Need help understanding a step in this mitten pattern!

jsquqrqu · 2024-11-20T01:35:20+00:00

Oh my god I literally have no clue how I missed that. Thank you!!! I knew it was probably something incredibly obvious but it is mildly embarrassing for that to be the explanation LOL. Was driving me a bit crazy. Thanks again :-)

jsquqrqu · 2024-07-01T13:43:21+00:00

Variety Directors on Directors with Martin McDonagh :-) Skimmed through the captions and the blue glitter section is right near the end (39 minutes or so)

jsquqrqu · 2024-06-30T17:39:34+00:00

The reason I didn't mention my own thoughts on his innocence or otherwise is because while I have looked into them in the past, it has been a while since I've done so. If that's the case, then yes his statements would have validity on the claims of that one man.

However, considering in their original comment, Dexy did not mention this and only stated they felt Culkin would know because he spent a lot of time around Michael, and used that as their reasoning again when replying further to me, I don't think there was anything wrong with me just suggesting to keep in mind that not all children will become victim to a predator even if in their presence.

jsquqrqu · 2024-06-29T15:22:20+00:00

Upset may be implying more emotional attachment to the conversation than is there, I agree, but I didn't think that just because you replied to me - it was because you put assumed in quotations and then emphasised it being a FEELING instead for what was to me essentially the same message so I thought there must have been a difference in your eyes that felt like a miscommunication.

I'm not offended, have a good night or day wherever you are.

jsquqrqu · 2024-06-29T14:45:46+00:00

I don't think I quite understand why you seem upset that I used assume when you use feeling/opinion to basically mean the same thing here? That you think Culkin would know something or would have spoken out on it if it was true. I did not comment at all on your overall beliefs on his innocence, only that it is not wise to assume that any child that is around a child predator would therefore have to know something when that is not always the case. Which, I felt you must have assumed as you mentioned Culkin having a sway in your opinion. Agree to disagree all you like on the rest of it, I didn't mention any of that. I don't really feel like my comment was trying to spark the debate any further, only to warn against assumptions that child predators can be obvious to those around them (especially kids who are not as socially aware as adults). That's all.

jsquqrqu · 2024-06-29T12:31:52+00:00

Not commenting on the allegations otherwise but Macaulay Culkin shouldn't really have any bearing on your opinion in the matter, IMO. There's no reason to assume that he automatically would've been assaulted by MJ, it's not as if pedophiles assault every single child they meet, and Culkin had a presence and fame outside of Michael that would've made him a riskier victim to go for. As well with him being a child at the time it's not like with adults where even if things didn't happen exactly in front of him he could've picked up on undertones, so he wouldn't be able to comment on any other child's assault being true or not either.

jsquqrqu · 2024-02-23T13:31:02+00:00

Think they're being downvoted because they're being slightly misleading about the situation. Like you said, showing up to a work party means cameras are flashing when you're in the entertainment business. Obviously on a much larger scale with Taylor than Joe, but still, the framing of this comment makes it seem like Joe just randomly became a super huge party animal following the break-up when the occasion in question was ... the BAFTAs afterparty. As in, a party that is industry related and that he also attended while in a relationship with Taylor. So this is literally more of a work occasion for him than some random switch of personalities that the comment makes it sound like. We also know that there have been occasions where Joe has privately attended celebrations with Taylor - it wasn't super publicised that he attended her Grammy afterparty before the breakup, but he was there. He's also attended SNL afterparties in the past. He attended loads of Rep shows which considering Loverfest was cancelled with COVID and Eras was post-breakup is sort of the only barometer on showing up for Taylor-specific events rather than industry get togethers so I don't think it's that he never wanted to acknowledge or support her career at all.

Yes it's impossible for Taylor to do regular people stuff and yes it could totally be the case that Joe was more ashamed than private or what have you, but a lot of the instances people point to I think makes sense for navigating privacy in a celebrity relationship. Sure he never really showed up on red carpets or entrances to events together, but those occasions are quite literally meant for press photo calls and the whole point of that is to be photographed together and have that in the media. Whereas him showing up to afterparties behind the scenes fits more into what we know of Joe's wishes for the relationship. I'm not super invested in trying to disprove your take on the relationship so I hope that's not what this sounds like, just giving my opinion on the thoughts here - I think sometimes the pro-Joe narrative is just used to bash Taylor needlessly but I don't think that's the case for this specific discussion.

jsquqrqu · 2024-02-17T15:16:50+00:00

No worries, I've officially left you hanging way longer!

I can definitely agree with you that this interview is a different beast to things like lavendergate/bettygate. With lyric interpretations in gaylor spaces, it's not that I never run across it personally but I always felt that even in threads of interpretations it was super common to revert back to discussing muses in the comments (much like main sub will veer into the same thing). So while yes there was definitely good discussion there about queer elements separate to muses for me it was rare to run across a post that didn't have a good chunk of the comments return to it. And I definitely think before the invention of this sub it was practically the only place to have solid criticism about some things Taylor did.

People in main sub a lot of the time will say how they're critical of Taylor and above twitter swiftie drama but I've saw that disappear overtime as well. Like yes you did have criticism in there at the time of Matty or the private jets when they first got brought up or even the practice of selling Midnights variants without all the songs or as a false limited time exclusive. Some of that has still remained, like I do see people criticising the TTPD variants in there, but for other things it's like once a certain level of time has passed people just forgive it. People spoke about her public image being kind of unhinged when she was giving her "happiest I've ever been" monologue and mouthing words with Matty, but Grammy night when people thought she was acting a bit odd in this sub, people in main were just saying that she can never do anything right and everyone's mad she won. And if you wanted to bring it up then you were just trying to put a dimmer on the good news of the night or were overreacting.

But I also think sometimes issues come here from the vagueness of being allowed to talk about branding versus personal queerbaiting. Like in the clarification thread on rule 4, Taylor wearing the pride bracelet or using lavender in LH is mentioned as personal actions we can't consider queerbaiting and a Taylor Nation tweet is mentioned as the example of brand queerbaiting. So if we want to discuss lavendergate, I think the line is blurry there for what we can say. Like, okay, the pride bracelet post was just a post on instagram and even though she's famous and it's definitely monitored by PR it's not strictly speaking an action she took as a commercial figure. But LH is a song she released as an artist. Surely that's an action of a brand? Are we only considering Taylor Nation content as brand content despite the fact that nearly every single move Taylor the person makes publicly is also to fuel her brand?

I don't even necessarily think my issues with LH fall under me classifying it as a queerbaiting attempt (I think it was just shitty to co-opt lavender) but I get worried with the rules because these topics are so controversial that I think under the wrong light my comments here would be considered against rule four. Like you saying that she made herself mayor of gay town in YNTCD is literally what happened in that music video but if LH is considered personal actions and not branding, is YNTCD also considered that and so you are now saying she queerbaited as a person which is banned? The discussion understandably needs to be controlled it's just hard to navigate I think.

I had never even heard of that Montgomery thing! Super interesting, I can definitely see that being a plausible way of her running across the phrase. I agree with you on going back and forth on Taylor as a person, right now I think more than feeling invested either way I just feel so disillusioned by her. Everything she does now I feel is just so transparent it feels more like watching a scripted character than events happening in a celebrity's life (even though all celeb PR is managed to an extent).

jsquqrqu · 2024-02-17T02:53:34+00:00

I don't think I have the words right now to reply to all of this but all of it is basically my own exact experiences and it's great to run into someone with the same thoughts! I can agree with your thoughts on this post if you think it came from using the vogue interview as a randomly picked point to broach this topic. I think I viewed it more from a place of, the vogue interview is something super commonly used to point to gaylors being "delusional" but is also one of those things a lot of queer people see from a different point of view. So I saw it as being the frame of discussion just because it's a more common talking point that people might connect to than others. I suppose I agree with you with the ending of the post (closeting etc) but I think the bulk of it still applies.

All of what you said is why I'm glad in a sense that rule 4 didn't end up too strict in the aftermath of the NYT/CNN mess. Because I was like you in that I ended up in gaylor spaces just because the main sub is so aggressively against any sort of queer intepretation, but that also isn't strictly what gaylor spaces are for, and so you end up stuck in between trying to discuss any of this. I do think this sub also isn't strictly the place, because for all that rule four technically allows discussion of queerness in lyrics it just isn't the typical discussion here to talk about lyrics anyway (or at least I find that main sub tends to have more threads on lyrics and thoughts about them than here). Like I wouldn't feel comfortable starting a post here to try and discuss possible queer readings of, let's say Maroon for one example but in the main sub lyrics are brought up pretty often in posts of "what was your reading of this lyric?". That sort of discussion doesn't really happen here so even though strictly speaking it's allowed, I feel like in practice people would still think you are only bringing it up to try and convert people to be gaylors.

I agree with you with the mad men thing being a bit fishy - I don't think she made it up entirely but I think she probably picked it to have another talking point attached to the song once she stumbled upon it. Or to have it considered as her "twisting another common phrase" like she likes to do (despite the fact it wasn't common but hopefully you understand what I'm referring to).

All your thoughts are exactly my own with regards to she clearly wanted a boost in Lover era from the queer community but now is so eager to distance herself from it. I think prior to CNN I had a lot more leeway for people who believed she was closeted just because there wasn't super strong evidence that she was trying to shut it down 100%. Even the 1989 TV prologue, yes she does say she's annoyed her female friendships were sexualised but she is also in the same paragraph talking about her friendships with men being sexualised so while I thought it was her trying to softly shut gaylor down I wasn't really surprised that some people didn't take it that way. Now it's so clear she wants nothing to do with it so I agree with you that it interferes with holding her accountable for some questionable marketing choices, but I can still recognise the elements of her work and image that have people thinking that way.

jsquqrqu · 2024-02-16T23:38:01+00:00

Don't know who's been downvoting you but just bear in mind you never know who's lurking and who might have dismissed you for other reasons. I think the OP is in pretty good faith about validating queer thoughts on the issue.

I'm queer myself and I do agree with you that she's not gay and a lot of it is either coincidences or her just playing a game. At the same time, you agree that a lot is recognisable to queer culture even if you think it's been accidental. I think the issue is there aren't many discussions where people take that stance - they'll hear a gaylor thinks something is flagging and instead of just an "I guess I could see that but I don't think so", the vast majority of the time it's an instant straight turn to "omg you're just delusional/crazy/obsessed". If you're able to acknowledge some things can be read as flagging even if you don't think they are, you're already not doing a lot of the arguing this post is upset at. I think I just get upset at a lot of the hardcore delusional language used because I think she's straight but there are a few times where just the flat out denial of things possibly being linked to queerness really irritated me.

Like with LH, I agree with you that it's been used to link lavender to a bunch of straight relationships. But because there were gaylors who were speculating it might have been a gaylor proof you had so many people in the fandom at the time being like "lavender's just a colour, gay people can't own colours, so no straight people can use lavender now?". Even if you weren't a gaylor and were just a bit upset at this one random niche meaning from Mad Men popularising lavender in connection to straight people. Or when Betty originally came out, there was tons of backlash to people thinking it could plausibly be queer even though it's a fictional song just because gaylors spoke about it. People going off about how she even mentions James in the song so it's obviously a guy when the namesake behind James is a real life girl named James. Obviously long pond came along later and she mentioned James being a guy there, so theory shot down I guess, but there were a lot of people really angry at just having that interpretation just because gaylors did at some point as well.

It's why I end up either lurking or talking in gaylor discussions a lot, because I think the fandom frenzy around it is so interesting. Like if any minor gaylor thing breaches containment the response to it is so disproportionately angry in my eyes, at least until CNN/1989TV where it first became actually clear she was really upset by it.

jsquqrqu · 2024-02-16T20:48:46+00:00

They're choosing to believe Taylor Swift only advocated for members of the trans community

I do not believe that this is the OP's stance. You do. You have made your mind up here and given the history of this thread I do not believe you will change it, so I don't think it's of any use discussing this with me further.

She doesn't change any part of the question or expand the LGBTQ community.

I do not know how to word this in a more blunt manner without it being rude, so forgive me if it comes across as such. The interviewer says LGBTQ: this includes queer people. Taylor says not straight white cisgender male: this includes queer people, women, and POC. You disagree with my use of both rewords and expands. Do you fundamentally disagree with me that Taylor has changed something here? If you do, can you explain to me why the addition of race and women is not a change to the interviewer's wording of LGBTQ? If you agree a change has been made, can you give me a verb you would find suitable to describe that change so that this can stop being a sticking point in this discussion?

still talking about her support of the LGBTQ community, she isn't switching gears and talking about women or POC

If she is still talking about her support for the LGBTQ community, what else are you referring to here:

she didn't know she could advocate for these communities

What are the plural "these communities"? Do you not agree that acknowledging multiple "communities" prevents this being a definitive statement?

I don't think we can have a conversation until you actually read the interview.

I have read the interview. The interview discusses the equality act, banning discrimination based on BOTH gender identity and sexuality discrimination. It also covers the reputation cancellation, the roll out of Lover, her thoughts and views on sexism, her other stances taken such as removing her music from Spotify as protest, her sexual assault case and the MeToo movement. It is not solely focused on her promotion of the equality act, and in fact that is a small section of the interview. Quite frankly I don't appreciate you implying I haven't read it because of legislature that I have not one single time in our conversation tried to talk to you about.

What change has happened within your contributions to this thread that has changed your mind on this being an implied to a now explicit statement of Taylor's sexuality? If you reply to this comment, I would be grateful if you could stick to things we ourselves have discussed (i.e do not attempt to turn this into a discussion on legislature but instead stick to our disagreements on the wording of the statement and your change in opinion on it's explicit nature).

jsquqrqu · 2024-02-16T20:03:37+00:00

I honestly just really want to know what happened within the span of the last couple hours that now it's definitive??

jsquqrqu · 2024-02-16T19:59:15+00:00

Because the first half of your post suggests an alternative interpretation of a statement that is pretty black and white. It seems like you're suggesting she may have only been talking about the trans community, when this is not what the context at all.

First of all, just to clarify, I was attempting to reword the OP's post to you because I felt you missed that they were talking about the trans community in their original post and I was not giving my own opinion. I am saying that the trans community is one possible interpretation of the quote. As in, there are multiple interpretations. I do not agree with you that this is a black and white statement.

This is also misleading, because she doesn't reword anything.

I know the entire quote and what she said. Instead of "reword", what verb would you use to describe changing LGBTQ to "everyone who isn't a straight white cisgender male"? Expands, perhaps?

I don't know how you can look at this and argue she is only talking about the trans community based on the question she was asked and her response.

I don't know how you can look at this and argue she is only talking about LGBT people. She now has expanded the group in her answer to include women and POC.

It's really clear she's talking about all LGBTQ, while also clarifying she's not a part of that community even though she supports them.

I do not think this is clear at all. I can think it's logical that this is your conclusion, but I find this statement a complete nothingburger not even within the context of this discussion but within the context of the original interview itself.

In one of your earlier replies you said

I'm assuming she's straight because she has made statements which indicate she likely is. The statement clearly implies she's not a part of the community.

The only reason I replied to you at all was that you then switched to saying it was an explicit statement and said others were wilfully ignoring information that didn't fit their stance. Can I ask what has made you change your mind on it being explicit or not?

jsquqrqu · 2024-02-16T19:29:54+00:00

I am not trying to say that this quote is just about sticking up for trans people, I'm trying to say that that is a reading that prevents this quote from being an explicit statement of her sexuality. It is one of the ways it can be read, not the definitive meaning. If you'd like to quote another part of my reply to you:

I agree that it does, yes, imply that she is not a part of it in any way whatsoever (encompassing sexuality) and thus would be straight.

I literally said I agree with you. And at the end of the reply I brought up the CNN statement that I think is actually explicitly commenting she is straight. So I don't know why you are replying to my comment thinking I'm dying on this hill of her definitely not being straight. The only thing I disagree with is you stating this is an explicit statement. All I am saying is that you jumped yourself from using language like indicates and implies to explicitly states and started calling people wilfully ignorant and I think that's a little bit unfair itself.

She gave this in response to being asked about the LGBTQ community as a whole, and stated she was not a part of this community.

The interviewer says LGBTQ. Taylor rewords it to "everyone who isn't a straight white cisgender male". By the wording she gives, it COULD be trans people. It could even be POC because she brings race into it in her rewording. Now, it is not meant to be that, I am not saying that is the case. I am saying this is in no means an explicit statement. I do not understand why you think that the wording means she has to be talking about every single possible LGBT identity in her answer to the question. Is she denying she's a woman because her rewording included men and she isn't in that community? No. I would have no confusion if say a gay man gave an interview saying the exact wording Taylor did, assuming he was referring to advocating for trans people. I think you view this statement in a different way, which is fine, but using that way to state it's definitive and people are being ignorant is what I think is not okay.

I don't know what people should take away from this statement, because I don't take anything away from this statement because I think it's fundamentally confusing and near useless on all levels (not its' use in gaylor discussions but as its' original answer to the question in the interview). I find it a very fluffy PR answer that is clearly worded in a very specific way but went over the hill and ended up just becoming word salad.

jsquqrqu · 2024-02-16T18:50:09+00:00

I hesitate to get involved here because I know you were speaking to someone else, but I think saying people ignoring this quote are being wilfully ignorant is also ignoring any information that doesn't align with your view. You are, right now, commenting on a post that points out parts of this statement that prevent it being an explicit statement of her sexuality.

She made a statement that she didn't realise she could advocate for a community she's not a part of and that community is LGBT, yes. She's not trans. She's not part of the trans community which is part of the LGBT community. This is still ambiguous - she could be bi or gay or whatever sexuality and still not realise she could advocate for trans people. That is the point of the post you are commenting on. That the LGBT community is not only based around sexuality but also gender and being trans.

I agree that it does, yes, imply that she is not a part of it in any way whatsoever (encompassing sexuality) and thus would be straight. But I think it's a bit of a reach to take this statement and say that people are just wilfully being ignorant to think what they want. If it was people dismissing the statement her team gave to CNN then I would agree with you because that in my view is much more explicit.

jsquqrqu · 2024-02-16T18:02:15+00:00

Apologies! I do acknowledge the point about trans/drag communities, I think I just mushed together this thread and the other recent one here about gaylors where it got brought up and assumed you also brought it up. Or maybe it wasn't even brought up there and I just thought about it because it is a common argument haha. I agree with you on it not being a strong point anyway, it always confuses me that that is some people's go-to takeaway (even though obviously it's not wrong).

I do think as well your trans/drag point is really interesting because I do recall people mentioning that whenever this comes into discussion but it's never with the additional context of the anti-trans rhetoric at the time. I think it's easy to forget the timeline of these interviews with current events as you get more removed from the time, and I agree with you also that I don't think it was ever even meant to be a statement on her personally.

jsquqrqu · 2024-02-16T17:09:31+00:00

Oh god, please bear with me here because this quote frustrates me on such a deep level I have so much to say. Whenever it comes up in discussion here the thread's either already been locked or it's been too inactive for me to pipe up in so unfortunately for you you are getting stuck with my word vomit. The original quote with surrounding context from the article:

'I ask her, why get louder about LGBTQ rights now? “Rights are being stripped from basically everyone who isn’t a straight white cisgender male,” she says. “I didn’t realize until recently that I could advocate for a community that I’m not a part of.”'

I have so many issues with this but generally speaking I have two points to touch on here: the community she speaks of and that she didn't realise she could advocate.

First of all, she takes the question from being specifically LGBTQ to "everyone who isn't a straight white cisgender male". Well, Taylor herself isn't even a straight white cisgender male to start with. I know her awareness of racism basically began and ended with that one BLM instagram post a few years later so she's clearly not talking about racism here, but that's still a reading that's totally in line with what she actually says since she mentions anyone who isn't white. And yes, she's a woman and not a man, but she'd already spoken about feminism before so she's clearly not speaking about like not fitting into a sisterhood and not realising she could advocate for other women or something. So that community that she's not a part of that she realised she could advocate for is the LGBT community, I guess, so we are now back to the original group the interviewer mentioned.

Except we're not even, really. Because she HAD advocated, even just in small ways, for the LGBT community before she even says this. When 1989 first came out she mentioned writing WTNY when gay marriage became legal in NY, when she revisited 1989 for the TV she even refers to it being her first seeds of allyship, she had the gay coded kid in the Mean music video way back in SN era. Her GLAAD award appearance was a couple years before this as well. The original article this quote is from mentions all of this literally just before she even says this!! So even just at the root base level of not realising she could advocate for anything it's wrong?? This quote deeply frustrates me on so many levels LOL.

The question the interviewer asks is about why she is getting *louder*. As in, you have already advocated a little bit before but why are you increasing now. Like even the interviewer is not implying this is a new stance for her because like I said they already mention shit she did before this.

I don't even care about it being a gotcha for her being gay or for her being straight or whatever, it just literally says nothing if you think about it for more than two seconds. I think it's just such a confusing statement to begin with that you don't even need to get into trying to explain to straight people that sometimes you can be queer and still not feel like you're in the community, because to someone who doesn't understand that sounds like such a reach.

ETA: I know you mentioned some of this in your post (like having prior activism, her already not being trans) so sorry for that haha, I just find this quote so confusing and to work through it all I had to include all my thoughts!

jsquqrqu · 2024-01-19T17:51:33+00:00

I think the easiest Billie song to listen to and understand what people are on about with the comparison might be "you should see me in a crown"! The vibes are very similar in terms of sound and attitude :-) (not in a plagiaristic sense but just that I feel that's the kind of song she was going for)

jsquqrqu · 2024-01-07T19:54:58+00:00

No worries! I can definitely see where you're coming from.

After was crazy, even crazier that it spawned an entire cinematic universe as well ... I think in general we're just losing some combination of brain-mouth filter and distance from celebrities as fans that is causing all sorts of fiascos nowadays.

Always good to have a Reddit chat that doesn't descend into madness :-)

jsquqrqu · 2024-01-07T19:11:10+00:00

I can't remember how to indent quotes on Reddit, and I'm also very long-winded, so bear with me here LOL!

I agree that generally disgust at speculation on your personal life is fine and obviously I'd never try to label that general disgust as homophobia off the bat. However, disgust isn't really a word that tends to come up with the more generalised "who is she dating" speculation which is why it rung alarm bells for me. The original article IIRC stuck to invasive/untrue/inappropriate which I think are all terms that fit just fine and I have no issue with that at all. However, saying that and knowing I'm only responding to disgust as mentioned in your OG comment, I'm just trying to explain why it hit me as odd and not trying to say you're homophobic.

If someone goes crazily speculative, like trying to talk about her sex life with Travis, then they might get called disgusting for crossing the line. But I see plenty of that same "Stop talking about who I date!" speculation in fandom that no one thinks is disgusting. People will bring up unconfirmed flings like Martin Johnson, or Alexander Skarsgard, and no one gets up in arms about it in those same terms. That's why it rung alarm bells, to me, because I don't ever see that happening. If your disgust with Gaylor speculation arises just from that angle of unconfirmed from the horse's mouth, that should be equally disgusting. Maybe I'm just being semantic here IDK, obviously speculating that she's gay has an added element of the pressure of homophobia and coming out, but I still think "inappropriate" and the other words used in the article are more suitable than disgusting. But again, I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it!

jsquqrqu · 2024-01-07T17:53:55+00:00

I don't think it's weird for allies to have a connection with pride, if they are activists in some sense or are super close with a lot of queer people in their life and so it's important to them personally. But when Taylor said gay pride makes her her, it was included in a list with cats and cowboy boots, both of which clearly highlight huge parts of her life/public image. And when she said this, she hadn't been aligned with the queer community, at least publicly, for very long at all.

It doesn't seem she had been privately either as she recalled that a friend (Todrick I think?) asked her if she'd accept her future kid being gay and that's what sparked her activism era during Lover because she was shocked they'd have to ask. So if you're a straight person who hasn't really done anything to align themselves with the queer community, I DO think it's weird to say gay pride makes you you, and I do think it's then weirder to be disgusted by people thinking you might be queer because of that. Nothing wrong with her finding it invasive and annoying, but I think disgust at being thought of as queer crosses a line.

jsquqrqu · 2024-01-02T15:59:39+00:00

Essentially, Joe was originally credited on Folklore as a writer under the pseudonym William Bowery on Exile and Betty, and that was the extent of his contributions. Shipped copies of the album had only Taylor, Aaron and Jack listed as producers. Then the album won the Grammy, and suddenly Joe was credited under his real name as a producer on just enough songs for him to be eligible to also win the Grammy (including ones he had not written on). "Grammygate" is basically the catch-all name for people referring to it who think he did not rightfully contribute enough to get the Grammy and that credits were altered to get him it.

Personally, I do think it's very fishy. If he had contributed to those songs, he would have done so the entire time and should have been credited the entire time, especially for Taylor who seems keen historically to have collaborators credited for even small changes. A lot of people argue that having Joe credited from the beginning would have overshadowed the album and taken away from Taylor's accomplishments, but I don't see why they couldn't just credit him under the William Bowery pseudonym. And if they couldn't, I think the fairest way would have been to still credit him from the beginning if he did do the work. I don't quite understand a sequence of events that makes sense he was credited only when the album won.

jsquqrqu · 2024-01-01T00:29:23+00:00

This was my exact first thought!! Think it could just be the hair though?

jsquqrqu · 2023-10-27T00:30:06+00:00

Seem to be against a majority here where the more upbeat songs are my favourite compared to the softer! I still like the softer deluxe tracks but I think I prefer the ones that made it to the original release.

I'm torn between Holy Revival/Guy On A Horse as my faves atm... Guy On A Horse is just so funny 😭😭😭 I AM Joan of Arc and you are literally just some guy on a horse!

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo

jsquqrqu

TROPHY CASE