borntohula

exactly. in my opinion, the reason he's been able to have as much staying-power as he's had is because he's experimented; he's kept his material fresh. he's not like many of his other peers from the 90s who refused to experiment and who are now forgotten.

i'm of the opinion that a demo is a demo. i think he's allowed to try stuff out... it doesnt mean that tthat's the direction he's going in. sure we can be critical of it too, but i dont think we should be as freaked about these songs... take jackpillowhead for example. that stuff was quite different from anything we had heard from matt at the time, and he didn't pursue the sounds from that project at all afterwards. sure, you could argue that because it was both him and ryan, the songs were different, but even the songs that those two wrote together or performed together afterwards were nothing far from conventional.

can't say im into nada surf at all. i just remember that one song from the 90s..."popular"?

i think f11 will win because they're playing the show. st alvia cartel is like pedophile soundclash but more members. pride tiger is an awful name.

nice mix, spring90. there are at least 4 bands on there that i thought of putting on my own mix... which i am close to completing!!! as far as beth's mix is concerned, i really liked it! i didn't think i'd like tori amos, based on what ive heard of her music before, but i was completely surprised by that song. good way to start a mix. ummm the only other act who i've heard before were television. i picked up marquee moon about a month ago... maybe longer... so i've been listening to it off and on. nice inclusion though! the rest of the songs are either by people i've heard of but havent listened to, or people i've never heard of before period. based on my first listen all the way through, i would say that the jel, samuel jackson five, robert palmer, d

wooo!!! i got beth's mix in the mail! and it has sparklesssss!!! thanks beth! review to follow.

you might be...

why the fuck does it need one of those huge wheel things?

yeah, the more i think about it, the more i agree. i just got a little carried away there, trying to not let form be discounted.

i tried notpron, but found that you needed to be kinda "l33t" to get through it.

how do you know what the artist intends? you can't. the meaning of a work of art is not simply restricted to artistic intention. "what makes it art is that what the artist is trying to portray. " exactly. how does one go about portraying something? if i painted you a picture, but refused to show it to you, would you be able to interpret it? of course not. i'm not talking about brush strokes here or what was painted first. like in music, to use another example, i don't care about which instrument was recorded first. as you said, all that matters is the final product, because that's all we see/hear/experience. our interpretation of something is entirely based on what that something is; "it's what you think when you see the entire thing." the act of interpretation is inherently dependent on how that work of art is presented. i think that much of creativity resides in the how one does something. shooting a photograph in black and white suggests one thing, while shooting the exact same picture in colour suggests something else. if i scream a song, that could mean one thing versus if i were to croon. similarly, if i write two poems about love, and put one in a sonnet, and the other in a haiku, they still mean the same thing but are expressed in different ways. the content, or "meaning" of a work of art is not going to be original, you can cut that out of the equation right now. art, like language, is a rhetoric. it's not what you say, but how you say it that counts.

well, how is meaning derived, then? from the wall behind a painting? no, meaning is derived from the art itself, the method... the application of, or deviance from form. or in other words, how it looks. hobo, i think a lot of what you're arguing heavily involves interpretation. maybe the artist did spend ten seconds on it, or maybe it only looks as though they spent ten seconds on it. how can you know? that's just what you've interpreted. i agree with you though to some extent. i mean, i went to the tate modern in london and there was a lot there that i thought was useless crap. particularly andy warhol's work. but i think at that point, it's clear that the issue i have with it is one of interpretation. as meg said earlier, art should elicit some response from you, whether you hate it or you love it. i think that rather than dismissing what you hate, it might be beneficial to explore what it is about that particular kind of art that you hate. consider this: if what you're saying is true, then the more time someone spends on something, the more likely it is that it will be good, or in your case, art. chinese democracy, anyone?

while i understand what you're saying, i disagree with it on the basis that when you open up that inclusive/exclusive can of worms, i think you run into a lot of problems that make art more of an elitism than it needs to be. anyone can be creative. regardless of how they do it, anyone can be creative at something. art is simply the medium for that creativity. people who are really into aesthetics would also argue that the purpose of art is to make something beautiful; art for art's sake. in that sense, it doesn't necessarily take a experienced photographer to accomplish that, to capture/frame (whatever language you want to use) something beautiful. while i think that experience and knowledge of the medium itself will obviously help your chances of making something 'beautiful,' sometimes introducing someone's naivety to art and its rules and conventions shakes things up a bit and makes people think about the art form in a way they never had before.

was anyone else involved?

i think theres a resemblance, now that you mention it, but i've never really compared the two on my own.

really???

yes you can. just because i disagree with what you say doesn't mean that i think you're "wrong"... you can think whatever you'd like about mr. patton and his music. i just think you should give some of his other projects a second chance, that's all. no reason to get defencive.

something tells me that it won't like that when it comes out (of the can).

woot! it's working!

riiiight. so you champion the guy for his abilities, and yet denounce anything he's done that remotely challenges your conception of what constitutes "music??" i think he's done some of his best work with fantomas and mr. bungle, but i like his more conventional stuff too; there's something for everybody.

kinda defeats the purpose of it being whispered. i dont think it really matters what he said. interesting way to find out, though.

how's everyone's coming?

sounds interesting. i'll take a look at it when i get some free time. thanks.

i would also appreciate a link to this song...

poop. i always miss his song posts.