Before this week, I hadn’t realized that Dave Grohl had reached some kind of “iconic American treasure” status. In my opinion, he was always just… Dave Grohl, from Nirvana and the Foo Fighters, the guy who has spent the bulk of the past two decades making dad rock. As it turns out, he achieved a kind of rock-god status among certain demographics because not only is he a rock star, he’s always come across as a well-adjusted, well-liked, down-to-earth guy who loves his wife and three kids. All of which to say, people have strong feelings about Dave’s announcement that he fathered a child outside of his 21-year marriage to Jordyn Blum. The reaction is not “oh, a rocker fooled around on his wife, news at seven.” People are really worked up about it! It also appears that the situation is much more complicated than Grohl’s public statement let on:

Dave Grohl retained a divorce attorney before announcing he recently welcomed a child outside his marriage of 21 years, a source tells PEOPLE. A rep for Grohl did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.

Grohl, 55, has been married to his wife Jordyn Blum, 48, since 2003, and they share three daughters: Violet, 18, Harper, 15, and Ophelia, 10.

The Foo Fighters frontman revealed that he’d welcomed a daughter with another woman, whom he hasn’t identified, in a Tuesday, Sept. 10 Instagram post.

“I’ve recently become the father of a new baby daughter, born outside of my marriage,” Grohl wrote in a statement. “I plan to be a loving and supportive parent to her. I love my wife and my children, and I am doing everything I can to regain their trust and earn their forgiveness. We’re grateful for your consideration toward all the children involved, as we move forward together.”

[From People]

The Mail also points out that in a recent sighting – before Dave’s announcement – Jordyn wasn’t wearing her wedding ring, although she was out with her husband. What I keep coming back to is that Dave probably wouldn’t have made the announcement when and how he did unless he was worried that something was about to come out. And that something was probably not “divorce rumors.” Like, was the side chick threatening to go public? Did he just get the results of a paternity test? Something else is happening around this baby announcement. And yeah, I believe that “something else” is a big reason why Dave and Jordyn are giving off major divorce vibes. This story is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Also: yesterday, there was an IG post circulating, with an alleged 20-year-old claiming that she gave birth to Grohl’s baby. Grohl’s team denied the IG story and they say that the identity of his baby-mama is still a secret. I would imagine Grohl’s lawyers are heavily involved with that too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Were you expecting Taylor Swift to turn up at last night’s MTV VMAs? I was not. But she was one of the last ones to walk the VMA red carpet, and she dashed inside to win one of the first awards of the evening. In total, Taylor picked up seven VMAs, including awards for Song of the Summer (nope), Video of the Year, Artist of the Year, Best Collab and Best Pop. VOTY, SOTS and Collab were all given to “Fortnight” featuring Post Malone, her first single from The Tortured Poets Department. Like… even if you want to give it VOTY, there is absolutely no way that “Fortnight” was the Song of the Summer. None.

Taylor wore this Westwood-coded Dior look, a black-and-yellow tartan with a mullet skirt and bustier. People Mag thought her look was “Reputation-coded,” because I guess Swifties are still waiting for Reputation (Taylor’s Version). Y’all have been talking about the snake album for the better part of two years. I hope y’all get it after all this time. Seeing Taylor try to pull off a harder-edge look is always amusing to me though – like, she still looks like a Disney princess, even with the boots and punk-lite ensemble.

Tay also made this VMA appearance not even 24 hours after she endorsed the Harris-Walz ticket. Taylor had been dominating headlines in the political world throughout the day Wednesday, and much of it was good news for her. In her Instagram post endorsement, Taylor included a link to vote.gov. The US GSA announced yesterday that Taylor’s post drove over 337,000 visitors to the site.

Last thing: While Travis Kelce did not attend the VMAs, Taylor did give a shout-out to, in her words, “my boyfriend.”

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

In recent months, it does feel like the culture has moved past the need for Katy Perry. No disrespect to her years of pop dominance, but something has fundamentally shifted and what she’s selling currently, no one is buying. And yet, she keeps trying to sell it to us! Katy was invited to last night’s VMAs and she was honored with the Video Vanguard Award. Meaning, she performed a medley of her hit songs, then snuck in a couple of her songs (which everyone hates). If you love sh-t written and produced by Dr. Luke, this was the medley for you.

Before her performance, Katy walked the carpet with her partner Orlando Bloom. She did the “wetlook/shipwrecked” style which Kim Kardashian keeps trying to bring back. Katy’s carpet look was a fresh-from-NYFW piece from Who Decides War’s Spring 2025 collection. It looks like wannabe Alexander McQueen, right? And dousing herself in baby oil was probably bad for the fabric.

Here’s her performance and her Video Vanguard speech:

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Here are more photos from last night’s MTV VMAs. The VMAs got a really good turnout, all things considered. They got Taylor Swift to show up, and they got Megan Thee Stallion to host. Personally, I think Megan is too famous to host the VMAs, but she had fun with it and she changed her look throughout the show (she even did a Britney Spears throwback). For the carpet, Megan wore this striking black gown which I don’t have ID for. Meg’s bob was bobbin’ too. Not only did she host & do all of those costume changes, she also performed a medley of some recent hits:

Sabrina Carpenter also performed a medley of her songs too. Sabrina turned up on the red carpet wearing a vintage Bob Mackie – if this looks familiar, it’s because Madonna wore the same dress to the 1991 Oscars.

GloRilla performed too – the performances actually sounded good with the sound quality because… most of these people were lip syncing. I’m obsessed with “TGIF” though and I love that Glo is having such a huge, breakout year.

Speaking of breakout years, I guess everyone is obsessed with Chappell Roan these days. There are some “industry plant” rumors floating around and I have no idea if there’s anything to that, but there is a certain vibe to her which I can’t quite put my finger on. “Good Luck Babe” is definitely her best song, and her performance was pretty cool. She styled everything like she was Joan d’Arc?

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Seven years ago, while appearing on Watch What Happens Live, three-time Tony award winner (and national treasure) Patti LuPone called Madonna “a movie killer” who “cannot act her way out of a paper bag.” Good times. The backstory between the ladies was that Patti originated the role of Eva Perón on Broadway in Evita, while Madonna was cast in the part for the movie adaptation. So why are we rehashing seven-year-old news? Because our candid Ms. LuPone was just on Hot Ones Versus with former roomie and Agatha All Along costar Aubrey Plaza (the show premieres September 18 on Disney+). The two squared off in a battle of truth-or-eat-the-hot-wing, and one of the challenges Aubrey laid down was for Patti to apologize to Madonna on camera… or eat a “death wing.” I swear, Patti dove in for that death wing before Aubrey even finished her sentence.

Patti LuPone is taking the Madonna lyric “please don’t say you’re sorry” to heart.

The Broadway icon joined Aubrey Plaza on a recent episode of Hot Ones Versus, where she refused to apologize for incendiary comments she once leveled at the pop star. Plaza directed LuPone to “look into the camera and apologize to the pop icon” for calling her a “movie killer” who “can’t act her way out of a paper bag” on Watch What Happens Live, or else eat a “death wing” — the show’s spiciest offering.

Want to guess what the legendary diva chose to do? Eat the wing down to the bone in a matter of seconds, stare straight into the camera, and then throw the wing at it.

“I’ve seen her on stage and I saw her in a movie and I went, ‘Um, okay,’” the actress and singer told Plaza. “There’s just some things some people can’t do, and you just gotta admit you can’t do it, that’s all. Or don’t even try it! Everybody can’t do everything.”

That seemed to be the end of LuPone’s feelings on the matter, but actually, she had one more right hook waiting. “Like Kim f—ing Kardashian. Can we go there? Or shall I eat another wing?” This isn’t the first time LuPone has critiqued Kardashian’s acting abilities.

Madonna and LuPone both have their fair share of beefs (Sandra Bernhard recently spoke about how “sad” she is that Madonna abruptly ended their friendship 30 years ago; LuPone also recently spoke about her regrets over her own 30-year feud with Andrew Lloyd Webber). But in this case, the beef in question appears to be entirely one-sided, in LuPone’s direction.

The American Horror Story star first fired shots at Madonna when prompted by a viewer question on a 2017 episode of WWHL. She said she hadn’t spoken to the singer after she took on the role of Perón in the 1996 film adaptation. “The only thing that Madonna has ever said to me was ‘I’m taller than you,’” she recalled.

When host Andy Cohen pressed on to ask what LuPone thought of Madonna’s Evita, she held nothing back. “I was on the treadmill when MTV used to have videos, and I saw, I believe it was ‘Buenos Aires’, and I thought it was a piece of sh–,” she said. “Madonna is a movie killer. She’s dead behind the eyes. She cannot act her way out of a paper bag. She should not be in films or on stage. She’s a wonderful, you know, performer for what she does,” LuPone conceded, “but she is not an actress.”

[From Yahoo! Entertainment]

If you have to ask who won the hot wing battle, then you don’t know Patti LuPone. Granted, Aubrey Plaza entered the fray already compromised with “an open wound” in her mouth. But still, Patti barely seemed phased by the heat. Her matte bright red lipstick didn’t even smudge! Hilariously, the only thing that seemed to get to Patti was Aubrey turning to use a spit bucket for what she couldn’t handle. That she could not stand! So yeah, nobody f–ks with Patti LuPone. Not rude theater-goers, and not deathly hot wings. The one bone I’ll throw to Madonna is that she did not manage to kill A League of Their Own; that movie is too good to be tanked by supporting role stunt-casting. But that film notwithstanding, I look forward to the inevitable drag queen impression of Patti LuPone saying, “There’s just some things some people can’t do, and you just gotta admit you can’t do it, that’s all,” with extra points for having Madonna’s and Kim K’s images emblazoned on the costume.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos credit Getty and via YouTube

Embed from Getty Images
Another week, another lawsuit against Donald Trump for using music without permission as part of his campaign. This summer has seen Defendant Don rankle artists from across many music genres: pop (Celine Dion), soul (Isaac Hayes), disco (ABBA), and alt rock (Foo Fighters), and joining them now is alt/garage/indie rock duo The White Stripes. The Trump campaign released a video in August cued up to the distinctive riff of “Seven Nation Army,” and when Jack White caught wind of it he let it be known that the message comin’ from his eyes says, leave it alone. And if he catches it comin’ back his way he’s gonna serve it to Don. And that ain’t what Trump wants to hear, but that’s what Jack’s done. He’s goin’ to Wichita— no, no, that’s it for the lyrics! But yeah, Jack and Meg White are suing Trump’s broke ass for copyright infringement:

The White Stripes are suing former president Donald Trump for featuring their acclaimed track “Seven Nation Army” in a video on social media, which they allege was used without their permission last month in a breach of federal copyright law.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in New York, Jack and Meg White accused the Republican presidential nominee of trying to burnish his public image and generate financial support for his campaign “on the backs of the Plaintiffs,” constituting a “flagrant misappropriation” of their work.

The lawsuit is the latest copyright case to plague Trump’s presidential campaign, raising questions about how to adjudicate allegations of copyright infringement in the digital era. Copyright lawyers say the cases could set an important precedent on the use of popular music in political campaigns.

The Whites, who are seeking unspecified damages, said that the fact that they “vehemently oppose the policies and actions taken by Defendant Trump” only made the alleged violation all the more offensive to them.

A spokesman for Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment early Tuesday.

According to the lawsuit, which names Trump, his campaign and Deputy Director of Communications Margo Martin, the defendants published a video of Trump boarding an aircraft for campaign stops in Michigan and Wisconsin with the riff of “Seven Nation Army” playing for the duration of the video. “Defendants impermissibly synchronized the riff from [“Seven Nation Army”] with that footage,” the lawsuit alleged.

Jack White shared the X post by Martin on his Instagram account on Aug. 31, promising the lawsuit and saying, “Don’t even think about using my music.” The post was not visible on Martin’s account, nor Trump’s, as of Tuesday.

The White Stripes’ case underlines the complexity of music copyright law, says U.S. intellectual property lawyer Jason Rosenblum. “If you want to use music in a video, you need a synchronization license,” he said in an email Tuesday. Such a license is acquired through a different process than how rights are negotiated for public performances of music. Synchronization licenses typically require direct negotiation with whoever holds the rights to the recorded song, he added, usually the publisher or musician.

“If Trump’s campaign or whoever posted the video didn’t get those rights, the White Stripes should have a strong case against them,” Rosenblum said, although he cautioned that these cases aren’t always clear cut and that he wasn’t familiar with the details of this specific claim.

[From The Washington Post]

You see, there’s always a bright side to litigation: Trump’s endless stream of lawsuits will finally set much-needed clarifications and precedents for US music copyright infringement law, specifically as it pertains to the digital landscape! Huzzah! I realize that Trump isn’t single handedly selecting the playlist for his rallies and propaganda, but I do find it funny that he’s doing legal battle over these songs, when I don’t really get the impression that Trump is much of a music man himself? I mean, anyone who’s heard his meandering, plotless, rhetorically-painful “speeches” knows the man has no musical ear whatsoever. So why doesn’t he just pull from the Kid Rock, Amber Rose and Jason Aldean catalogs and call it a day? And those suggestions are just off the top of my head; I’m sure if Trump thought about how to license music without getting sued, he could come up with his own concepts of a plan.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jack White (@officialjackwhite)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The White Stripes (@thewhitestripes)

Embed from Getty Images

Joe Jonas & Sophie Turner finalized their divorce. We don’t know the terms, everything is pretty much under seal. I would imagine it’s basically a formalization of their temporary agreement, especially when it comes to custody. [Just Jared]
Mocking Donald Trump’s “I have concepts of a plan.” [Buzzfeed]
Lily Collins’ bob is lethal! [RCFA]
Sean Combs was ordered to pay $100 million to one of his victims. [Socialite Life]
Review of Angelina Jolie’s Without Blood. [LaineyGossip]
Review of Heretic, aka Hugh Grant’s villain era. [Pajiba]
Naeem Khan’s new collection is lovely. [Go Fug Yourself]
Charli XCX is doing a remix with Troye Sivan. [OMG Blog]
Guess the legs! [Seriously OMG]
Jim-Bob Duggar’s son-in-law mocked JB’s religious beliefs. [Starcasm]
David Muir & Linsey Davis did a great job. [Hollywood Life]

We’re at the point of the Princess of Wales-video newscycle where royalists are doing analysis of what the new video means and what’s really going on. On Monday, Kensington Palace released the statement and video from Kate and William, and it seemed like an uncomfortable new era for them, where they feel the need to provide proof of life for their marriage, only they can’t really pull it off. It also seemed like the imagery of their performatively “happy marriage” stepped on the “message,” which is that Kate is (by her own description) “cancer free” and that she completed her chemotherapy treatment. Well, anyway, this analysis in the Evening Standard is making the rounds this week. The headline: “I’m delighted the Princess of Wales is getting better, but that dreadful video was like a shampoo advert.” Sub-head: “It’s very good news that Kate is recovering but did we really need this emotional exhibitionism?”

Of course, it’s marvellous news that the Princess of Wales has come to an end of chemotherapy treatment and is well on the way to recovery. Which of us did not feel for her in her last, sombre announcement that she had cancer? It is also the best of news that she will be returning to public duties; she was missed. The prayers of the nation have been answered.

But forgive me…was it necessary to share this news with the nation in an utterly grisly video? If she were advertising Herbal Essences (Tropical Showers) shampoo, it would have been just the thing. The shots of her walking in slow motion through a sunlit meadow, her long hair moving in the breeze, her slender figure shown to advantage in her simple cotton frock, why, it made one feel emotionally manipulated, squeezed like a lemon for the last drop of sympathy. So, she’s feeling well? One is glad; one doesn’t need the point rubbed home with a gruesome image of her releasing a little yellow butterfly from her hand.

As for the shots of her and William lying on the grass, shoulder to shoulder, or her head lying his shoulder, it was in the first place a ghastly piece of emotional exhibitionism and in the second, a hostage to fortune. The time may come when their marriage may come under strain — these things happen to the happiest couples — and they won’t wish to have these images reproduced.

All one can say, really, is that the late queen would have died early rather than subject herself to this extraordinary display of trite sentiment (“Out of darkness, can come light, so let that light shine bright”). Or at any rate, she would have expressed her feelings of gratitude soberly in the light of her Christian faith. Kate’s is the stuff of every contemporary self-help book to do with living in the moment and being grateful for the small stuff.

Is emotional reticence now over in the Royal family? One fears so, though it still, thank God, has a place with the redoubtable Princess Anne. But it comes at a cost. By turning the Royals into exhibits of emotional wellness, it diminishes their value as parts of a national institution in which dignity is the main thing. Kate has lost that.

[From The Evening Stardard]

This is an important point: “she would have expressed her feelings of gratitude soberly in the light of her Christian faith.” QEII had significant health issues in her final years, and she found solace in her faith and she carried herself with dignity. Of course QEII would never subject herself to a glossy, try-hard commercial to prove the state of her marriage. The larger point is that the video felt ill-conceived and tonally wrong for the message. While it always amuses me to watch British people’s consistent revulsion towards any emotion expressed publicly, I think people have been turned off by this video more because it seems so trite and almost cynically conceived.

Photos courtesy of Kensington Palace/Will Warr.

As many have noted, it’s interesting to watch the reactions to and analysis of Prince William and Kate’s bizarre “cancer free” video, which was released on Monday. While royalists have done the most to praise Kate and her statement, it does feel like the video was A Keen Too Far. Even dyed-in-the-wool monarchists are openly admitting that if Meghan and Harry had made a video like that, the Sussexes would have been thoroughly mocked. I keep going back to the tonal, messaging and communications issues surrounding William and Kate this year – they are being advised poorly, or they are not listening to advice. The manipulated photos and videos, the refusal to acknowledge or thank Kate’s doctors or medical support, and months and months of lies. The video felt like the straw that broke the camel’s back of “WTF is going on here?” Anyway, you know it’s bad when Daily Mail commentators are calling sh-t out. From Liz Jones’ latest Mail column:

Kate’s message versus the video: “A few simple words we have all waited anxiously to hear. Phew. I was in tears. But then, suddenly and inexplicably, what began as a heartfelt message, a tonic, a relief after all the months of obfuscation, descended into a Boden advert. Or something Marc Jacobs might use to sell scent. There were trees. And ferns, so many ferns. Dappled sunlight. The sort of frolicking by children amongst farm machinery and ploughed fields that seemed to locate it not in 2024, but circa the Second World War, not least because of the old-fashioned cine camera special effects. Perhaps that was the message. Kate has been though hell, through a battle. And she is winning.”

Reminiscent of that long-buried 1969 documentary on the Windsors: And yet the ‘highly choreographed’ (those were the words used by the usually sycophantic ITV News at Ten), slick and soft-focus three-minute video released … was surely as misjudged as the 1969 documentary that attempted to portray the royal family as ‘normal’, backfiring so badly the Queen made sure it was never seen again. If that documentary following a year in the life of the monarch was accused of ruining the royal mystique by making them seem like any other ‘modern’ family, this new video was attempting to do the opposite. To portray the Waleses as hyper real, perfect, retro. Like something out of an Enid Blyton novel. But why on earth? A real portrayal would show the kids on their phones, surely. Catherine would look tired and pensive, not perfect with conker-coloured hair.

A literal walk in the park: She says it has been ‘incredibly tough’ but the trouble is, it all looks like a photogenic walk in the park. Only William seems almost real. Reclined on various blankets, or on the sand, he is awkward, as if placed there, limbs carefully arranged like a marionette. Catherine, towards the end of her voiceover (also strange, making the video seem like a wildlife documentary), speaks of walking side by side, hand in hand with other cancer sufferers, but in this short film she has never seemed more detached. It doesn’t help that her words are backed by a soundtrack of slow, ’emotional’ piano.

The cringe: Cancer is messy, imperfect, shattering. After all the mental health initiatives, her work stressing the importance of shaping young minds, this strange, odd film seems a misfire from a family once so protective of their privacy. It smacks of something Meghan and Harry might come up with: Hallmark, cringy, cliched. Not real or from the heart at all.

The keen chimera: Wouldn’t it have meant more if Catherine had discussed the type of cancer she is suffering from, possibly saving hundreds if not thousands of lives? Perhaps a video of her meeting other women with the same diagnosis? Where was the Catherine from that bench in Windsor, baring her soul, telling us of her diagnosis? Replaced by a chimera. An ideal. An illusion. Who at Kensington Palace thought this was the right approach? There were lots of sober comment pieces in the papers yesterday, saying Kate has taken control, driven the narrative. But it all seems off, and the public is seeing through it. After a strange video looking ecstatic leaving a farm shop, and radiant appearances at the Trooping of the Colour and Wimbledon, we suddenly have this outpouring of intimacy that, to me, to many of us, seems a bit… desperate.

The monarchy is hanging by a thread: To my mind, the portrait of our next King was off, too. How can we take William seriously, having seen his bare legs, wrapped around his wife? The monarchy is hanging by a thread, please don’t stretch our credulity. This was a film too easily dismissed as manipulative by those who don’t like the royals. I am, of course, a staunch supporter, but even I don’t want yet another Instagram account, spooning fantasy into our open mouths, as if we are baby birds, not adults with our own mounting problems.

[From The Daily Mail]

Yikes! Liz Jones makes some criticisms which even I, a certified hater, would hesitate to write. “Hallmark, cringy, cliched” and “seems a bit… desperate” and “To portray the Waleses as hyper real, perfect, retro.” I would love the behind-the-scenes story on who came up with the concept of the video and what was said in those palace brain trust meetings. There’s an aspect to the video which I do feel like is pure Kate. As in, this is what SHE wanted, this is the image she wants to project, as a throwback, retro, Edwardian royal who was briefly struck down with the vapors and now spends her days galloping in a field. So what was the coordination on Kate’s vision?

Photos courtesy of Will Warr/KP.

Here are more unfortunate photos of Prince William yesterday in Wales. He had a full day (lol) of events, visiting a school and doing some sports-related activities and more. As I looked through the photos, I became sort of sad. Like, does Huevo have anyone around him willing to speak truth to him? Does he have anyone in his life capable of saying “the beard is tragic and you look like you’re obsessively copying your brother?” I’m always struck by William’s lack of skincare too. There’s absolutely no reason for a 42-year-old man to look this vitamin-deficient and just… depleted and ashy. Perhaps he’s too busy on Duolingo to moisturize:

Prince William has revealed that he is learning Welsh on Duolingo during his visit to Llanelli today. The royal, 42 visited the town today and met children who took part in a major Welsh language youth festival.

Urdd Eisteddfod is a cultural festival that sees many children and young people from the ages of eight to 25 compete in the sectors of music, arts and literature. Among them was ten-year-old Ruby Davies, who won the competition for her age group and her sweet reaction went viral and melted hearts all over the nation.

William said he had the language learning app, Duolingo, downloaded and that he was trying to learn Welsh ‘phonetically’.

[From The Daily Mail]

William’s approach to inheriting the “Prince of Wales” title is that he’s here for a good time, not a long time. He had four decades to pick up some conversational Welsh or at least study the language privately. He’s spent two years as PoW making excuses for why he never bothered to learn Welsh and why he won’t “rush things” on learning the language. Now he’s claiming that he’s doing Duolingo? Please.

There was also this story, about how William “advocates for female athletes” in Wales. Yes, the man was the patron and president of the Football Association for years and he couldn’t be bothered to attend the World Cup when England made the final… because it was the women’s team. GMAFB on “advocates for female athletes.”

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.