Gerard in Rock Sound

[ofyourdeath.livejournal.com]

MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE
Interview: Andrew Kelham

Have you thought about how My Chemical Romance will reintroduce themselves to music fans in 2010? Do you ever wonder if your band is still needed in music?
Says Gerard Way (vocals):
"It's funny because the musical landscape is ever changing, but I think there's always a place for us and I think we're absolutely needed, especially now. I don't say that with any arrogance, I just really believe in my band and I believe that our band does what it does better than anybody else. There's no one that can do this like us. I feel a gap when we are gone and I hope people do too, if they don't then we're not doing our job properly. I think we're absolutely needed, but I'm glad we're coming back in 2010 because, as much as people need us, I think they needed a break from us too. I hope we got the balance of that right."

What have you tried to achieve with your forthcoming fourth album? How is it different from you past work?
"With this record we tried to ignore all the cosmetic nonsense and focus on becoming a truly great rock band. We felt that the world needed a really straight and pure rock band, you're hard pressed to find a lot of those these days. It was less about the theatricality and more about how we become the greatest young American rock band musically."

How are you adapting to fatherhood?
"It's great, it's amazing. Obviously we just wanted a healthy baby, but I was excited to have a girl as there are things I can see myself helping a girl with that I could never do with a guy, things like picking out clothes and stealing eyeliner, all that sort of stuff!"

Mod note: As happy and excited as we are that people are starting to discuss and converse in the comments, we'd like to remind everyone to play nicely.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, but the man is not perfect so it's not like it's shocking that he would still have these feelings and that they would come out on occasion. I love the dude, but srsly.

[p0mba.livejournal.com]

Well yeah, but I didn't say that he was perfect, because no one is. I was just saying that it was probably not meant as it came out in the interview. I mean, just look at the guy. He's a perfect example of someone that does not follow through the gender roles.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes bb, but my point is is that sometimes we have these thoughts and feelings DESPITE how much we may fight against something. They are engrained in us because of how we grow up and it takes a lot of work and effort to shake them off. All we have is the text as it is given to us and you can interpret it as you wish but I don't think it's out of the question to view the statement as is.

[spuzz.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree with this. As with anything you can read into the text anything you want to. I suppose it's just how you come at it and how you view the subject in question. It's an interesting debate, to be sure.

[fleurdeliser.livejournal.com]

No, it's definitely not out of the question to view it as is. I mean, I read about and talk about fighting gender roles A LOT with various people. And still, I defaulted to DELIGHT about what he said and didn't even think about the other implications until other people pointed it out.

[p0mba.livejournal.com]

Of course we have, because that's how we are raised, but what he said was that HE, as a man, could steal his daughter's eyeliner, help her pick out her clothes, or whatever, and a man stealing his daughter's eyeliner isn't a usual thing to do, or, a not "manly" thing to do, if you chose to look it that way. :]

[(Anonymous)]

The problem is segregating it into "manly" and "womanly" or in this case "girly" at all. This is my problem I can see myself helping a girl with that I could never do with a guy. Breaking that down into gender roles is something that PLAYS INTO societal gender roles, period.

[p0mba.livejournal.com]

Yes, but he can see HIMself helping a girl with that I could never do with a guy. Of course, I see your point, and the sentence and be read and understood in two ways, but if you chose to see it that way, why can't you see the other way as well? And sure, I could never do with a guy, is a stupid thing to say, I agree with that, but still.

[(Anonymous)]

Because I'm not sure what the other way is. That Gerard went on at length about it and the editor cut it down? The interpretation you are offering is still breaking it down by gender which is exactly what I'm talking about and exactly what I have an issue with.

[p0mba.livejournal.com]

I don't thing you understand what I try to say, and that's probably my own fault as I suck to explain what I mean. Sorry.