hugh Hefner, Olsen Twins and Britney Spears At Celebrity Soiree

I think I read about this on a banner ad somewhere.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 3:08 PM on July 24, 2001


Keep that greasy Hef away from our sexy, underage entertainment products!

Wait... 2 playboy-related MeFi posts in a row?
posted by D at 3:19 PM on July 24, 2001


Jesus Christ, that kid has an enormous nose.
posted by Skot at 3:34 PM on July 24, 2001


MP3 the g'dang `NSYNC song dreama.
Retain some modicum of dignity.


Hmm, somehow stealing music doesn't strike me as dignified. Go figger. Thanks, but I'll be trucking down to the local music shop tomorrow and picking that one up, along with a selection from Henry Rollins just to keep myself balanced.
posted by Dreama at 3:46 PM on July 24, 2001


Aw, don't do that either. Everyone will know what you're up to.
That's like buying three Bic lighters and pack of Alka Seltzer just so you can surreptitiously
slide in a pack of condoms as well.
posted by dong_resin at 4:04 PM on July 24, 2001


I did buy the N Sync CD... yes, I admit it... I bought it... and know what? It's pretty good.

One thing I noticed is the cover which, if you look carefully, features very few teenage girls. It has reporters, 20/30ish women, and some guys. Now look on the left side, the red headed guy. I swear, I think he is checking out Chris' ass. And then the guy behind him, down and to the right, blond hair. Same thing. Maybe they are together?

My point? Seems the cover is taking a lot of their audience into account, and not just the teenage girls. And that's really going to be the selling point. They have publically said they want to get into producing, and such. One has his own clothing line sold at Nordstroms. One already has a production company.

I think their star will fade, but not go out for a while. They'll move into the background, not being the "here and now thing."

They'll go off better than some though.
posted by benjh at 6:27 PM on July 24, 2001


Could they become the next Beatles (going from pop to rock) ?

Ok, I'm going to go wash my mouth out with soap now...
posted by Ptrin at 6:30 PM on July 24, 2001


Ben, buddy. No offense, but get a life. :-)
posted by jpoulos at 7:30 PM on July 24, 2001


i just noticed this stuff when I was at work goofing off listening to the CD (as opposed to working, which I would rather not do).
posted by benjh at 7:58 PM on July 24, 2001


In somewhat related news, the AP recently dished out a story about the hard times boyband creator Lou Pearlman's company is hitting.

Can't say I'd be sorry to see Trans Continental Entertainment drop off the face of the earth.
posted by drywall at 8:17 PM on July 24, 2001


Give me Kenan and Kel over the olson girls anyday. K and K are funny, the olsons are just stupid cute.
posted by tomplus2 at 9:12 PM on July 24, 2001


I think a lot of *NSYNC's audience is already adults. Benj isn't the only person listening to them at work. A few people in our office admit to a fondness for their songs, and they're all over 25. The people in our group under 25 listen to Maaya Sakamoto (me) and Shaggy (the other guy).

The Olsen twins have a show? I knew not watching TV had a bonus.
posted by Electric Elf at 9:25 PM on July 24, 2001


"olsons are just stupid cute"

But they are just soooo cute. Mix that with my lesbianism/incest fetish and ... well you get the picture.

Seriously, NSYNC's stuff is just plain catchy. I know, my musical taste is somewhat lacking - I am a big fan of pop. Britney, Jessica, Mandy Eden's Crush and so on.

I can't help it, I LIKE any industry who's sole goal seems to be feeding me an endless supply of young femalse hot enough to fry eggs on.

BTW - There is no dignitiy in stealing music.
posted by soulhuntre at 10:56 PM on July 24, 2001


Hate/love N'Sync? See these fellows...
posted by owillis at 11:00 PM on July 24, 2001


"BTW - There is no dignity in stealing music."

There is no dignity in stealing... artistic work, or even the product of honest work. But N Sync is just exploitative media junk; stealing their records is about as grave as stealing from Microsoft or the US gov't. From my vantage point, N Sync's corporation and creators steal massive amounts of media space from deserving artists - people who write songs, bands who don't have their radio time paid for by payola, etc. Not to mention the fact that by not buying the cd, you are depriving the band of probably 10 cents per boy, for god's sake would they need your money anyway?

Steal corporate music - support local and independant music
posted by mitchel at 4:12 AM on July 25, 2001


So you're saying it is ok to steal from Microsoft or the US Government? So how does it go, at what capita does it go from stealing to something else?

I am a very big supporter for fair-share usage. If I were to download an MP3 of a CD I had because it was scratched and that track wouldn't play, I wouldn't have a problem with it. In the same hand, I wouldn't think I should have to, at all, pay for the CD, then pay for a digital copy for my portable player.

The fact is though, is that 10 cents per boy is probably an exaggeration.

But lets for a moment assume it is 10 cents per boy per unit sold. Ok, so we take what they sold in one week on their last release, which is 2.4 million units. Then we multiply each unit by 10 cents. 2,400,000 x .10 = $240,000. Not a bad payola. What if only half of those people bought the CD? The per boy makeup when then be reduced to $120,000. Thats quite a drop. Also consider that on most of the tracks, they also act as the writers, producers, etc. in some capacity, so that does raise the "per boy" input to some degree.

N Sync's corporation and creators steal massive amounts of media space from deserving artists - people who write songs, bands who don't have their radio time paid for by payola
So only certain bands are deserving of media space? I guess only poor bands who are independent have a right to media space.

Fact is, taking money away from any one group is stealing, and stealing can not be legitimized by the argument, "but it is a big company."
posted by benjh at 4:57 AM on July 25, 2001


I don't accept MP3s as stealing, It's sheer record company hyperbole.
MP3s are not stealing, as their output is not comparable to the commercially available compact discs.
I never bought quite so many discs as I did when I was Napstering. When I found a new song I liked, I wanted the real version. Everyone I've spoken with acts the same way, for the same reason.
That CD sales are dropping down now is no coincidence.
I've never met Hillary Rosen, but I don't think she's the type I'd let do my thinking for me.
posted by dong_resin at 6:37 AM on July 25, 2001


Question: If I go to the Louvre and take a photo of the Mona Lisa, then blow it up and put it on my wall, did I just steal the Mona Lisa? Or did I even steal a print of the Mona Lisa? An mp3 of a recording is not the recording, it's an image of the recording.

The fact that I've got a really good "camera", and I don't need to buy the overpriced Mona Lisa prints in the gift shop doesn't enter into it.
posted by jpoulos at 7:00 AM on July 25, 2001


jpoulos, that's apples and oranges. I have no idea what the hell an "image of a recording" is -- it may not be of the same quality as the CD recording, but an MP3 is still the song. You can still listen to it, you can still enjoy it. A high bitrate MP3 played through the lovely speakers of my PC sounds better than a CD played on the little CD box I keep in my office. It isn't quantifiable that in all cases an MP3 is going to be inferior to the user. It can certainly be more convenient and that, in and of itself, invests it with value.

I cannot see any logic behind an argument that legitimises the procurement of a duplication of something, even a lesser quality duplicate, which is used in the same fashion as the original and was procured for the sole purpose of bypassing the need to purchase the original -- particularly when that act of procuring is a violation of current law.
posted by Dreama at 7:30 AM on July 25, 2001


You're arguing that MP3s are a suitable replacement for CDs. That has not been my, nor the majority of users I have spoken with, experience.

I play an MP3, I decide I want the real thing, or more from that artist or whatever, I then buy the CD. This has been the pattern of my usage. The Record industry was profiting from my having MP3s.
posted by dong_resin at 7:42 AM on July 25, 2001


I said nothing about "suitable replacement" at all. I said that they could easily be a replacement that is found to be suitable by hobbyist users who care more about hearing a song on demand than the audio quality of said song.

Regardless, the use of MP3s as a prescreening device was not the use of that was being advocated, (refer to your comments about retaining dignity by getting an MP3 of an Nsync song) nor discussed. Therefore, whether or not you (or anyone else) employed that methodology is completely irrelevant.

That said, would that all music enthusiasts acted in that fashion. However, the sheer volume of MP3 downloaders who were open about their complete willingness to download and burn those "inferior images" of recordings, bypassing retail music altogether, belies the idea that open MP3 trading was as beneficial to anyone as much as the end users who (no matter which way you slice it) got a product for free through illegal means. Matching profit for profit does not show the "music industry" as the winner of the game.
posted by Dreama at 8:09 AM on July 25, 2001


My *NSYNC comment was total mirth, it was the equivalent of saying that you should save a buck and use latex house paint to refinish your car, because you don't drive a (provide suitably snobbish car type here).
I think you know that.

I don't know what the "average" MP3er was doing, all I do know is that the rather large group of music enthusiasts I interact with, MP3s as a type of prescreen was the most common use, as they were audibly inferior for real enjoyment. I fail to see how my real world experience with the media is "irrelevant" in an argument as to it's use.


"I said nothing about "suitable replacement" at all. I said that they could easily be a replacement that is found to be suitable"

Er.... I'm not quite lawyery enough to glean the meaning from that one.

As matching profit for profit... the music industry is primarily concerned with profits, yes? That their profits are down might indicate their current behaviour is not to their advantage.
posted by dong_resin at 8:29 AM on July 25, 2001


I can't help it, I LIKE any industry who's sole goal seems to be feeding me an endless supply of young femalse hot enough to fry eggs on.

BTW - There is no dignitiy in stealing music.


BTW - There is no dignity in lusting for minors.
posted by Sean Meade at 8:56 AM on July 25, 2001


That their profits are down might indicate their current behaviour is not to their advantage.

And it might indicate that the recent economic downturn has led to people having less disposable income, therefore purchasing fewer CDs. It might indicate that the quality of what's been released of late has been lacking. It might indicate a lot of things. That still doesn't legitimise your argument. Sorry.
posted by Dreama at 9:23 AM on July 25, 2001


If you're downloading Nsync mp3s legality is the least of your problems=)
posted by justgary at 9:27 AM on July 25, 2001


It doesn't detract form my argument, that's for certain. I don't claim to know exactly why CD sales are down, but
I feel negative about CDs in general due to the practices of the RIAA, and that, rather than lack of disposable income, has been responsible for my sharp drop off in music purchases. I have this in common with various friends as well. The RIAA is bumming people out, en masse.

Tell me, how can one rushing to the store to pick the some of worst sort of pop offal of the past few years dare to say that music quality is going down? Obviously you like it.
I haven't had any trouble finding new stuff that I like, either. That argument is silly at best.
posted by dong_resin at 9:34 AM on July 25, 2001


CD purchases have been way, way down in the last several months, despite the fall of Napster, and are much lower than they were last year (at the height of Napster). This seems to indicate that the relationship between P2P MP3-trading and the music industry decline is much less strong than some pundits had suggested.

There are nowhere near as many MP3 downloads going on now as there were in Napster's hey-day. But CD purchases are even lower than they were then.

I don't know what the problem is. The economy? Lousy music? Expensive CDs? MP3s? Probably a combination of all of the above.
posted by Marquis at 10:24 AM on July 25, 2001


I just heard "Pop". It wasn't that bad.
posted by dong_resin at 10:27 AM on July 25, 2001


hef to olsen twins:
i'll see you in a few years.
britney's legal too.
posted by dogmatic at 11:09 AM on July 25, 2001


"So you're saying it is ok to steal from Microsoft or the US Government? So how does it go, at what capita does it go from stealing to something else?"

As far as I can tell these poeple jsut think it's OK to steal from anyone they don't like - or any other time it suits their agenda to do so. The ethics seem to be infinately flexible.

This is very simple. Your right to use an artists work is defined by the rights under which you procurred the work. You don't have to like it, or support it.

This is why I find it so amusing that a subset of people who will steal music on napster so often scream when it looks like someone violated an open source license.

The ONLY protection an artist has are these agreements. You start breaking those when it suits you then you lose the right to bitch when it happens to something you like.

This constant idea that the wealthy don't deserve the same protection as the "little" guys is just jealously IMHO.

"I play an MP3, I decide I want the real thing, or more from that artist or whatever, I then buy the CD. This has been the pattern of my usage. The Record industry was profiting from my having MP3s."

That isn't, legally, any justification at all. Nor is it (to my mind) an ethical justification for an entire company (Napster) built on the premise that they will make it easy for you to steal.

"BTW - There is no dignity in lusting for minors." While in some places a 16 year old is a minor for "lusting" purposes in others it is not... thus the "dignity" of this is more of a grey area than it might seem.

That said, while I wouldn't take 16 year Mandy to bed (in most states, anyway :-] ) I damn sure don't have an ethical problem acknowledging how hot she is.
posted by soulhuntre at 8:31 PM on July 25, 2001


That isn't, legally, any justification at all. Nor is it (to my mind) an ethical justification for an entire company (Napster) built on the premise that they will make it easy for you to steal.

I wasn't speaking about illegalities. What is legal and what is ethical are often at odds with each other. I was arguing that I don't recognize MP3 distribution as stealing because you're not getting the actual product, but an inferior copy.
An inferior copy that, more often than not, worked in the industry's favor.
posted by dong_resin at 11:17 PM on July 25, 2001


"I wasn't speaking about illegalities. What is legal and what is ethical are often at odds with each other. I was arguing that I don't recognize MP3 distribution as stealing because you're not getting the actual product, but an inferior copy."

If I benefit from your work without compensating you, I have stolen from you unless you gave it away.

And yeah, i take your point about ethics - I just don't think this is one of those cases.
posted by soulhuntre at 2:03 AM on July 26, 2001


If I benefit from your work without compensating you, I have stolen from you unless you gave it away.

You're benefiting from my interest, particularly if I'm inspired to go buy some of your product.
You're seeing it in terms of an artist I've some how giped. That's what the RIAA is trying to perpetuate.
Industry released songs are product samples. The product is the sensibility of the artist itself, whom you are meant to cultivate a taste for, no matter how briefly, and buy products from. The actual product is just the inducement. This is why there are songs on the radio.
You're applying a moral imperative to business dealings, which puts aside all other considerations and implies that by listening to a copy of a song, I've somehow stolen the song. That would only be true if the MP3 experience was comparable to CD. I'm not stealing when I tape from the radio. The RIAA doesn't think so, anyway. They care about MP3s and try to convince people it's stealing because they fear the quality of the mp3 copy is good enough to where people will not buy the CDs. So far, it seems they have been proven wrong.
The whole point of releasing music in the first place, from the RIAA's point of view, is to make you buy more product, which MP3s do. This is why bands like Ben Folds Five embraced Napster, because they saw the potential.
posted by dong_resin at 6:35 AM on July 26, 2001


I wasn't speaking about illegalities. What is legal and what is ethical are often at odds with each other. I was arguing that I don't recognize MP3 distribution as stealing because you're not getting the actual product, but an inferior copy.

An inferior copy that works in the same fashion as the actual product and can fulfill the same general purpose as the actual product. If we were talking about books, and mass distribution of eBook versions of copyrighted works that were not authorised to be eBooked, would the issue be the same? Absolutely -- you can still do the same thing with the "inferior copy" of the product that you would with the original, and therefore, the quality is irrelevant -- especially when coupled with the lack of authorisation to distribute said copy, regardless of the quality of it.

An inferior copy that, more often than not, worked in the industry's favor.

In your experience, which is anecdotal and proof of nothing. How many Mp3 downloaders who never bought, bypassed retail entirely, only downloaded and stored, either on hard drives or burned direct to CD, would it take for you to quit throwing out this meaningless "me and my friends" crap? If it were 1 million, 5 million, 10 million -- half of the registered users of Napster -- would that be enough?

Clearly, that there is any number of people who benefit by having the music without ever buying it is not in the industry's favour. That is a direct loss, not only to the industry, but to the artists whose work was being stolen because people didn't want to support the only means those artists had to make their music popular enough to gain the public awareness necessary to make it available to be stolen in the first place. For every Ben Folds who could care less that their music has been Mp3'd and downloaded worldwide, there is a Metallica or Dr. Dre or others who do care, to the point of suing, and to the point of putting really hostile messages to their own fans on their websites and in their liner notes. This is lengths that they are having to go to in order to protect themselves. That's really pathetic.

This false notion of "entitlement due to industry corruption" is affecting the artists, co-opting their work product, and ultimately impacting negatively on their bottom line too, and that's a really interesting way to show appreciation to artists whose work you like. Really interesting. "I like what you do so much, I'm going to steal it!"
posted by Dreama at 8:26 AM on July 26, 2001


"Entitlement due to industry corruption" was never my argument. Read my posts.

You wish to dismiss my personal experience as "crap" and anecdotal, but it is no less so that whatever it is that informs you. In fact, I dare say my first hand experiences are more reliable than claims made by frightened industry executives.

The fact that CDs sales where up when Napster was swinging (again backed up by my first hand experience, I bought CDs like nuts)
And down when the RIAA attacked them (also backed up by firsthand experiences, I stopped buying almost completely) speaks to my point the MP3s encouraged, not discouraged CD sales. You try to wave that away by pointing out that no one is certain why CDs sales are down, but you can't say that it didn't have anything to do with the RIAA's clamp down on Napster, as my personal experience would suggest that it did.

Ben Folds didn't merely not care about Napster, he encouraged it. So did Radiohead. Radiohead released KID A in it's entirety for free on the net a week before it's release, and it did okay.

". If we were talking about books, and mass distribution of eBook versions of copyrighted works that were not authorised to be eBooked, would the issue be the same? "

Of course not. You're comparing two completely opposite forms of media. If I read an electronic version of a book (I've read quite a few), it's the same experience as reading paper, because the text is the same, only the presentation differs (not book, but computer screen). I get the same media input. It's clearly printed text, conveying the same ideas as paper text. I read the screen, I'm happy.

I listen to an MP3, the sound is not quite right. The media output has been altered. Not the same experience. It makes me want the real thing.

I obviously don't know anything about you Dreama, but you seem to have an inordinately strong point of view based on only second hand experience with the core users of MP3s.

So it goes with the courts, and it seems that may, if only temporally, have been the industry's loss.
posted by dong_resin at 9:05 AM on July 26, 2001


The media output has been altered. Not the same experience. It makes me want the real thing.

Try reading an eBook in the bath, or on the beach; try scribbling pencil notes in the margin; try treating it like a book and you'll realise that it's no way "the same experience as reading paper".

The Napsterisation of MP3 was successful because it proved that the music industry had got out of the habit of selling music. But rather than exploit it for what it is -- a complementary form of delivery -- the RIAA and the major labels loaded, pointed to their feet, and fired.
posted by holgate at 9:21 AM on July 26, 2001


Try reading an eBook in the bath, or on the beach; try scribbling pencil notes in the margin; try treating it like a book and you'll realise that it's no way "the same experience as reading paper".

You're talking about presentation, I was referring to the media itself. Text is text, regardless of what it's printed on, as long as it's clearly printed, you get the same experience.
Music is sonic, if it doesn't sound the same, it ain't.


I promise I'll be less argumentative and pedantic once my espresso machine gets here.
Lousy UPS.
posted by dong_resin at 10:12 AM on July 26, 2001


« Older teoma...  |  Female athlete to pose nude. ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments