― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 17 June 2004 17:45 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 17 June 2004 17:47 (nineteen years ago) link
Is that why all his teeth fell out?
― mei (mei), Thursday, 17 June 2004 17:50 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 17 June 2004 17:53 (nineteen years ago) link
"There won't be any future without rock" sounds equally ridiculuos as apodictic statement but is probably closer to the truth. People will always connect to the primal feelings expressed in rock. Rock has been there for 50 years or so (not counting the blues past)and has been declared dead hundreds of times. Whereas something newish like laptop music may well cease to exist tomorrow as other recent trends like techno already have more or less. They simply don't have the power and the urgency of rock. Playing identity games is so 1960s. On the long run people get bored with it and want the real thing. Andy Warhol was the future in the 60s but he is dead now.
― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Thursday, 17 June 2004 17:59 (nineteen years ago) link
EITHER
[b]Same Shit Different Arsehole[/b]
this is the pop music business model obviously. you give 'em the same catchy pap fronted by an ever-changing conveyor belt of young faces. witness cover version recyling, the stock in trade of breaking a new pop 'artiste'.
[b]Same Arsehole Different Shit[/b]
this is a more radiohead/U2 type of schtick. you've got to deliver the goods that your core fanbase want, at the same time as only [i]cosmetically[/i] altering what you really do. witness Achtung Baby, Joshua Tree with a few knobs on, sold to joe P as the new ironic post-modern U2 with artwork to match. actually that's unfair to radiohead, they have made actual musical changes over their lifespan.
so back to Peej. i must out myself right now as a HUGE fan, but i feel she's kinda treading water on this one. i can't listen to ITD front to back, but on some of those tracks the phasers are clearly set to 'Mindblowing' (Sky Lit Up, No Girl So Sweet etc). UHH sounds like a retread of old stuff but done in a slightly more palatable fashion. i dunno, i'm not feeling it. i expect a certain amount of [i]risk[/i] out of her - hell, Stories was so unexpectedly caution-to-the-wind melodic and poppy that it knocked me clean off my feet. no, it isn't her 'best' work, but you could still feel the decisions and the price it exacted from her. my bitching is testament to how high she's set the bar on previous outings.
on the plus side, the seagulls send me off into a deep and blissful sleep.
― j clarkson, Thursday, 17 June 2004 18:12 (nineteen years ago) link
― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 17 June 2004 18:22 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 17 June 2004 18:29 (nineteen years ago) link
― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 17 June 2004 18:31 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 17 June 2004 18:33 (nineteen years ago) link
― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 17 June 2004 18:38 (nineteen years ago) link
sorry for being a dreary pedant.
― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 17 June 2004 18:41 (nineteen years ago) link
― mei (mei), Thursday, 17 June 2004 19:03 (nineteen years ago) link
― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Thursday, 17 June 2004 19:43 (nineteen years ago) link
And we all know who this is, don't we Momusmatix?
― mei (mei), Thursday, 17 June 2004 19:50 (nineteen years ago) link
Bobby Gillespie once said, in a rockist justification of his relevance despite being over 40, 'The young can't get it up like us and Iggy can'. So I'd paraphrase that and say 'The living can't get it up like Andy Warhol and Guy Debord can'.
― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 17 June 2004 19:53 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 17 June 2004 20:56 (nineteen years ago) link
― sexyDancer, Friday, 18 June 2004 13:31 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 21 October 2004 02:44 (nineteen years ago) link
― sundar subramanian (sundar), Thursday, 21 October 2004 05:01 (nineteen years ago) link
― sundar subramanian (sundar), Thursday, 21 October 2004 05:02 (nineteen years ago) link
― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 21 October 2004 06:08 (nineteen years ago) link
― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 21 October 2004 06:32 (nineteen years ago) link
― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Thursday, 21 October 2004 14:41 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 21 October 2004 14:57 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Lex (The Lex), Thursday, 21 October 2004 15:17 (nineteen years ago) link
by the way the blonde redhead album was a major disappointment imo. almost mainstream sounding. like a bland pop album.
― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Thursday, 21 October 2004 17:14 (nineteen years ago) link
This thread is bonkers. But anyway, I've listened to this a few times over the weekend and it's very, very god, isn't it?
― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 09:52 (sixteen years ago) link
very god? Begotten not created?
― Mark G, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 09:58 (sixteen years ago) link
haha, yes and yes!
― joanet vich, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 10:00 (sixteen years ago) link
Hmmm. Damn my cold fingers.
― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 10:02 (sixteen years ago) link
i love this album.
― The Brainwasher, Friday, 30 May 2008 09:07 (fifteen years ago) link
"I have no time for anal love" still cracks me up
― The Brainwasher, Friday, 30 May 2008 09:11 (fifteen years ago) link