Live on Letterman June 27 (& win tickets!)

jdc wrote:

It's also unfuckingbelievably cold in Letterman's studio - notoriously. Benny, who of course would be the most active, was wearing no sleeves...so while I'm sure some of it is a conscious choice (let's see how they look when they play Fallon or any other appearances that may skew younger, it may have also just been a temperature/comfort factor.

But Shelby and I were having the conversation beforehand about how sometimes non-tattoo people (of which I am one) may judge tattoo people, but it's usually not the other way around (although some of you probably think I'm a narc, haha).

I agree with this. It's probably more because of the temperature in the studio than an attempt to cover up tattoos. Even with the jackets, Brian and Alex R's tattoos are plenty visible. Also, I just double checked some of my past TV recordings and Alex L wore short sleeves the last time they played Letterman in 2010.

If they covered up their tattoos to appease a wider audience on Letterman, then it's all over. 'Cos that my fellow Saints would be the epitome of "sell out".

White Man In Hammersmith wrote:

If they covered up their tattoes to appease a wider audience on Letterman, then it's all over. 'Cos that my fellow Saints would be the epitome of "sell out".

Sell-out is a dirty word that too many people throw about without a thought. So what if they did that. It's their choice, their decision and what they feel they need to do. Is it what they want to do? Maybe not, but who cares, does it make the music any different?

Nope.

they do what they want with their tattoos! you can't honestly judge a person from that.

Haha I'm well aware of the term being thrown about without a thought. If you cover up the tattoos that you chose to ink into your own skin in order to appease the mainstream conscience then I'd call that selling out your own mindset. I'm not talking about "selling out" in a typical sense.

BTW I don't believe for a second that they wore long sleeves for this reason hahaha in fact I think it's incredibly dumb that people think they did.

White Man In Hammersmith wrote:

Haha I'm well aware of the term being thrown about without a thought. If you cover up the tattoos that you chose to ink into your own skin in order to appease the mainstream conscience then I'd call that selling out your own mindset. I'm not talking about "selling out" in a typical sense.

you're basically asking them to show their tattoos to appeal your own mindset so yeah.. not a big difference
but like you said, I don't think they let people tell them what to do with their skin so it might have been just a coincidence or just their choice

I don't think it's dumb to consider that they'd do something like downplay their tattoos to appeal to more people but I don't think they did do that. None of them were wearing anything out of the ordinary. The only thing I wondered about was that benny wore a tshirt that essentially covered the ink on his arms during the actual show & during the webcast he went sleeveless. But I didn't think much of it.

As for selling out (for the record I hate that phrase) if they want to try and appeal to a wider audience and choose to downplay their tattoos at tv performances or something there's nothing wrong with that. If they felt the need to cover all of them all the time though that'd be dumb but not "selling out". Its just a marketing strategy. (And that's if they're doing it at all).

I just think it would be hypocritical and kinda scary that the record company are making them hide who they really are, that's all. They reference tattoos in their songs, so imagine Brian singing "I got your name tattoed inside of my arm" while he's hiding it haha

I think "selling out" was a dumbed down way of pointing out my argument. I'll change it to "compromising their own identity to sell more records to people who look down their noses at tattoos".

BTW I think your all missing my point. I'm not saying "sell outs" in a punker than thou way I love Gaslight and just find it concerning that they would maybe change their image for marketing, which as I stated last night I don't think they actually would and was pretty shocked with the number of people on here who thought that was okay.

Their image is pretty well known at THIS point, if all it takes to get to the next point is to wear a longer shirt, or cover something up, I don't think that is too big of a deal. That Letterman show at this point is a big thing for them, and they would be mad to burn any bridges over something so simple. IF all of this is true, then honestly, I've seen and heard of bands do much worse to get ahead, it's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and every advantage has to be taken. If one show hides their image (which was still heavily on show) then who cares, it will be out there for all to see the next time they see them.

Besides, and this isn't a dig at you mate, people that label other people/bands sell-outs, are those people going to pay the bills for the ones they label, just so they can remain 'cool'? I doubt it. It's a lazy word and almost full of no meaning when held up to the light.

Yeah I agree it's a lazy term and I regret using it tbh I see your point and I can understand the potential benefit of appealing to a wider audience. What troubles me however, is where do they draw the line? How far will they go to sell more records and will it transform them into something we no longer relate to or recognise? Just a slight alarm bell rang when I read this thread that's all mate

No, its cool, discussion is cool and all that

How far will they go? Who knows? But I think the Justin Bieber collaboration is still off the cards. I wouldn't get too worried about this, I'm sure that if this sort of thing is true, that it's a situation many bands have been in, and didn't bat an eyelid when doing it, and have probably done much worse. These type are shows are a big thing for bands, as it is fantastic free publicity and could lead to many things for them. Make a fan out of someone like Letterman or any of that crowd, and you're sorted.

Saying all of this, it is worthwhile making note of the people saying how cold it is in the studio, so again, it could be nothing more than that, covering up and getting a bit of heat. But I do think that even if this is what has happened, then it has brought an interesting discussion

It certainly has

I honestly don't think they intentionally covered their tattoos, maybe if Brian was wearing a polo neck there'd be reason to believe otherwise haha

I honestly think it was just a case of a mountain made out of a molehill to be fair, the temperature in the room thing was the main clue here, and it's what I'm going with.

The tats would never entirely be covered up, so if it was an image thing by studios, then it's a mute point. They wouldn't have had them on at all. Sure, Slipknot and such bands have appeared on Letterman, so I don't think the clean image thing is relevant here.

Ha I can't believe so much debate has come out of this one!

Here's the link to the Letterman show from a couple of years back...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwpSGQavKSY

So there you can see that if indeed they are asked to do that it's not a NEW thing and they have played countless shows in between on TV etc without doing so.

I wasn't saying it was a BAD thing that they were covering their arms but I was just wondering if that was something that went with going on shows like Letterman.

I don't think there's a wider sell-out/Justin Bieber collaboration worry. So everyone can chill out.

Here's my writeup of an amazing show/experience. Shout-out to JDC—nice to meet you, man. See you at U Street!

http://popculturenotes.blogspot.com/2012/06/all-way-to-ed-sullivan-theater-gaslight.html

Quote :

I think "selling out" was a dumbed down way of pointing out my argument. I'll change it to "compromising their own identity to sell more records to people who look down their noses at tattoos".

I understand what you mean and I share most of your opinion. If they covered the tattoos intentionally that "comprimising of identity" would even not fit to the new album, where they wanted to become more personal...

I think if they start covering up their tattoos with stage makeup, then we can all, in unison, call them sell outs.

Or just weirdos.

Klown wrote:

this!

Kinda sad that the performance of 45 on Letterman was worse than the one in the full show. Brian's voice came through pretty weak on TV.

J_Schooly wrote:

Here's my writeup of an amazing show/experience. Shout-out to JDC—nice to meet you, man. See you at U Street!

http://popculturenotes.blogspot.com/2012/06/all-way-to-ed-sullivan-theater-gaslight.html

There you are! I've been to your blog a bunch of times - had no idea that you were that dude. We will have to meet up at U St (perhaps we can share line duties).

Whiskey1 wrote:

Ha I can't believe so much debate has come out of this one!

Here's the link to the Letterman show from a couple of years back...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwpSGQavKSY

So there you can see that if indeed they are asked to do that it's not a NEW thing and they have played countless shows in between on TV etc without doing so.

I wasn't saying it was a BAD thing that they were covering their arms but I was just wondering if that was something that went with going on shows like Letterman.

I don't think there's a wider sell-out/Justin Bieber collaboration worry. So everyone can chill out.

And for the Bring It On performance in 2010, Alex L. and Benny went short sleeves, and Brian and Alex R. went long sleeves. On Conan in 2009, Benny and Brian wore short sleeves, and the Alex's both wore long sleeves. On Jimmy Fallon in 2010, Benny wore short sleeves, Brian wore long sleeves rolled up his forearms, as did Alex R., and Alex L. wore long sleeves.

It's whatever the guys are comfortable with, and hell, for the NY shows, it may just be what clean laundry they have that they think looks cool on TV, haha. (Have they ever played an LA-based late night show, now that I think of it?)

jdc wrote:

(Have they ever played an LA-based late night show, now that I think of it?)

They played've played both Leno and Kimmel. Leno was in July of 2010 and Kimmel was in March of 2011.

I hope if the guys come on here and actually read stuff that they laugh at discussions like this and aren't weirded out that we spend this much time debating what they're wearing.

This is what happens when we have to wait this long for the new album!