Today on Blogcritics
Home » Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In their first press conference since it was announced they would be reforming, late 1980s boy band and purveyors of all that is soulless and wrong in music New Kids On The Block discussed a wide range of topics Monday. These included their upcoming reunion tour, their place in music history, and the political, social, and cultural impacts of 19th century Utopian Socialist movements in modern Europe. Wait, scratch that last one.

Speaking to reporters from the EconoLodge just outside of Missoula, Montana, the five Kids – Jordan, Jonathan, Joey, Donnie, and, uh, Bashful – wanted to assure their long-time fans that it will be the same Teen Beat NKOTB they loved with lustful, pre-pubescent zeal back in the day.

Said Jordan: “Some have suggested our new sound will be influenced by the current popular music trends. Our fans will be pleased to know that it’s still 1989 to us: Bush is president, the Middle East is a boiling cauldron of chaos and violence, and the economy’s about to go in the shitter. Our new songs will have the same mediocre, innocuous, and ultra-Caucasian qualities that previously endeared us to so many.” 

Many of the reporters’ questions centered around whether there is a market for the band in the 21st century. The band is convinced the world is ready for another rash of NKOTB-induced mania. According to Bashful, who remained strangely silent after answering just a few questions, “There hasn’t been a truly successful, vacuous, and empty-brained pop band in about 20 minutes. This is America baby. There’s always a market for us.” Bashful added, “I need to get out of this freakin hickburg. Bum a quarter for bus fare? Anyone?”

The band also used the press conference as a way to address its many detractors. Asked to respond to criticisms that the band is simply reuniting for the big concert paychecks, Jonathan said, “Sure the money that poured in years ago from posters, lunch boxes, action figures, strawberry-scented prophylactics, and toilet paper dispensers was nice. But it’s not about the green: we’re back to show everyone that we’re still the best five-piece, non-musical-instrument-playing band in the world.” 

The band is also keenly aware that many people view the reunion as pointless. Joey was blunt in his assessment: “Mission of Burma, The Stooges, Pixies, and Dinosaur Jr. all reunited and nobody busted their balls. To my ears we’re just as good as them. What’s the difference between Doolittle and Hangin' Tough? Nothing.”

The Kids are also comfortable with their place in music history. “We’ve blessed the world with offspring like 98 Degrees and the Backstreet Boys. And don’t even act like Nirvana didn’t borrow their subject matter from our back catalog. A subtle layer of angst and loathing ran through all our songs long before Cobain and those two other humps cashed in. Bastards should be paying us royalties,” Donnie stated.  

This defiant attitude characterized the hour-long press conference; only when the motel’s manager reminded the Kids that “check-out time is at 11 am, and the room service wasn’t free” did the band lose their stride. Exiting to tepid applause and a selection from their 1989 Merry, Merry Christmas album, the band ended the press conference with a final impressive show of bravado. “It’s an NKOTB universe. All you slobs just live in it.”

Powered by

About EDW

  • Zobiana

    I find it interesting that personal attacks aren’t allowed in the comments. I won’t attack the writer, but if only the same standards were upheld in the blogs. I suppose it’s acceptable when referring to celebrities, right? (Yes, that was sarcasm) Thank you for a little more publicity to boost the reunion.

  • Glen Boyd

    I think what the writer is attempting to do here Zob is humor. Smart-assed, snarky humor to be sure, but humor nonetheless. Whether Whelchel suceeds at this or not is of course a matter of conjecture. But the fact is that he got you to respond didn’t he?

    And ya’ gotta admit, NKOTB getting back together all these years later makes for an irresistable target.


  • Stormy

    LOL I’m a New Kids fan and have to admit this is post is very funny.

    “It’s an NKOTB universe. All you slobs just live in it.”

  • Glen

    Yeah, well, Glen… Regardless of the writer’s attempt, it’s still more publicity, isn’t it? Thanks for your input.

  • christy

    No personal attacks! That is so sad! Another blogger saddened by the fact that they are JUST A BLOGGER.(with no lunchbox)

  • Jen

    Okay, that was kinda funny. You went for the easy joke, just like 99% of the critics out there– but hey, at least you were creative about it! The guys have a sense of humor about themselves, so I’m sure they’d laugh too.

    Anyway, thanks for the publicity and you got one thing spot on: “It’s an NKOTB universe. All you slobs just live in it.”

    Hell yeah. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
    And no, I’m not being sarcastic.

  • Chris Beaumont

    Then I am very very sorry….

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    Music has really gotten subjective now, hasn’t it?!
    I guess if these freaks like this shite then who am I to judge…

    I can’t wait for the Milli Vanilli reunion…*Oops*

  • Dr Dreadful

    The main problem I have with these boy bands like NKOTB, N’Sync and the like is that the production values on their recordings are so abysmal. They sound like they were put together in one of the band members’ garages using a Bontempi 4-octave keyboard one of them got for their eighth birthday.

    I look forward to boy bands breaking up, not out of Schadenfreude but because the individual band members who pursue solo careers often manage to actually produce some good music (Robbie Williams, Justin Timberlake etc).

  • Ava

    Can you write a blog explaining why it is that NKOTB are often the target of music snobs who prematurely judge their music prior to listening to it? I often find that people will like a song until they find out that NKOTB sang it. Why does that happen? Why the prejudices?

  • Diana

    While it’s obvious this is a satire I have to admit some of it was funny. The guys are too humble and polite to say any of this but I definitely love the line “It’s a NKOTB universe. All of you slobs just live in it.” I hope you don’t mind if we steal that from you Eric :) forgot to mention that the New Kids do well in recessions!!

  • Jordan Richardson

    “Music has really gotten subjective now, hasn’t it?!”

    Has it ever not been? More importantly, should it ever be objective?

  • Joanne Huspek

    Damn, man… really, really funny! I loved this piece.

  • Electrodle

    I cant even believe the way you just misquoted these guys. I smell a lawsuit…

  • Eric Whelchel

    I must say I’m actually quite surprised this mediocre piece of mine has received such a response. Who knew NKOTB had such a loyal army out there.

    This article is merely meant to be satirical, and not to be taken seriously. It’s merely there for a laugh or two, or maybe none if it’s not your brand of vodka.

    Like any satire, it might not even reflect what I really think (the folks over at the Onion probably don’t believe every article they come up with). For all anyone knows, I might be a raging NKOTB fan who’s totally stoked by this reunion. Of course I’m not, but that’s beside the point.

  • Glen Boyd

    Surprised? Then obviously you haven’t been paying attention to all the comments section action every time someone here writes ANYTHING about a boy band. (See: Jonas Brothers, Pretty Ricky, etc.)

    Nah. I think you knew EXACTLY what you were doing.


  • Stella *

    The reality is the “Kids” are back and im ok with satrical humour im soooooooo excited! For a moment in time to relive the younger years…this time i actually have $$$ for merchandise, concert tickets etc!!

    Any publicity is good publicity…actually saving the PR department on their budget!!(consider today vs ’89)
    Even the negative attacks/blogs, seems to have served its purpose because it succeeded in attracting people here in the first place!

    Jordan K…how about we do the wild thing???

  • Linda

    In response to you Eric, while your article was mildly *emphasis on midly* amusing,and yes even I , a Jordan Knight/NKOTB fan for 23 almost 24 years, got a chuckle out of it,I should like to caution you for future NKOTB coverage, that My Fellow Blockheads and I do not take Kindly to the Fab Five from Boston being made fun of. It wasn’t funny when we were 12, and totally obsessed with them, and it isn’t funny now, when we are, for the most part, either in our 30’s ,or on the edge of 30, and while still devoted to the band that produced the soundtrack to our youth, not exactly obsessed. If you want to be inundated with hateful,irritated and sometimes down right mean comments on your blog from angry NKOTB fans, then by all means, go ahead laugh,make fun, it’s ok,really, because when NKOTB comes back stronger then ever, we’ll be the ones laughing.

    ps’it’s a new kids world and all of us BLOCKHEADS are PROUD to Live in it!’

    thanks for the line, hope you don’t mind if we change it for positivity purposes. remember we’re all stuck in 1989, and negativity sucks!

  • Jordan Richardson

    Negativity sure does suck, Linda, but having a sense of humour sure doesn’t.

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    Has it ever not been? More importantly, should it ever be objective?

    Now would be a brilliant time…Cuz, this shite isn’t music!

  • Mark Saleski

    Cuz, this shite isn’t music!


    prove it.


    I just finished listening to Nasri’s songs on his myspace and he is amazing. He is actually the reason the NKOTB is getting back together. Go check him out and have a listen you will love his music.

    My favorite song is “NOT THE SAME”

    He also wrote the new song “summertime” for the NKOTB.


  • Nessa

    Loyal New Kids Army member here. I found the blog funny. I mean, I didn’t take it seriously.
    At the end of the day, positivity always wins!

  • Jen

    Wow. Some people really did take this seriously. Loyal New Kids Army, indeed. Oh well, at least they didn’t go nuts on you like they did on MTV’s newsroom! LOL.

  • Tom Johnson

    I think it’s hilarious that people think it’s actually prejudice that causes people to dislike stuff like New Kids On The Block – you all do realize we can hear this stuff, right?

  • Linda

    To jordan Richardson:

    I have a sense of humor, as i said, The article made me chuckle. What i don’t find funny is that this article is a blantant attempt to disrespect a band that is loved by many. Would you find this article funny/amusing if it were about YOUR favorite band? some how i think not. what constantly amazes me,and has for over 20 years now, is how the writers/journalist fell they can disrespect NKOTB and their music but then they do not expect or are surprised that the fans of NKOTB are there to defend them. newsflash: The NKOTB fans will always defend NKOTB if we feel they are being unfairly judged because of an image writers have stuck in their mind of 5 teenagers from Boston. We aren’t asking you to like NKOTB, we are just asking for them to be treated with the same respect other musicians are given.

  • Jordan Richardson

    “Would you find this article funny/amusing if it were about YOUR favorite band? some how i think not.”

    Yes, I would. And believe me, my favourite band (U2) gets it a lot!

    “We aren’t asking you to like NKOTB, we are just asking for them to be treated with the same respect other musicians are given.”

    Welcome to the world, though. I don’t think respect is blindly afforded to any musician or performer of any kind. I defend music of all shapes, sizes, and sounds on a regular basis. I pretty much think that all music follows a formula and don’t criticize things blindly. But I do think it’s odd that people take such a personal stance as relates to musicians and performers they consider to be their “favourites.” It’s as though there is a sense of entitlement and immunity there, which really isn’t true. The fact of the matter is that all subjects and topics are ripe for humour and, this article being a satire, the beloved NKOTB are no exception. There was nothing overly mean or cruel in this article, either. It was good fun.

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    prove it.

    Neither you or I can prove or disprove that NKOTB is music just as we can’t prove or disprove that we both see the same color when we talk about the color red. With that in mind, I don’t hear music when NKOTB is played and you cannot prove different.

    (you wanted to be difficult..Bring it on)

  • Linda

    again, while this article was INTENDED to be in good fun, there were some parts that were offensive to those of us who have followed NKOTB for many years. Since you are unable to see those statements as offensive i will point them out:

    from the EconoLodge just outside of Missoula, Montana

    This statement implies, indirectly that NKOTB is broke, which is the same statement that offended us when MTV used it in an article.

    Our fans will be pleased to know that it’s still 1989 to us

    No it is not still 1989 to them or us, nor do we expect it to be. The Music market has changed, and so have NKOTB. They are grown up, in their 30’s and have families. the Music is different from what we have heard in the past from them. it has a more mature sound. To imply that they are
    still recording music that would be relevent in 1989 is offensive because it is obvious the writer has not even heard the new stuff.(by the way a sample is available on

    The band is also keenly aware that many people view the reunion as pointless

    This statement is prehaps the most offensive of all. Because the band reuniting is NKOTB, the writer has said that the reunion is pointless.
    Obviously, based on the comments left here, there is a point to this reunion. Fans from all over the world eagerly await new music from a band that provided us with many hours,days, weeks, months even years of entertainment. The point of this so called “pointless” reunion is to thank the fans for being loyal over the years, and if they happen to acheive success from it, then that is even better. The NKOTB is doing this reunion for one reason only- the fans!

    as to the rest of your post,I don’t think that bands are affored respect blindly, however, I again say that NKOTB ( and their fans) should be treated with the same courtesty as other bands ,such as poison, metallica, even U2. if those bands were to break up and come back in say 14 years, as fan, You ( or fans of the other 2 bands) would expect your “favorite” to be given a chance to prove that they were still relevent and had something to offer to the current music scene. I doubt NKOTB will be given this chance because they are label ” boyband”. Since you are a U2 fan, I know you have the capability to appreciate good music. so i ask you ,Jordan,and others out there to look at NKOTB and judge them not by the label they are branded with, but by the music they are providing today, not the music they released 20 years ago

  • Jordan Richardson

    What do you hear when NKOTB is played? Music is sonic art form, so you aren’t hearing sonic tones when “Hangin’ Tough” hits your ears? Are you seeing it instead?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Linda, I’d ask you to afford your favourite band the same respect. They’re big boys, they can protect themselves and, believe it or not, they very likely have a sense of humour. I highly suspect that your incessant defence of all things NKOTB isn’t necessary from where they sit and their “comeback” will suffice just fine, with or without the rantings and satire of bloggers around the world.

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    Cars crashing,dogs barking,violent explosions,etc. are sonic & could be considered art but I do not recognize them as music. So,those sonic tones entitled “Hanging Tough” are NOT registering as orderly & pleasant,thus,I can only perceive it as noise NOT music.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Art is not precluded by being “orderly and pleasant.” That’s your own distinction and is not innate to the definition of music as a whole. One could argue, quite successfully using most accepted definitions of music, that car crashes and the like arranged sonically with rhythm and tone would qualify as music.

    Hence, noise bands exist. Drone metal like Sunno)), ambient music in general, experimental noise groups like Fuck Buttons, Luigi Russolo’s “The Art of Noises” composition, Boyd Rice, Merzbow, Lou Reed’s Metal Machine Music, and so on are all examples of music that is structured around noise in general. Most of the music listened is not “pleasant” nor is it “orderly” but it sure as hell falls under the definition of music and actually contains far less sonic properties and organization than NKOTB, of course.

    One could also argue that the sheer existence of musical notes that correspond with NKOTB songs serve as defining evidence of “music.”

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    Your arguments are sound in theory yet there will never be any pure defining evidence proving that your perception of noise/music is my perception,thus,by all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be.

    *SideNote: I use the term recognize in the sense of how my senses dictates the information to my brain

  • Jordan Richardson

    We’re not talking about perceptions, we’re talking about strict definitions. Your flaw is in defining it your way and altering the pure definition of the term by adding variables. It’s not a subjective distinction we’re talking about here. We’re not discussing Now That’s What I Call Music Vol. 4 in which a subjective term with personal taste connotations is substituted for “music.” We’re discussing music, period. When you say “it’s not music,” you mean that it’s not “good” music. It’s not a universal truth, it’s simply not what you call music. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a universal definition.

    Transfer the argument to food for a moment. Food is basically defined as “any substance that can be eaten or drunk by an animal for nutrition or pleasure.” In that respect, all manner of horrible items, animals, creepy-crawlies, and other things could be considered food. People could be considered food in cannibalistic cultures, so the definition for food is pretty broad. Yet, there is a universal distinction of what the idea of food is.

    In Japan they eat salamanders with wilted lettuce. That’s not what I call food, but it is food nevertheless. I don’t get to claim some sort of universal distinction based on my perception. I merely get to say “ew.” Same goes for music and the argument is even more sound (forgive the pun) when there are “musical notes,” “time signatures,” and other elements representative of music intact within the NKOTB catalog. Those piece of evidence exist whether you like it or not.

  • Mark Saleski

    really great ideas jordan.

    we’ve had this argument around here before though usually what we’ve talked about is the musicality of ‘noisy’ things…Reed’s Metal Machine Music is a good example though the more extreme examples – like brian’s dog barking/explosions – challenge/stretch whatever definition gets used.

    the popular ‘normal’ definition of what music is usually refers to organized sound, or ‘pleasing’ organized sound. other people bring in things like melody, harmony. they all have their merits but ultimately don’t work for me: ‘organized’ and ‘pleasing’ are SO broad, and requiring things like melody and harmony are way narrow, not to mention western.

    i kind of like the Zappa approach, which is basically that something is music if you perceive it as music.

    so i almost end up agreeing with brian if my definition is used, though usually you don’t get to “un-music” something. lets face it, the boy bands are considered to be music in general….though i personally don’t like any of it.

    (p.s. wasn’t trying to be difficult brian. just wanted to stir up some discussion)

  • Jordan Richardson

    The only problem with identifying music as “pleasing sound” is that “pleasing” can be such a subjective term. For my dad, Slipknot isn’t “music.” But by all objective standards using universal definitions, it surely is. The only issue I’d find with applying your own perception to a universal concept is the question of where it all ends. How many other things do I get to personally label that would normally have universal definitions?

    Like the food example, is salamander “food” because I perceive it to be or is it food because it meets the generally accepted universal criterion. I’d go with the latter.

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    We’re not talking about perceptions, we’re talking about strict definitions.

    Yes,Jordan, we are still talking about perceptions… Definitions are parameters set by human beings to clarify a meaning using vocabulary. Still, those are only perceptions of what processes & variables were used which is ultimately limited by our knowledge & understanding of that subject. I doubt that we fully understand everything…

    You will never know 100% why your father doesn’t accept Slipknot as music because you cannot experience Slipknot through your father’s ears.
    You will never fully understand why someone likes Salamanders with wilted lettuce because you cannot utilize their taste buds & brain.

    Ultimately, your ideas do not disprove my idea that music does not have a branded universal concept. In fact, your argument supports my theory that music can be so broad & undefined because it has different meanings to different cultures which ultimately ends with someone’s perception…

  • Jordan Richardson

    Ah, the joy of relativism. So intangible that it allows any discussion to go directly off the rails and into oblivion.

    Brian, since we have no definition for music and since we clearly cannot agree to any universal distinction about it, this conversation is ultimately futile (that is if you take futility to mean the same thing that I do).

    “You will never know 100% why your father doesn’t accept Slipknot as music because you cannot experience Slipknot through your father’s ears.”

    Are you suggest that my father is deaf and cannot hear notes, tone, and pitch? This would be the only way in which he could consider this to be a universal concept. As a point of general fact, he is aware that Slipknot IS music and is aware that he does not enjoy their brand of music. Of course, that’s him. You might call it a banana, if the word fits your purposes.

    “You will never fully understand why someone likes Salamanders with wilted lettuce because you cannot utilize their taste buds & brain.”

    Your error here is in suggesting that it takes an understanding of “liking” something to make this clearer. It does not. We’re not talking about subjectivity or whether something is liked or pleasing or desirable. We’re talking about a simple definition, period. I can say “I don’t get why those people like salamanders” and be pretty safe in my assertion. However, having seen “those people” eating salamanders and consuming them for nutritional purposes or for pleasure, I cannot say “well, that’s NOT food they’re eating” any more than I can hear something with notes, pitch, tone, and composition and suggest that it isn’t music simply because it’s not agreeable to my ears.

    Your argument falters when you introduce subjectivity because you are arguing a lack of universal distinction. There is no music, essentially, and we could honestly push it that far.

    “In fact, your argument supports my theory that music can be so broad & undefined because it has different meanings to different cultures which ultimately ends with someone’s perception…”

    Was that a slip-up? You discuss “music” as being “broad and undefined,” yet you use the term “music” to characterize it. How can this be? While I obviously agree with the notion that music has different meanings to different cultures, I obviously don’t agree with the notion that is lacks a universal definition. We see tribal instrumentations, for example, as music because they own the properties of music. By having inherent musical value, which has already been pretty broadly defined, you can discover what music is.

    If I have your point correctly, you’re suggesting that there is no inherent musical value and that it’s all relative, whether the sound/noise in question has musical notes, structures, chords, instruments, etc. And your supportive evidence for this is perception, which pretty much enables you to call a spade a duck if you wish.

    Fair enough, but we’re back to futility. Or as you would have it, a banana.

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    Jordan, Thank you for spending the time to have this discussion.

    I think we may see eye to eye… My point is that what you hear & call music can never be 100% defined because the information that your senses perceive will always have to be translated until the day that we can smell music. You can carry on all day about all the similarities NKOTB may have to a preconceived set of standards that music may have but unfortunately you’ll truly never know what someone hears or understands to be music. Which,in my opinion, shows there could never be a universal concept because there is no end to what sounds/noises that can be produced. There is only a perceived limit to what Humans can invent to make these sounds/noises.

    Your argument falters when you introduce subjectivity because you are arguing a lack of universal distinction.

    Not true, because it is all subjective to how people perceive those sounds/noises that make it impossible to have a universal distinction.
    And,I have only used the term music in this argument because I haven’t gone off the rails into oblivion. But, I could be a d!ckhead about it & you would still not be able to disprove it 100% and that,sir, would be going off the rails like a Crazy Train!

  • Jordan Richardson

    I think it’s safe to say that the definition for what music is can be considered fairly flexible, but I’d still argue that there is such a definition. I think most people would agree that music does have some properties that can be objectively defined. If music didn’t have any such properties, you would be up a creek linguistically.

    A deaf person can’t hear music, but he or she certainly can arrive at a conceptual understanding of what music is. One can look at musical notes on a page and say, “well, those are musical notes.” Surely you’d agree that the visual realm does offer some consolation to universal understanding. Sensory perception is one thing, but there are still some universal concepts that we can discuss without requiring a perception. Music, food, sound, painting, colours, etc. all have properties that help define them. The properties the aforementioned items have are not confined to perception, rather they extend beyond it and into the world of linguistics.

    That is to say that we can define these things using language not perception of language. If we start getting into how we perceive words and what words mean to us, surely you’d agree we’re getting into dangerous territory. Same goes with other things that have an implied universal meaning for practical purposes. Surely NKOTB albums belong in a music store and not a food market?

    The idea of preconception is really at the core of how we, as human beings, define things that we live with everyday. Sure, there isn’t much keeping the numbers we know from being defined in a completely different way and the same goes for any other definable principle with universal appeal. We could call music a banana, linguistically, but it must be a universally understood distinction and the majority of people must be able to understand that. A tribe in Africa may not grasp that Slipknot is musically similar to tribal drums (although it probably is!) but there would be some similar grounds and the properties of music would be identifiable after exploration.

    The really tough discussion isn’t “what is music?” but more or less “what is art?” Could NKOTB be musical but not artistic?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Sorry for the double-post, but one more question to add to this discussion:

    Can a perception or a perceived notion be deceitful or dishonest?

  • Brian aka Guppusmaximus

    If we start getting into how we perceive words and what words mean to us, surely you’d agree we’re getting into dangerous territory.

    I can definitely agree with what you are saying but that’s the territory I’m referring to & am looking to go to. BUT, I would rather talk about it then type about it(too lengthy for me) Ultimately how can we ever prove that what we see & hear exists outside the mind.

    As for NKOTB, I still perceive them as noise than music…

  • Jordan Richardson

    “Ultimately how can we ever prove that what we see & hear exists outside the mind.”

    Ah, Schopenhauer. We certainly cannot, which leaves us grasping at straws as a society. As it is, those straws are all we have and we therefore formulate criteria to subscribe to various universal definitions. Food is defined as such because of its properties, and so on. As such, our definitions don’t function so much as “proofs” but rather as defining linguistic mechanisms. You might perceive something a certain way, but our perceptions can be clouded and can impact our reasoning and our ability to tune in to a broader universal distinction. This isn’t variances in taste, either, but rather variances in how we strictly define things.

    You can tell a blind person what “green” is and, while he or she will never perceive “green,” he or she CAN come up with a way to apply the universal linguistic mechanism to the concept of “green” and can “know” what green is. Same goes for music, there are concepts and there are perceptions. For most, the two are interchangeable. In this case, your perception of music doesn’t match the concept of music and you’re making a taste distinction. It isn’t that you don’t know what music is universally defined as, it is that you refuse to categorize pieces of it that you don’t like as a part of the universal distinction. Surely Iron Maiden is music to your ears, while NKOTB is not. Both are universally understood to be “music” acts, though.

    Whether you perceive things that way or not is irrelevant to the notion that perceptions can be dishonest. There’s a way out of Schopenhauer’s Will and Idea philosophy, btw, but it’s not an easy one and I think we’ve pissed off the New Kids fans enough.

    Fun stuff, though!

  • Dr Dreadful

    I’m reading Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy at the moment and it sorrows me to frankly say that after reading the chapter on Schopenhauer, I know no more about the man’s philosophy than I did before I started.

    If you think Schopenhauer’s bad, though, try Henri Bergson. My goodness.

    Up next: William James. That chapter at least promises to be more enjoyable.

    BTW, this may be the first time in the history of the world that Schopenhauer has been discussed in the same context as New Kids on the Block.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Yeah, Bergson’s mighty tricky (his essay on laughter is….yeah) and that Russell book can be a beast at times, too. Still, I like to think that Jordan Knight has a place in his heart for Nietzsche, personally.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Ah, Nietzsche – the Sylvester Stallone of philosophy…

    Not much of a soccer player, either – him or any of the other great German philosophers.

  • Jordan Richardson

    So funny.

  • Ximena Borroni

    I think it doesn’t matter what people can say ’cause we the real and forever fan will support the NKOTB even if they sing country music . We wanna be in New kids universe for eternity.

  • Georgre

    Who cares about the NKOTB, lets focus the on writer behind it all. Nasri is the real deal.

    GO NASRI!!!

  • Nanette

    Go check out Donnie’s good friend Nasri. He was the reason they got back together. He wrote most of ther new songs. You can even hear his voice on the chorus of “summertime” and he sings the second half of “click click click”