Children to permanently work around age ratings, government announces

The entirely pyrrhic move of making pop videos display age ratings (or, rather, some pop videos on a couple of platforms) has achieved whatever low bar of success it was aiming for, and will now have its pointless life extended permanently, the government has announced.

So far, the BBFC has rated a massive 132 videos from the estimated 10 million plus music videos (about one third of videos on YouTube are music videos of one type or another; Quora estimates there's more than 80 million videos on the service).

I'm assuming the idea is that you're so unlikely to find an age rating on a video that you'd forget the way your workaround the requirement to prove your age by the next time you come across one.

The equally vapid labelling will apply to Vevo as well.

Nice work if you can get it

A press release arrives:

Australian vocalist Tim Fontaine aka BOROKO releases his latest music video for his single “Because Life”, from his sophomore album Western Child, which is set to release in early 2015. Filmed by the fashion photography team Alex and Iggy in the historic Artist Studio NYC, formerly the Irving Penn Studio, the “Because of Life” video was aimed to depict a conflicted man, heading down a path where his fantasies overtake his reality and he struggles with guilt and the forgiveness he seeks to remedy his “disease”.

That was what he was aiming to do. He wanted to depict that. How fortunate the "conflicted man" was mostly conflicted about a semi-naked woman rubbing herself all over him rather than, say, whether it's worth recycling when the developing world is consuming raw materials at an ever-faster rate, eh?

Sia sighs

Sia says she's not surprised that some people have knee-jerked and yelled "paedophilia" after she launched her Shia LeBeouf/Maddie Ziegler wrestling video for Elastic Heart:

I anticipated some 'pedophelia!!!' Cries for this video. All I can say is Maddie and Shia are two of the only actors I felt could play these two warring 'sia' self states. I apologize to those who feel triggered by ‪#‎ElasticHeart‬ My intention was to create some emotional content, not to upset anybody.

Oh, won't someone think of the children?

The required apology - for giving more attention to Shia LeBeouf - is yet to be forthcoming.

CNN thinks you might be having difficult conversations this weekend

Good old CNN. It's trying to help you. More "trying" than "help", though:

"Mummy... can I ask you something?"
"I see you've read the newspaper. It's time to talk about Justin Bieber..."
"Jesus, mummy, I'm six; I like grew out of Bieber four years ago. Guy's a shit-hawk, I get that. You think we don't have cock-bundles like Bieber at school? I was going to ask about Syria..."

Still, given that CNN's Kelly Wallace has taken the time to prep this, we should at least pretend we don't think this article manages to pull of the strange feat of making an ever-expandable internet seem like a page has been wasted.

Parents should try to do more listening than talking, and ask kids what they think about Bieber's troubles, said Rachel Vail, a New York City mom of two and author of numerous books for kids and teens including her latest "Kiss Me Again."

The kids, of course, won't think anything, given that the only people who really have any thoughts about this are those struggling to fill celebrity columns.

"Scaffold their growing ability to think through complex issues like celebrity, entitlement, fame, substance abuse -- and really listen to their thoughts," said Vail, also on Facebook.

Oh, yeah. Kelly hasn't actually had an awkward conversation with Vail, she's just read something on Facebook.

"So often we think we have to have the correct answers and serve them up like so many inoculations to our kids. Being present and asking questions is sometimes the wiser, more respectful, and ultimately more empowering route."

"Being present". Well, yes, I guess that'd be better than standing at the end of the garden and shouting 'what do you think about Bieber?' through a loudhailer.
There's a lot more of this stuff, calling in several people for their views.

As for Bieber's teenage fans, Dean Schmidt, the Denver radio personality, believes they shouldn't stop liking him.

"And I'll go one step further and say they shouldn't judge him," she said. "Every person needs love, so I'm not going to tell a child to stop loving a person (celebrity or not) just because they've made some bad decisions."'

Hang about... isn't judging someone and stopping loving someone two different things? Isn't it wrong to suggest to kids that they shouldn't have an opinion on whether Bieber was in the right? That seems a bit strange.

Still: if you're parent, read up. That way you'll be fully prepared for the conversation your kids won't be wanting to have anyway.

Newsround, by the way, are running 'How to wind up your parents and make them ever more embarrassed by pretending you're upset about Justin Bieber'. Step three is to ask 'and why did Miley Cyrus rub her lady innards on the big ball?'

Miley Cyrus may have a footnote in history

There's currently an interesting piece on Today about the BBFC, which includes the possibility that - for the first time - pop videos might come under the ratings board's duties; perhaps only when being sold. (Google and the BPI, meanwhile, are talking about ratings for YouTube pop videos.)

Miley Cyrus might prove to have been the naked-look straw which broke the camel's tolerant back.

Simon LeBon is a super puffer

Simon LeBon's calling out of Robin Thicke for misogynystic bullshit is welcome:

“The problem with Robin Thicke’s video is it disempowered all the women in it,”[...]
“I think Robin made a bit of a mistake, because he’s not a bad guy, he’s not a misogynist, but he’s getting off on the chicks in the video and all that stuff. The theme of the song is, 'You say you don’t want it, but you do’, and that’s, actually, quite scary if you carry it through, so I felt that that was a mistake.”

Because, of course, Duran Duran would never have used naked women to pep up a pop video, would they? Why, LeBon might demand to know if we should be flinging this filth at our pop kids.

What's also notable is where The Daily Telegraph caught up with him:

Le Bon [spoke with] Mandrake at Boisdale Canary Wharf, where he was crowned The Spectator Cigar Smoker of the Year.

Simon LeBon is the what now? There are many things I think of when I think of Simon LeBon, but 'there's not just a cigar smoker, but probably the Wayne Rooney of cigar smokers' isn't one of them.

Turns out there's still more coverage to be squeezed out of Miley Cyrus

The beauty of The Onion piece about CNN leading its website on Miley Cyrus's VMA appearance is in the link at the very end, which managed to twerk the news network not just publicly, but privately, in its web stats, as well.

But there's still more depth to dig with this overbaked 'woman goes to event known for desperate attempts to grab headlines; desperately tries to grab headlines; wins' story. Because up until now, nobody had thought to ask what a woman who once pretended to be Cyrus' mother thought.

Until now:

Miley Cyrus' former TV mum Brooke Shields has taken aim at the pop star for her provocative performance at the MTV Video Music Awards on Sunday night, insisting the grown-up Hannah Montana star looked "desperate" onstage.

I'm not sure if that's any more or less desperate than the desperation to get some press coverage out of having once been in a TV show with the original desperado.

She joked, "I don't approve. What did I do wrong?" Shields then got serious, adding, "I just want to know who is advising her and why it's necessary (to do that). My six-year-old and my 10-year-old, they can't watch that.

"She can sing beautifully, and I feel like if she lets that lead, rather than let her bottom lead … I feel it's a bit desperate - you're trying to be (Lady) Gaga ... but it's different ... She's trying so, so hard."

Brooke, if your six year-old was watching the MTV VMAs at all - not just the moment when Cyrus ground her ass - you've got a problem.

What makes this outrage all the stranger is that this is Brooke Shields. Brooke Shields, who was in The Blue Lagoon. You think she'd have a slightly more informed view of the mediashitstorm than just crying "won't someone please think of the children"?

Lady GaGa: South Korea thinks of the children

Bad news if you're a South Korean child: The Korea Media Rating Board has banned under-18s from the forthcoming Lady GaGa gig in Seoul.

From a UK perspective, where many gigs take place on licensed premises and are barred from Under-18s, it's probably more surprising that this is even considered worth reporting.

It's a victory for the pushy-church lobby:

"Our Christian community needs concerted action to stop young people from being infected with homosexuality and pornography," the Korean Association of Church Communication said in a statement.

Yes, GaGa had been planning to "infect" children with homosexuality; she'd been going to get gays to lick the doorhandles to start it spreading amongst the crowd.

Doll not aimed at kids is unsuitable for kids, claims professor

Bless the poor Daily Telegraph, which struggles enough coping with the modern world outside its own door but now has to try and run stories about matters American as well.

It's copied a fuss about nothing over the "rock chick Barbie" from American news sources:

But parents and commentators across America have criticised the image it portrays to children. Professor Joel Bakan, the author of 'Childhood Under Siege', described it as a "cynical exercise".

"This is a calculated attempt to play on young girls' natural desire to appear older," said Prof Bakan. "This is something to be resisted."

It tosses Mattel's explanation away at the end of the story:

In a statement, Mattel suggested that the doll had been intended more "for the adult doll collector". It said: "Barbie has sported an endless array of styles."

It's not "suggesting", it's saying. The rock Barbie doll sells at fifty bucks, which is the pricing for the collector range, not the children's toy range which is priced much lower. But if you know that, you know that this story isn't about aberrant Barbies dragging kids to Satanic rock concerts, and is actually about Joel Bakan using a lazily-researched target to try and flog his book.

Ofcom thinks of the children; issues new pop video guidance

Ofcom has chucked out some fresh guidance to broadcasters about pop videos, having done a bit of research amongst parents:

regarding music videos, of all the parents surveyed, the main concerns were:
sexually explicit content (6 per cent)
and overtly sexual performances (6 per cent),
followed by offensive language (5 per cent),
nakedness/naked body parts (5 per cent)
and generally unsuitable content of a sexual nature (4 per cent).

Ofcom had surveyed 1,024 parents - it's worth noting that only 11% had actually said they were worried about music videos in the first place, fewer than had worries about soaps, films or reality programmes; and more were worried by violence than sex (20% against 17%).

They'd also asked a smaller selection of teenagers (768):

just under a quarter (23 per cent) said they had seen something on TV before the watershed in the previous 12 months that had made them uncomfortable or they had found offensive;

• the top five concerns measured as a percentage of all teens questioned were:
sexually explicit content (7 per cent), offensive language (4 per cent), violence (4 per cent), nakedness/naked body parts (2 per cent), news (1 per cent) and
animals being killed/mistreated (1 per cent); and

• the genres of programme causing most concern measured as a percentage of all teens surveyed were: film (7 per cent), followed by soaps (6 per cent) and reality
TV (5 per cent). Music videos came fifth (4 per cent) after dramas (4 per cent). This was followed by documentaries (3 per cent) and news (2 per cent)

After reminding broadcasters about observing the watershed for all programming, Ofcom turns to music videos:

Ofcom recognises that music videos in the Urban and R&B genres in particular are well known for including mild sexual content and innuendo, and there will be a certain level of audience expectation for this type of content. However, having taken into account factors such as the strength of the images, the genre of music and the time of broadcast (looking particularly at whether the video was broadcast at a time when children were likely to be watching), broadcasters must consider whether potential audiences (including both adults and children) would expect to see such content.

Did Ofcom just say 'well, you expect it with black music, don't you?'

But what about bondage, I hear you ask? Okay, maybe you're not asking, but apparently lots of people do:

Ofcom has been asked whether the Code restricts images of sexual bondage, dominance and sadomasochism in music videos before the watershed. The Code does not prohibit such images before the watershed.

However we advise broadcasters to take into account the nature and length of shots used and the overriding theme of the music video. Before the watershed broadcasters should take care to avoid any explicit images of sexual bondage, dominance and sadomasochism in music videos, or any inappropriate cumulative effect resulting from the repetition of these types of images that are unsuitable for children and likely to cause concern to parents.

Seriously, Ofcom? There are broadcasters ringing you up saying "look, I've got a video here with a lass tied up, ball-gag in mouth, and a naked bloke spreadeagled getting whipped - is that okay for teatime?" They need extra guidance on that sort of question?

And, let's make it clear, your video is not going out dressed like that:

It is important to note that in pre-watershed content, Ofcom would not expect to see singers and dancers wearing clothing that does not adequately cover their bodies (in particular their breasts, genital area and buttocks). As above, broadcasters should consider the length of shots used and the overriding theme of the music video

Not entirely sure if Ofcom's use of "breasts" is because they don't realise men have them too, or if it's just trying to spare us yet another R&B singerbloke taking his shirt off.

Ofcom adds a warning that lyrics which might be double entendres when heard lose at least 50% of their entendre when slapped on screen with a simple-minded 'show what they say' video:

For example, the lyric “You want some more baby? I love the way you do it cos you do it so crazy” does not contain an explicit sexual reference,
is ambiguous in its meaning, and is unlikely to be understood by children as specifically referring to sex. However, when combined with clear, sexualised images (for example, women in sexual positions) the strength of the material is raised in terms of its potential to cause offence and concern to parents.

There are also some reminders about dancing. You'd have thought that the rules about sex would have been the same whether someone was jiggying in tune to the music or not, but Ofcom thinks there's a category of dancing that is lewd of itself. Perhaps it saw Dirty Dancing, but left during the interval.

And, to wrap up, there's a reiteration that showing violence isn't all that cool.

It's all fairly sensible stuff, but has a massive "of course, they can go and see it on YouTube any time" hanging over it. It's not Ofcom's place to ask why we should just assume R&B videos will be fairly degrading to women, but perhaps they should prompt us all to ask the question.

You remember how angry the sexualisation of culture makes the Daily Mail?

Better not show the Mail this, then, it'll blow a fuse:

Last month pop star Rihanna shocked when she pulled a female fan on stage and gave her an aggressive lap dance.

And it seems that Britney Spears has taken inspiration from the 23-year-old Bajan singer as she gave one lucky male fan the dance of his life at the Los Angeles show of her Femme Fatale tour, last night.

In a black and nude lace basque and fishnet stockings, the 29-year-old wrapped her legs around the man and teased him with a feather boa.

Yes, of course, it's the Daily Mail at it again with the double standards.

A fortnight ago, the Mail was fuming about Rihanna on the television:

Some shows – most infamously last year's lascivious Rihanna act during the X Factor final on ITV – sparked a huge number of complaints by parents concerned that exposure to such inappropriate material is having a harmful effect on their children, forcing them to grow up far too soon.

That is why the Mail so warmly welcomes the upcoming publication of the Review of the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood by Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Mothers' Union, and congratulates David Cameron for commissioning it.

As well as making it harder for children to access internet pornography, and tightening the rules on the sale of explicit teenage magazines, the report will demand that broadcasters stop sailing 'close to the edge of compliance' with the watershed and start behaving in a responsible, family-oriented manner.

And yet here we are, on the internet, looking at the Mail publishing photos of Britney Spears lapdancing with a fan. And describing them, too. Oh, and for good measure, printing photos of, erm, Rihanna lapdancing too.

Must we fling this filth, etc, etc?

BPI decides to extend its moral guardianship to the internet

As if not managing to find a way to make money online wasn't occupying enough of the BPI's time, it's just announced a scheme which will fail to stop children seeing porny pop videos and hearing bad words in songs.

The risible "parental guidance" sticker - itself based on a weak idea by Tipper Gore - is moving online. New Media Age:

From today (Thursday), online content will have to display the parental advisory logo, for the first time since the scheme was introduced over 15 years ago.

According to the BPI, some digital music stores have already been showing the label against content but most audio and video streaming services, including Spotify and Napster, had not yet implemented a consistent parental guidance system.

Napster hasn't implemented a parental guidance system? That must be worrying news, should anyone under the age of thirty ever find out what Napster is.

The BPI hasn't stopped to think how its system - which, presumably, will only apply to music-related content put online by its members in the UK - could be considered a "consistent parental guidance system". Unless there are people whose sole online activity consists, consistently, of watching music videos made by EMI UK, Sony UK and the other two.

Still, it's good to know that the parents who have hitherto not noticed, say, Rihanna's video being full of S&M-lite imagery, will clearly be checking the little symbol at the start of the video now. "Goodness, now there's a warning at the front, I've suddenly spotted that this video being flung at my popkids is full of filth."

Rock music kills child, claims Daily Mail

The death of Isobel Jones-Reilly is a terrible thing, a terribly sad story.

But no story is so heartbreaking that it's not going to get the Mail moralising and blaming everything in the modern world:

Ecstasy death girl, 15, 'idolised drug-taking musicians and was hooked on the internet'

Right from the first three crappy depersonalising words of the headline on Arthur Martin and Tamara Cohen's shabby piece sets the tone for a careless, thoughtless long honk as the Mail drags the body of a dead teenager up and down the streets.

Let's start with that claim she was "hooked on the internet". You might think that if Isobel really was hooked on the internet, she'd be getting lambasted in a different part of the Mail for sitting in her bedroom looking at a screen. Her very real death was in the very real world, surely?

But how does the Mail know about this being addicted to the web, except for when she had switched the computer off and gone out with friends?

But one of her teachers blamed her downward spiral on an addiction to the internet.

Really?

Jaye Williamson, who was Isobel’s English teacher at Chiswick Community College, in West London, said: ‘She was into the kind of things that teenagers get into, but she got hooked on the worldwide web. She was part of the Myspace generation. She got caught and we are devastated.’

"Part of the MySpace generation" pretty much tells you to what extent Williamson is an expert witness on these matters. To be fair to Williamson, her quote sounds like something somebody who is still upset and confused by the death of a young person they knew might mumble out if being badgered for a quote from a shitty journalist.

Certainly, the Mail offers no other evidence for this "addiction" to the internet, and doesn't seem to consider for a moment that 'doing stuff on the internet' is what people do now. It reports memorial events organised online and scrapes Facebook photos and YouTube videos from tribute sites without seeming to realise that this is the sort of "being sucked in" to the internet that is meant to be the bogeyman in the story.

So what of Martin and Cohen's second bold claim, that Isobel "idolised drug-taking musicians"?

Did she edit a fanzine called something like 'Works and Plectrums'? No.
Had she shot a YouTube video in which she cheered while waving round pictures of Pete Doherty? No.
Have Martin and Cohen got details of a tattoo she had reading "Bands who take drugs are cool"? No.

Their claim seems to be based on one single quote:

‘Like many teenagers she idolised musicians who took drugs and it was hard to tell them the pitfalls of copying such behaviour.

‘These bands seem to have it all and the kids just want to copy them. It’s just desperately sad that it’s ended in the death of such a beautiful and lovely girl.'

And who gave this line to the Mail?

Diane Bardon, 50, whose son David was at school with Isobel

So the parent of another child at her school farts out a suggestion that maybe she was "idolising" drug-taking musicians "like many teenagers" - a vague and empty claim that, you'll note, can't even stand itself up by suggesting a name or two of whose these musicians might actually be - and suddenly it's up in the headlines.

There's a dead child, a mourning family, and all the Mail is interested in doing is kicking the corpse to see if it can somehow blame the internet and rock music. What a triumph for journalism.

Sandra Parsons worries about the filth we're flinging at our kids

The Daily Mail - a website which basically drives traffic by printing pictures of women in bikinis - also runs content from the newspaper of the same name, which means you sometimes get to read Sandra Parsons worrying about 'pornification' alongside links to see Amanda Holden naked save for diamonds, Chantelle Houghton naked except for lettuce leaves, and this:

"Honest, guv, I thought she looked loads older than 15" being the sort of line that the Mail is meant to be objecting to, rather than using as a strapline, surely?

Anyway, in the midst of all this pornified content, there's Sandra Parsons, worrying about Rihanna.

On the cover of the latest issue of American Vogue is a sultry shot of the pop singer Rihanna, posing in a skin-tight, transparent chiffon and lace dress.

Phwooaarr. Just in case you can't imagine this, the Mail helpfully runs a photo of the cover.

But only so you can see how terrible it all is, you understand.

There's also S&M. Parsons doesn't like that, either. Youngsters sing it:

In the ordinary course of life, young teenagers would have no need whatsoever to know about sadomasochism. But thanks to the increasingly revolting music industry, they are now all too familiar with almost every permutation of the sex act.

Yes, young people never knew about sadomasochism at all. Not without pop music. Why, before The Beatles you never learned about bondage until retirement.

Parsons worries that what kids listen to now will have an effect in the future:

What children see, hear and do before adulthood can have far-reaching consequences.

She doesn't say what these "far-reaching consequences" are, or offer anything to back up this claim; nor does she really suggest what should be done about it, beyond a vague suggestion that 'something must be done'.

Rihanna is estimated to be worth £70 million already. She, Jessie J, Skepta and their ilk rely on people like me feeling outrage. They want to be seen as treading on forbidden ground because there’s nothing like it for boosting sales.

Hmm. So you think that music only gets sexualised because the kneejerk reactions to it drive sales, and so you think the best thing to do is, erm, write a kneejerk reaction to it?

There is much sexist and dispiriting in the music industry, that's undeniable. But it seems odd to complain about a circus when you've driven into the ring in a falling-apart car. If Parsons really wants to stop normalising porny images for kids, perhaps she should ask her employer why a "family" newspaper runs so many acres of bikini-and-bum shots on its website?

Drug music

It had to happen. After sixty years of rock and roll being the gateway drug to get kids into drugs, now it's stopped being an introducer and turned into drugs all by itself.

According to credulous sources, anyway:

Schools and drug experts are warning parents to beware of "digital drugs" that Mustang High School students blamed for their apparent intoxication.

Three students were sent to the principal's office when they appeared to be high on drugs or alcohol in March, said Mustang School District Superintendent Bonnie Lightfoot. She said the kids explained that they had tried something called "i-dosers."

Young people plug into i-dosers through putting on headphones and downloading music and tones that create a supposed drug-like euphoria.

It's terrible. Not only are people listening to drugs through their ears, but dealers are cutting the sound-drug with cheaper ingredients like Robbie Williams' last album - a mix which could lead to brains turning inside out and literally boiling from the neck down.

Just because music isn't actually that sort of drug doesn't mean we shouldn't be panicing:

"I think it's very dangerous," said Karina Forrest-Perkins, chief operating officer of Gateway to Prevention and Recovery in Shawnee. While there are no known neurological effects from digital drugs, they encourage kids to pursue mood altering substances, she said.

"This music isn't making my brain doodle unicorns. This sucks, I'm gonna go and get some crack instead. Where do I download that?" asked a student.

Some parents have called the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control worried about i-dosing, said OBN spokesman Mark Woodward. He said the i-dosing effect is likely sort of a placebo rather than a valid threat to children's brain waves.

"The bigger concern is if you have a kid wanting to explore this, you probably have a kid that may end up smoking marijuana or looking for bigger things," Woodward said.

"It's just like if you listen to the sound of the sea in a shell" explained Woodward, wishing he'd never given up smoking, "because then the next thing you know, you'll be jumping off a boat in the middle of the ocean."

[ Mustang School District Superintendent Bonnie] Lightfoot said like Mustang High School parents, she's shocked over the digital drugs.

"What worries me is the ease in which some people can sell things to kids by saying that it's supposed to be mood altering," she said. "It's a real moneymaker out there."

Yes - imagine that. A product that's advertised by claiming it will make you feel better. Thank god proper products like Coca-Cola or Kelloggs cereals would never do anything like that.

See you next Tuesday, US radio tells Britney

Britney Spears' one-woman tribute to Ronnie Barker, If You Seek Amy, is causing American radio stations to spontaneously explode as they try to decide if they can play it or not, what with it sounding a little rude. But the phrase isn't rude, but you could imagine it to be filthy, and once you think it sounds like F-U-C-K me, then you can't not see it like that any more. It's like the hidden arrow in the Fed Ex logo, once someone points it out to you, you're always aware it's there. But what can you do? The phrase isn't filthy. But it is.

Naturally, the US media is known for nothing if not its craven collapse in the face of getting into trouble, and so they're yanking Britney off:

"It's OK to put in on an album, have fun with it, but we're publicly owned, you know?" said Patti Marshall, program director at Cincinnati's Q102, a pop station in a decidedly conservative Midwestern market. "We have a responsibility to the public ... you put this ... out and act like we're all fuddy-duddies, like we're trying to make moral judgments. It's not about us. It's about the mom in the minivan with her 8-year-old."

Ah yes, an eight year old who is familiar enough with both stevedore's language, spelling and wordplay to suddenly ask "but Mummy, what does 'fuck me' mean?". That could be embarrassing. If only Britney had stuck to songs about being hit and womanizers and so on, none of this would ever have happened. No mother driving an eight year old in a minivan is ever going to feel uncomfortable being asked 'when that lady says she'll be your slave, does she mean she's going to give you a pyramid?'

Britney could care less if a few radio stations run shy of playing her new single. After all, what's a slot at 8am on a Cincinnati FM station compared with acres of press coverage you get for releasing a song that sounds a bit like Fuck Me?

Duff: too hot for... who, exactly?

Remember Hilary Duff's music career? No, that's what the record label was afraid your response would be. How amazingly convenient then that unspecified 'officials' decided that the video for Reach Out was "too raunchy" and had to be recut.

How terrible, that a yawn-so-provocative video with barely-restraining bondage light, some people in underwear, and a finger-licking scene should need to be toned down just as the track is being released to push next week's Greatest Hits album. How simply terrible to have all this fuss.

We'll save you the effort - and shame of having the Google search recorded. This is the 'official' version:



Unfortunately, all the effort seems to have gone on the pants purchasing and not on producing a decent song.

[Thanks to Michael M for the tip]