borntohula

i felt the same way as most of you... they were pretty hit and miss following the colour and the shape, but i mean, even they knew that... or at least acknowledge it in retrospect. the whole reason "probot" happened was because dave didn't like the radio friendly stuff from there's nothing left to lose. that was probably their worst album... aside from songs like "stacked actors" and "aurora" which are also staples of their live (electric) set. one by one was a step in the right direction, but still lacked ... umm... maybe focus is the word i'm looking for. but the songs on this one were a lot stronger and far more mature than previous. its like the rubber soul to in your honor's revolver. is that a good comparison to make? with in your honor, they really honed their strengths into a format that really suited their sound. the problem with previous albums is that they always sounded like they were struggling with wanting to be really loud and crazy but still be taken seriously and all that. the result was amazing. disc 1 of IYH is energetic, powerful, relentless and unforgiving... all the things you love about the foos, but this time with a more updated sound. the second disc is very much a departure for the band, but for once, it shows some growth on their part. growth without making sacrifices in their sound. what was so great about the first album was its flow. start to finish, just flowed really nicely and was still pretty abrasive. i think in some ways, they've been trying to capture that same flow for their entire career. as for the live disc, i picked it up recently and quite enjoyed it. but when it comes to the foo fighters or anything dave grohl-related, i'd have a hard time not enjoying something that they put out. i have yet to get the DVD. i had no idea there was a live DVD actually, until this topic came up. so... thanks!

i think if paul were dead, then john lennon would've made sure he stayed that way. no mysterious doubles needed here, folks.

that geoff lloyd is all about the hot lunches.

leviathan is fucking awesome. i listenned to blood mountain a few times and i don't like it as much, but i think i need to give it a few more spins before i make a real decision.

because its poorly written. LAWL JKS

ummm i'm probably going to get a wii and the new zelda this christmas. if not as a gift then i'll buy it myself seeing as how i'll be going back to work for a bit. i'm not a serious type of gamer, and the nintendo systems have always been good for that sortof casual kind of gaming. i'm a big fan of zelda and that's been my primary focus for sticking with nintendo for all these years. i do agree that nintendo tends to rely on classic titles as a sort of crutch, but you'd have to understand that when playstation and xbox came out, they took a lot of liscencing away from nintendo. another thing i didnt like about the gamecube at least was that there wasn't a real sliding scale for difficulty. like people have addressed, the system is really marketed towards children... i dont understand why they couldnt appeal to a more wider audience. you can still have a challenging game that doesnt involve violence, explosions or women with loose morals. this is why im looking forward to the new controller style... i think it will make for interesting gameplay for games that would otherwise be relatively simplistic. im really sick of those fucking EA games. they're all the goddamn same. james bond was exactly like batman begins. and i think some ofthe spiderman games that were based on the movie were put out by EA as well... which were also similar in control style and overall idea. what the heck.

yeah yeah, sure sure.

i'd like to add joel coen to the list. barton fink and the big lebowski are le awesome.

heeeelarious. ;)

Technology has changed that, plus there are too many genres now within mainstream music, everyone likes different things. No 'One' band can have as huge an impact as the beatles did nowadays. exactly. nor will a band put out that much quality content in six years. looking for the next beatles is an exercise in futility, there won't be a "next" beatles, that's what made them so special, so unique.

this generation won't have another beatles. nor will the next generation have anything that will impact the same as nirvana did.

k-fed, all the way. i like coldplay certain days of the week, i guess they're top 40. gnarls barkley certainly surprised me with their climb up the charts. is norah jones top 40? bitch has my respect.

i think it has something to do with it though. take jello biafra for example. part of the reason why i listen to the DKs at all is because his voice is so unique.

nick cave and a few of his bad seeds have a new project in-line called grinderman, consisting of cave, string-smith and noisemaker extraordinaire warren ellis, as well as one of the tightest rhythm sections known to rock: martyn casey and jim sclavunos. if "fucking badass" were a genre, these guys would fit right in. you can hear one of their songs, entitled "no pussy blues", at their myspace page. http://www.myspace.com/grinderman

Oh, I'm pretty sure some people here love Jesus. you don't have to love him to lie down in bed with him jesus loves me but i make him wear a condom.

i'd like an example of artists whose voices we have heard again, or will hear again. i assume you mean someone else with the same voice.

didn't you also post in this thread without mentioning him? both of you make a good point. i'd like to add nick cave, siouxsie sioux and maybe jarboe to the list. paul westerberg's voice is the definition of whiskey-drenched gloriousness.

i was never good at changing the sounds around on that thing. that MGB thing sounds crazy though. crazy enough that i say we start using ICQ again if anyone finds it.

i imagine she maintains her voice much like rod stewart would.

even before temple... he could really hit some high notes. now it just sounds like he's gargling on vomit. live, at least. but he's getting better. his songwriting however, is not.

I saw Tool Twice this year. I think he's been sick or something, but even the vocals on 10,000 Days (the album) don't stack up to say... the vocals on thirteenth step, though there is a 3 year difference. Just listen to Undertow, he has a crazy raw/awesome sound going. that rawness is also due to the production... the whole band sounds a lot more "raw" and less polished. but i cant really see how his voice has deteriorated over the years in a way that makes him any less listenable. i mean, obviously your voice isnt going to be a static thing, undertow came out 13 years ago. my voice has changed quite a bit in 13 years.... his at least has some consistency (unlike some contemporaries). he's also taken a much different approach to singing now than he did those 13 years ago; all he used to do was yell (not knocking it by any means), so obviously it sounds more viceral.

i'd have to say either mike patton or maynard james keenan. patton because of his range. listen to early FNM and the dude is singing really high... "from out of nowhere" is a good example. but he also shows his range off in the same song, like tomahawk's "point and click". and the thing i really like about him is that he's very open and willing to experiment. to him, his voice IS an instrument: he's not afraid of screaming or using his voice for percussive purposes as opposed to just singing. he's also been copied so much that it'd be hard to not put him on here. i like MJK's voice a lot and its effect on me. its kindof hard to say why i like it. it's just different. but he has this incredible ability to belt out notes... he's got great projection. he also has quite the vocal range, and uses it to his advantage. he's become very good at doing more than just yelling, but dont get me wrong, for a time, that worked really well too.

You should take a look at some german expressionist films. That is where Burton gets his style from, he's not very original at all. Take a gander at this: http://sopranosfamily.tripod.com/caligari/ it's pretty cool. Edit: and ya, I agree...He is very overrated. And for shits and giggles I'd like to add Kubrick and Hitchcock to the list. These guys can't be appreciated enough. well there you go. i know very little about film at this point in time so im likely to say more things like that in the future. just so you know. my film class and i were supposed to watch this on halloween but my prof opted for the piano instead because it related more to what we were learning. i really want to see caligari. that and whathisface's metropolis.

yeah. the dude can't fuckin work. its too bad britney used him as a sperm donor too, i doubt his kids will have any motivation in life at all.

i would argue niccol is a better writer than he is director. theres nothing about his films that really shouts "THIS IS A NICCOL" you know? as opposed to a gondry or a fincher. as far as besson is concerned, ive only ever seen the fifth element, so i cant really argue one way or the other. and with burton, i think he's one of those names that gets tossed around. like a spielberg or a scorcese. i also think he's somewhat overrated, and not underrated. he certainly brings an element of style to film which has been largely original and influential... but his films are more about look than substance. to me at least. i dont mean all of his films either. but i mean,the main thing that sets his stuff apart is that it looks bizarre. i think his actual direction and ability to tell a story and make that bizarre quality work for him came with films like edward scissorhands and big fish. mainly the latter, which i think is his best work to date. that film would be the only reason why id add him to the list. but frankly, i dont think he's underrated.