my three quarters life crisis (for there is f*** all chance i have as many years ahead as i do behind, look you see) has had some pretty interesting moments. quite a few mundane and banal ones, too, truth be told, but still. it has seen me make life choices that i normally would not have and led to all sorts of wonderful experiences.
that said there are some (or certain) places i have not been. one of the most prominent of those would, as i am sure is true for most, is giving absolutely zero countenance to even considering thinking about going to see a Men Without Hats concert. usually i would suggest there would be more chance of me knowingly and willingly listening to Sammy Hagar, or that ex-Mr Kim Kardassian (or whatever) fool than there would be of me paying money to see Men Without Hats in person. yet a fairly lucrative payday in the courts suggests it is now within the realms of reason. let me explain.......
as far as i have been able to determine, or otherwise ascertain, there are only two (2) valid reasons for someone of their own free will attending a Men Without Hats concert. the first of these would be just the plain, sheer curiosity of seeing exactly what it is the band and the audience do in those moments which are not the song The Safety Dance. sure, a hardcore fan base element in the crowd might get all excited about Pop Goes The World (or whatever it was called), but even then that's a lot of set list for the band to produce and an audience to endure. as to the second, well, out there one is bound to find people who really, really like the idea or staring at men sans hats. which is where the possibilities of a legal case come in.
observe, if you will, the concert poster above. generally i would trust the intelligence of readers here and so it is (quite) likely you know where this is going. but, for the sake of clarity, i draw your attention to the images of the band members at the top. second from left is clearly a lady, or female. no i am not listening to gender fluidity on this one, but even if i did do such, look at the right, as in the drummer. that, dear reader, is clearly and unmistakably a man with a hat on, in a band called Men Without Hats.
even the singer, whatever his name is, gets in on this betrayal of the name. you can see him (very) clearly above, doing his thing, whatever that is, whilst wearing a hat. if you ever wondered why, exactly, Men Without Hats were not all that big, there you go. Frankie did go(es) to Hollywood. Duran most decidedly did Duran. Without question Depeche absolutely went Mode. how difficult is it not to wear a hat when your name is Men Without Hats?
it would not be that often i can say this, but how fortunate i am to be friends with Spiros, the greatest legal mind of his generation. i asked him about if i went to a Men Without Hats concert and one of them wore a hat would i be able to sue. unfortunately right now he (Spiros) has embarked on a massively convoluted and ultimately pointless quest to convince people that he was the original singer with Musical Youth before they changed direction. however, he did say that a lawsuit would probably get dismissed, as the name of the band is not Only Men Without Hats. so long as at least two men (either via birth or fluid whim) were on stage with no hats they had met their legal obligations. right, so no need to go to one of their concerts.
let us assume this is probably (hopefully) the last time Men Without Hats features on this blog. with that in mind, time to tell the wonderful myth, or urban legend, of their name. the story goes that they were called Men Without Hate (which makes more sense as a name) but a typing error somewhere at the record label meant they were told they were now Men Without Hats. as far as i am aware this has been proven incorrect, which is a (great) pity as that would make them more interesting.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment