Chicagoist: Lollapalooza Post No. 504: The Hierarchy of the Wristband

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:21:07 -0600

I like the use of "we." I do not like inaccurate information in the posts, though.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:25:31 -0600

#9 here: You're welcome, Sarah. Happy to be of assistance. re #10: Ever read the NYT or watch any TV news? Do you really believe that something was reported "to the Times" or that "NBC News learned" something rather than to an individual in their employ (i.e., a single reporter)? Ever read the Economist? Which has no bylines on any of their reporting (i.e., implying that everything is written by the publication)? The -ists' us of "we" is soooo not anything to complain about. Unless you're really dense and actually don't get it. In which case, I feel sorry for you.

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:26:50 -0600

"I really am glad there are commenters to point out every tiny mistake, though." Lots of tiny mistakes make for bad reporting and even worse writing. If the writers/editors don't find them, the readers/commenters surely will.

Sarah

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:34:21 -0600

#10: It isn't inconsistent to change tone, especially when referring to a personal experience, rather than reporting a story. Print publications do it all of the time, reporting in third-person when writing news and writing in first-person singular on the editorial pages. Our royal "we" format is our standard way of reporting, as it is across our sister -ist sites, but it is at times appropriate to break away from it, such as in this post. I don't think any of the -ist sites plan on changing this policy anytime soon, so if you're not used to it by now and plan on continuing to read this site, you're probably going to be annoyed indefinitely. #9: Thank you. I've been sitting here with sudsy hair for the past 4 hours, unsure of what to do next.

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:28:38 -0600

so every other "We" post is truly a group of people writing and experiencing things? why not be honest and consistent?

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:58:50 -0600

"I wouldn't be able to figure out whether to shampoo or condition first if it wasn't for you guys." Sarah, just to clarify (as I find it a bit confusing), it's lather, rinse, repeat--with [i]shampoo[/i]--if needed, [b]then[/b] conditioner.

Willie P

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:48:57 -0600

Interesting that the "guests" wristbands were in the minority. I saw more of those than any other wristbands on Sat and Sun. I did feel for those with the photo wristbands as they kept getting cut out of the photo pit after 50 were let in resulting in photogs having to cram through the throngs of fans to get a shot of Karen O in that crazy-ass cape. Good coverage on the fest this year! I enjoyed following along and reading before I left for the day.

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:06:12 -0600

you're completely rite, the wrist band policy was confusing as hell this year. there were so many types that security didn't even know what they were for and they seemed to change every hour. As someone who represents the copyrights of at least a dozen of the artists at the fest, half of the time I couldn't even gain access to my clients with the wristband I had (which was usually "guest"). not only that but how does it make sense to allow someone into the "artist village" which is arguably the most high profile area and yet not any of the Lolla lounges (the place where all of the douche bags who work at companies who bought them special spots to see thier first rock show are sequestered)? The entire thing was poorly organized and highly frusterating. My boss the VP of a very pestegiouse music industry enterprise wasn't even allowed the same level of access that I was, purley because of some weird wristband snafoo. Pretty whack to say the least. I still don't get it.

Sarah

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:55:46 -0600

Um, it was more of a sun-induced, fatigued mistake, rather than a parade. Either way, it's been corrected in the post. I really am glad there are commenters to point out every tiny mistake, though. I wouldn't be able to figure out whether to shampoo or condition first if it wasn't for you guys.

guest

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:58:01 -0600

"We" is first-person plural. Sorry to rain on your "signature third-person" parade.

guest

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:40:30 -0600

Without one of those fancy yellow wristbands, you're not getting in, no matter if you're ?uestlove or Iggy Pop or Matt or Kim. I would love to see what happens when the security guy at the Lolla Lounge turns away Iggy Pop. You really think he wouldn't be let in there?

Tankboy

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 14:08:14 -0600

Um, Pearl Jam never broke up.

guest

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:28:20 -0600

There was SO much energy in the crowd for Daft Punk! It's TRUE!

guest

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:03:27 -0600

When all is said and done, this is probably going to be the only worthwhile Lollapalooza post on Chicagoist, no matter how vehemently Tankboy insists that "Lollapalooza is international newz, guys!" It's not. A lot of media are there, because if they write a blurb about Pearl Jam reuniting or the over-commercialization of indie rock or whatever, they get to go to a party for free. This is (probably) the only thing I've read so far that I'm not going to see somewhere else. Good job.