It's hardly even a secret anymore, but I'm headed off on a secret adventure tonight. I'll be back . . . later.
Until then, here's a stupid thought I had. There's a band called the Kills, but they're nowhere nearly as popular as the band called the Killers. There's a band called the Thrills, but they haven't sold nearly as many records as the album called "Thriller." Could an "-er" ending be the thing that divides good bands from the great? From marginal success to superstardom? Should the Sounds rename themselves "The Sounders"? Should Spoon become "Spooners"? The Chills to "Chillers" . . . or look at this way: What's maybe the best band ever? The Beatles. But what is even more best than the Beatles? The Beatle-Ers! Or, what would be more successful than the Killers? The Killerers. Or sometimes the addition of an -er could change the meaning of a band entirely. For example, what happens if a band switches from Hot Hot Heat to Hot Hot Heaters? Now they're ready to compeat with the Fiery Furnaces, and in a place where people live in cramped apartments like New York, it makes more sense to have a Hot Hot Heater in your apartment than a Fiery Furnace. Two nights ago I saw the Harlem Shakes, but I did not see the small, furniture crafting religious group the Harlem Shakers.
Is the music buying public just more excited by the possibility of being close to an action verb? Feel free to invent more -er addition improvements.
Dumb. yes. But the sort of thing that gets thought on crowded busses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Don't you mean the Fiery Furnacers?
the mother love boners
but the kills are way better than the killers :)
Where did you go to? I don't know these things.
Post a Comment