borntohula

fleet foxes remind me too much of my morning jacket. like a watered-down version. i'm sure some of you have heard this before, but i'm not sure what else to share at the moment:

either/or is my first and only smith album. it's a lot less polished than XO, so if you don't really like lo-fi elliot, then you should certainly give this album a pass. i think "between the bars" is my fav. song of his: either that or "alameda":

you are truly insane. politically, canada can hardly sustain itself, let alone being a part of the united states. that would never work, no matter which side was in control. the area you're talking about is simply too large to be governed by one body, be they totalitarian or not. again, i will reiterate: now what does george bush have to gain from apparently seizing power away from american citizens? he's out of office now and not involved in any way. how does he benefit? your theory would have some solid ground to stand on if perhaps bush refused to abdicate the presidency to obama when his term was up, but that did not happen. are you purporting that obama is a puppet president who's just doing bush's bidding? prove it. i agree that the american people have lost some significant freedoms (particularly in terms of freedom of the press, and issues of wiretapping) during bush's terms, but i would not go so far to state that they, or canada by proxy, are in danger of losing their freedoms completely. turn off the v for vendetta, and start paying attention. why dont you speak for yourself, rather than have documentaries say it for you? furthermore, documentaries are not "truth," they are opinions, plain and simple. they can be well articulated and thought-provoking, but they never amount to more than an argument. a perspective. like the way a photograph does not depict "reality" a film is equally incapable of being "reflective" of "truth." that said, because someone took the time to make a film about something does not make it right, nor does it mean that it is infallible or perfect. i would have more respect for you and your theories if you were able to recognize the gaping flaws with these films, and were only using them to substantiate your claims, rather than hinging your own beliefs on them.

what would it be called?

pretty much. it's almost as ubiquitous here as someone yelling "play some fucking hip."

this is true. you're just realizing this now? matt is reminded of this every time someone shouts "rico" during his set, or when people mosh to "apparitions."

you're joking, right?

if you've got time and what not, maybe ask him about which musician he'd like to work with in the future.... canadian or otherwise. i think he and paul westerberg would make a good team.

pretty girls make graves - "speakers push the air"

no age kick ass. that is all.

i also like that idea, and i think that posting the song in youtube form should be mandatory, so there are no excuses. EDIT: whoops forgot to comment on the song before me and post my own. i don't mind that song, but they're aping joanna newsom so much that they really don't have a style of their own. mine: unwound - "scarlette"

really? post a link. i can't tell if you're being serious or facetious.

good point. and when i said "rock" some more modern, popular rock bands like franz ferdinand or... metric easily lend themselves to being remixed and it sounds alright... but i would not entertain the idea of a... led zeppelin remix. or a bob dylan remix.

i'm with the missus on this one. those shirts really aren't that funny after the initial "oh, ha" and then you're stuck wearing it for the rest of the day.

yep. same goes for me. i don't think anyone is untouchable, it really just depends on who is doing the covering and how they choose to re-imagine the song. as for remixes, they're usually completely unwarranted (in the rock music world, anyway).

why would you create a post asking what people thought of 9/11 when your interpretation of the events is fairly fixed, if not completely immovable? also, you can't really disregard something by just saying "nevertheless." have you read the 9/11 report, or are you just getting your information from movies? so what does obama mean for bush's supposed orchestration of 9/11 to rid americans of their freedom? is he a pawn in bush's plan?

every dissenting voice is important, but these conspiracies don't address what's going on now, nor do they change what has happened. if anything, they detract from more vital criticism, like that which is directed at the iraq war. whether bush orchestrated 9/11, simply let it happen, or was part of a larger picture of bureaucratic miscommunication, 9/11 happened, and was used as america's free pass into the middle east. we should be continuing to question america's presence in the middle east, rather than trying to point our fingers at something that ultimately distracts us from doing so.

i think he must mean "preconceptions" based on the examples he gives. the question is kinda loaded, isn't it? doesn't everybody go into something with preconceptions? i mean, even if you don't read a review of an album, you already have a substantial amount of (preconceived) information about it. you have an expectation of genre; if the artist has done work prior, you have a preconception as to how the album you're buying will sound; if the band has a single on the radio, then you have even more preconceptions to work with when you're purchasing the product as well. in short: i also don't understand what you're trying to get at. ;)

on the money. i don't want to rush the guy... especially since hospital music was so good. it'll be hard to follow up. i haven't heard any of the demos on purpose. when he released practically every song from HM as a demo first, i think it kinda spoiled the album a bit for me. like, i think hearing the demos so often contributed to why i wasn't listening to hospital music 5 months after it was released. i got bored of it.

really? yeah they're kinda good. i find it weird how so many people are recommending "post-rock" bands.

id DL them but the file sizes are huuuuuuuuuge.

it's ok, i remembered it too. again: old picture of us both, but you get the point. i swear i don't look suicidal all the time. you've always reminded me of the character beni in the mummy.

apparently the area was considered the "mandate of palestine" and not a country... kind of an ambiguous area under the control of the british empire after the fall of the ottoman. i think it was proposed to be a country, but it was as much of a hot-spot then as it is now, so you can imagine how heated that debate was. there was a huge influx of jews to the area following world war one, and in a very short period of time conflicts arose between the jewish and arab populations of palestine, both claiming rights over the land. the UN tried to partition the land in half, one state arab, one state jewish, which was a huge concession for the jews and greatly displeased a lot of the arabs who were forced from their homes consequently. i think a lot of the modern conflict we see today still stems from this moment, and you can really attribute it to britain's failure to control the situation properly. obviously it's not just britains fault, but their decision played an integral role. the two-state solution is tempting, and it seems obvious, but it's been tried before and i think it's only a band-aid. i highly doubt that israeli citizens, jewish or not, will not take kindly to their country being divided in two, when the land (aside from gaza and the west bank) has been considered theirs for so long. that said, israel has certainly bitten off more than it can chew, and should be mandated by the UN to retreat to its 1967 borders. really, they just need to cool off and co-exist. both have the right to be there. gaza needs to be under international control simply because you have three religious groups claiming that they have right to it. that issue will probably never be resolved.

i use demonoid, and am soon to get a what.cd invite.

right, but we're talking about a graphic novel here-- there's not much room for "envisioning" characters and environments, especially since in this specific case, the director is using the graphic novel as his storyboard, and even going so far as other films like sin city and 300 by making it a shot-by-shot recreation of what's already on the page. sounds like the visual form of an audio book to me. i don't consider books on tape a form of adaptation either, and the lazy trend of films being culled directly from the pages of graphic novels is no more a kind of adaptation. even if we were discussing a novel, "interpreting" how a character looks really doesn't take much craft or imagination, nor does it really warrant the making of a film to do so. film is not simply the visual representation of text (or in this case, the combination of text and images). as i've mentioned several times before, watchmen, the graphic novel, is a treatise on comic books themselves. it's lazy adapting that storyline to the screen without making changes for the medium it's being presented in. the adaptation would be much more creative should it consider the role or depiction of superheroes in film. why not? they have the chance to! it would honour the original book without being a facsimile of it, which would be much more enjoyable in my mind because not only does it treat the medium with respect, but it also show that moore's idea is not simply limited to comic books. i think that kind of film would've had moore's consent, and he probably would've helped pen the thing, too. instead, we're left with some hack's screenplay of a comic book about comic books. why would i want to watch that? so i can see the big explosions? visually i'm sure the film will be quite enjoyable, but i can assure you that the storyline will be lacking. in that sense, the dark knight is probably a better exploration of the question: "who watches the watchmen?" on film. watchmen has been called "moore's obituary for the concept of heroes in general and superheroes in particular," and yet i detect none of that from snyder's interviews, or the trailers i've seen of the film for that matter. sure, they could come around and surprise us, but i think there's very little chance of that. i predict this film will be a machismo cheese-fest that in the end, celebrates heroes rather than critiques them. so what we have then is the general idea of the watchmen, appropriated visually, but not thematically. if you're fine with that, then i suppose that's your prerogative.