cringleman

No other but Man can so effortlessly alter his surroundings (pardon the gender-centric language). If only he'd wait to understand better before doing so. The odd thing is that it's frighteningly difficult to elucidate a rational reason for the notion of chimeras being wrong. I have no illusions of the 'solemn dignity' of the human genome; it's an incredible thing, and beautiful in the pinnacle of that word's sense, but it's not untouchably sacred, just because it's ours. The same is true for other creatures (I endeavor to be fair, if nothing else). The only thing you have to wonder is: does creating these odd little beings cause them to suffer more unduly than simply keeping your ordinary lab creature in its transplanted habitat? Would the mere existence of the human-brained rat be intolerably cruel to that rat? If so, then why -- because it is human, because it is rat, or because it is simultaneously both and neither? Can being be a cruelty, given the right DNA?

It's coming, for sure. Who really wants to carry around six or seven pieces of plastic. That's hard, man. When the men in white coats (or blue uniforms, or black suits, or fluorescent pink shoes for all it matters) come knocking to stick one in you, tell them no. That's all we can do. Or let's all move to Tokelau, instead.

Not to try to pull a dead thread out of its comfortable grave, but I'm on a newfound posting spree on this messageboard that I joined over a year ago. You can get nonmetal fillings, now, but they're still usually gold or mercury amalgam; you were right, however, that it's simply not enough metal to set off a metal detector (just like the iron in your blood isn't). I don't ever want government property permanently attached to me. I prefer owning all of my parts. After I read Tim Buckley's post on CAD about this (yay CAD!), it got me to thinking about logical justifications for resisting (aside from this being one of the signs of the biblical apocalypse, if that's your thing). How about making ID theft worse? Losing your wallet sucks, right now, but imagine losing your Infallible ID Implant. Suddenly you don't exist. Maybe biometrics will solve ID problems, but for a lot of reasons, they're just not catching on. Plus, getting mugged for your credit card probably hurts a hell of a lot less than having a chip torn out of your skin (after, still, being mugged).

I love fat, greasy, salty, awful food. I also love a simple spinach salad. More to the point of the original discussion, while McDonald's doesn't have an army, per se, how would the RCAF deal with 10 million rioting fat people? Sure, they'd get tired and hungry, eventually, but McDonald's might be sitting on the world's first Earthquake Device. Never underestimate the awe-inspiring power of several million angry, stupid consumer whores that are all the size of a VW Microbus.

Not even touching on the genetic engineering issue (not to get off topic, of course), but on the note of people worried about the ethics of packaging and selling animals in a dormant state: sea monkies, man. They're a species of Artemia (brine shrimp) that, early in development, have gone into a highly resilient (they've exposed the "cysts" to outer space, and they've hatched just fine) dormant state. Really, the little guys are no worse for the wear. Ethically troubling? Have the Wikipedia article for reference.

From a purely philosophical point of view, what makes consciousness a uniquely human trait? (I mention this because of the phrase 'human consciousness' that was used.) In fact, it's impossible to tell what it is like to be any other human, let alone a mouse or a cactus. Maybe plants just react really slowly to everything -- like Heinlein's Martians. What about self-consciousness? Currently, aside from humans, the only animals I'm aware of that can identify their own image in a mirror as themselves are "higher" primates and "higher" cetaceans (specifically just dolphins, I think). Is that it? I don't know -- it's very hard to say. From a purely scientific point of view, it's actually phenomenally difficult to pin down a single, precise definition of 'species,' let alone 'human.' We have no scalpel with which to dissect the problem: morphology is insufficient, genetics are inherently unfit and reproduction is insanely difficult to test (and potentially misleading). Currently, an ad-hoc mix of the three is being used (in varying ratios) by taxonomists and other biologists. I don't even have an opinion to express (just a lot of knowledge with which to demonstrate the incredible murk of the issue, and its surrounding meta-issues), but I do find one quote from that article very funny: Jeremy Rifkin (whoever that is) allegedy says, "One doesn't have to be religious or into animal rights to think this doesn't make sense." I beg to differ. If one has no religious beliefs about tampering with divine creations, and one also has no beliefs that animals have rights similar (or exactly like) humans, then only human rights could possibly interfere with one's approval of chimeras. Not all chimeras are human-X mixes, and we're all equally confused about what defines a human, anyway. It's a muddy issue, but one that should most certainly be carefully, deliberately examined and intelligently, thoughtfully evaluated, both scientifically and ethically, before anyone jumps to conclusions of 'right' and 'wrong.' There is, of course, only perspective, in the end. But this is a long enough essay, already. Apologies for that.

Here's the snag: does War is Over include Ommisions of the Omen, the secret track that's tagged onto the end of that song on the CD? ... 'Cause that would seal it, right there, for me.

Well said.

I will, first, clarify my political/emotional comment: listen to 'North American For Life' and then to either 'Born to Kill' or 'While We Were Hunting Rabbits.' In 'Born to Kill,' Matt sounds damn near choked up, and in 'Rabbits' the song sounds like a full-blown epiphany. 'North American' just sounds a little snarky. I like 'NAFL,' but all I'm saying is that there seemed, in my opinion, to be a lot more emotional inflection is his delivery of some of the older material. I think he feels as strongly about the ideas he's been pushing, lately, as he ever did about the events that spawned 'Running for Home,' and I'm just waiting to see him get voice-strainingly angry, or heart-tearingly sad about the kids being killed in Darfur, Afghanistan and Iraq (to name but a few) just as he did about things an album or two ago. Lastly, before this devolves into flames and arguments over how chronologically-appropriate someone's comparisons might be (I wouldn't get a comparison between MG and emo, no matter how hard someone tried, and I still don't hear MG and City and Colour, but I let that slide, because it's irrelevent to the argumentation), let's just step back and look specifically at what we're talking about. I think everyone knows Matt isn't trying to sound like Bright Eyes, anyway (it would make me very sad, if he were). Screw the semantics. No one needs to defend Matt's music from an onslaught of torch-and-pitchfork-bearing critics that will drive him from future recordings: we're just talking about what we hear, and what sort of things we forsee in the future.

Donkey Riding is also not originally by Great Big Sea (but I can't, for the life of me, recall who it was originally by; I just know that a teacher from my old high school recorded a version of it in the seventies or so). While I'm happy to see the Mays love from Ryan44, and also the Roberts quote, it's all about Joel Plaskett, for me, lately: from 'Absentminded Melody' Someone whispers in my ear, "It's not like it was, before." I don't know what happened here, I guess we just got bored. The good old says, well I suppose I'm glad they're behind us, now. The only thing worse than growing up Is never quite learning how. Man's the most eccentric live performer I've yet seen in Halifax, so far, as well. Hell of a show. Of course, Mays allegedly has two new albums in the pipe ...

I find this funny, in the sort of 'this tastes funny' way, because I recall making several arguments to my friends, over the years, that it was Mike Turner's kind-of-odd style of fills and strumming guitar (never really a soloing lead, or a really background rhythm style) that kept OLP sounding unique and interesting. Now they sound strikingly like a clone rocker with a former Metallica cover band guiarist and Raine Maida's lyrics (which were better when they were really ambiguous -- 'these automatic flowers won't do'? nice turn of phrase). Poor Mike. It's like David Lee Roth: made Van Halen better (better than Hagar, who was better than ... whoever the hell else they got), but his solo career just wasn't cutting it. Of course, Roth managed to get Steve Vai on guitar and Billy Sheehan on bass for his band, so go figure.

I realize it's a bit late to chime in ambiguously, but I'm supposed to be recording copious amounts of original stuff for a friend's short film, come the end of August, so perhaps I'll throw my hat in the ring for something once I'm off this island ... If I don't manage, though, it'd be killer to hear some Omissions of the Omen, says I. No one ever seems to talk about that song ... In any case, I hope this doesn't die, because it sounds like fun, and there was so much enthusiasm. If anyone's in the Halifax area and wants to jam on something in the fall, then I've got a passable Apex pencil condenser, an MAudio MobilePre for input and a couple of mixing/editing programs (a shady copy of Audition, and also the wonderful and free Audacity for demoing and simple stuff). Plus a guitar & amp, bass & amp, me acoustic gee-tar and my sultry baritone pipes (and two harmonicas: key of C and G). There's lots of covers in that pile o' noisemakers. Maybe I'll do a five-part layered a capella version of All Together, all by my lonesome ... Good luck to everyone in their respective parts!

I fully acknowledge the logic, Toad. My mistake. We could probably debate the legal semantics of whether the words originating as spoken, or eventually being published was more important (and therefore slander vs. libel), but there's certainly no point. I meant no disrespect to your input, and I know that you aren't trying to correct me, either. Unless you're a practicing lawyer, in which case you're correcting me, and I bow to your expertise. In any case: no lawsuit -- yay!

To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard a lot of the demos, yet. To translate further: I haven't scratched together enough of this "NF cash" to download that much of it. I'm a little out of my depth comparing the passion he puts into it now, therefore, as compared to earlier, if I haven't heard the demos. I understand that point, though, and I'll just assume your observations to be valid -- you used to hear such fire and bile in his voice, back in the old days (or real regret and disappointment, as the case was), and if that's gone, then it won't be the same. I've been hearing a lot of disillusionment, lately: with the folks he relied on, in Avalanche, and with geopolitics, for White Light. I probably let it go by without complaint for two albums because I imagine that's what he genuinely feels, but it won't hold true for another album. I guess I really understand what you're saying. He doesn't just have to think something, he has to feel it, too (or, at least, that has to come out in the music). It's plain that he thinks plenty. Music is emotion, after all, tempered or forged though it may be by the mind. It seems like it may be blasphemous, in some circles, these days, to suggest that Genn was good for MGB's music, but it feels like since he's left, there's been a sonic edge taken off the tunes. Maybe his greatest contribution was just making Matt really mad and frustrated, but he did lend something. (And I'd hope for no full albums of Hopeless clones, as well, but being the loyal schmuck that I am, I'd probably buy it anyway.)

Chill out, man. I certainly don't think anyone here would have ill wishes toward the guy, but it begs the question of what changes will take place after he says he's been having a real hard time. It's not like it was wrong to wonder what the Travelling Wilburys would sound like when Roy Orbison died (or, now, George Harrison) -- it's merely innocent curiosity. When James Taylor got out of rehab, and released a new LP, I'm sure everyone speculated about what it would sound like. Vulture-like would be if we hoped more bad things happened, so that he'd be more 'inspired' by rough times. No one here is doing that.

'Educated' ... ha. Thanks, Moncton. I think the consensus is that if you don't like the folk, then there's a good chance the winds will change. It's like the weather out here in the Maritimes: if you don't like it, wait a minute. Of course, it's important to note that when Matthew Good started out, he was basically a folk musician, and he ended up releasing some pretty rockin' tracks a few years down the line, so perhaps things just run in cycles. I realize I'm being quite optimistic, but I don't see any reason to decide to be pessimistic -- there may be evidence of continued folkiness (not that I'd mind, but for argument's sake ...), but it's in my own best interest to wait and see what the next couple of albums are like (even the greatest have had low points). A change of musical partners could help him out, too -- you can hear the lack of Dave Genn's influence since MGB split up (just an observation of difference -- no values implied), and it makes you wonder what would happen if he found someone he was amenable co-writing with again. I like this discussion, and I, too, hope you don't end up alienated by any of Good's possible new directions -- the disullusionment of losing your favourite artist is a weird shot. Made me question everything I listened to, when it happened.

I think you make some valid observations, but (as someone who's been around listening since Beautiful Midnight) I believe we're witnessing a transitional period. Perhaps it's a stage where Matt sifts through some experimentation with the core of what his songs are about, by 'stripping it down,' as you put it (without ever really building it up), or perhaps it's permanent and he's moving towards folkier pastures. I disagree with your value judgements (I certainly don't mind folk, and would happily watch two hours of Matt or someone else I liked playing acoustic tunes -- it would just be less energetic than the last show I saw), but I suppose we have nothing to debate, on that point. Simply a disagreement on principle. What I do think you're overlooking is the possibility that the return to less elaborate performances (ie. man + guitar = music) does not necessarily mean that the music will continue to devolve into verse-verse-chorus versions of his wonderful lyrics until, eventually, he's playing open mic nights. We could very well end up with more interesting songwriting, simply because there's little to carry your work, when you're naught but man and guitar; more emphasis is placed on interesting lyrical content, and engaging melodical structures and musical arrangements. Perhaps we'll get more songs that are divided into miniature movements, like 'We're So Heavy,' or songs that defy the old verse/refrain structure of most contemporary music. The possibilities are truly still endless. Maybe he'll learn to play a mean bottleneck slide. I understand your concern, though I do not share it, but fret not, my fellow New Brunswickan (I assume, due to the Moncton reference). Just because he has put down The Wizard, for now, does not mean that there's nothing out there that's cool to be written. To sum: at least fifty percent of music is the artful use of silence -- perhaps Matthew Good needs to hear the space between his words again.

It was suggested that, perhaps, we'll get more of the introspective Good than the new, political Good, but I postulate a third option: perhaps both. Some of the best music in the last seventy years has come out of difficult personal experience (one could easily stretch that to 'ever,' but my examples won't brush with Brahms, quite). Just look at all of Floyd's material inspired by Syd, or at Cash's darkness. Neil Young couldn't have written 'Tonight's The Night' if his buddies hadn't been addicted to lots and lots and lots of drugs (to say nothing of 'The Needle and the Damage Done'). But, then, perhaps it will also make him angry: we could get his heroes colliding -- Dylan meets Floyd: 'Masters of War' meets 'Brain Damage,' one can imagine. Maybe not in a single song, mind you ... but this man has a good concept album in him, somewhere (or, arguably, more), so here's hoping that this ends well.

Ignoring the minor pissing contest that seems to be going on over who has more posts (ah, the tangy smell of the Internet), I think that claiming "negative" things about another person, with intent to do them harm is legal defamation. Of course, it's supposed to be untrue, but that's rarely the point, as far as I can tell. (Note: this is apparently for the British and American legal systems, but the Canadian legal apparatus is similar, in general terms.) Now, knowing Mr. Good, he probably has been writing in fairly ambiguous terms, so he should be alright as far as a libel (defamation that's published is libel, not slander, in case you were wondering the difference) suit is concerned. The law surrounding free speech and 'decency' is messy. I doubt she'll try suing him, though -- seems especially low and slimy. (Note: Canadian law is, indeed, covered in the Wikipedia article, and it states that the truth can be libel/slander, as well, depending on context and intent.)

That sounds like a really cool idea. My favourite part about it is that it sounds like something he might actually like -- as opposed to something that we might just like. Sort of like how I'd rather hear just exactly what an artist wants to play at a show, instead of all the usual requests (much more interesting, that way). I wonder what he'd like to do.

Man, it's been a long time since I read the Bored. This is a wicked topic, though. I'd like to see a sort of binary pair recorded: it'd be beautiful if he went to Israel, somewhere, and recorded an acoustic version of Going All The Way ('those missle men / with their master plan / don't get paid to understand'), or maybe While We Were Hunting Rabbits, and then hit up Strange Days in southern Beirut -- straight up, one-take, video-recording Matt singing with a guitar amongst the rubble. That'd make a statement. I feel like he'd probably get a lot of inspiration out of a trip like that, though, so we'd probably see originals if he went either place. In all of his talk about the events Over There (to me, from where I am, anyway), lately, I wonder if he's thought about making a stop in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, the Gaza or Israel or the like. It wouldn't be easy or cushy, but I wouldn't put it past him. Tripoli in Tripoli? I'd really like to see him record a single song at home in Canada somewhere, to be honest -- some place really isolated. Maybe a trip to the Arctic, or out here on Sable Island (strangest summer job location ever) would produce something stark and reflective, or introspective. Isolation did Thoreau some good. The next record will certainly be interesting, that's for sure.

I would say that it's largely what's been commented on, most frequently, so far: it's a recurring theme not to draw a special, mysterious coded thread through his music, but just because it's a type of imagery that he happens to naturally gravitate toward in his writing. I can think of some of my favourite writers that use the weather as a similar device, though not as any sort of recurring, larger allegory. Like it's been said: it's probably just repeated use of a form of analogical imagery to convey his ideas, and he just happens to use animals a lot. It's sort of like asking why you usually use your right hand for most things (or your left, for you southpaws). You just do -- it feels right. (No pun intended.) Recurring use of certain symbols for apparently the same thing (like the comment about rabbits) is likely just indicative of some of the symbolism he personally attaches to those icons. Maybe rabbits just make Matt think of the little guy, you know?

right: since everyone wanted someone to go and check through the Videos section to see that it works, i figured i might as well lend a hand. likely, i should've emailed this to Crusader or something, but he'll get it on here. like a good mod, he does frequent his own board. the following videos do not work, by album: WLR&RR: Empty Road (dead link: it's not on Matt's site, anymore. actually, he announced its being taken down, due to bandwidth concerns, i believe) In A World Called Catastrophe (dead link, same) AOB: Anti-Pop (hellacious wait time) BM: all have the same hellacious wait-time of Anti-Pop, which wouldn't count as broken, but when i got the player looking like it was loading in Firefox, i decided to hit the Back button, because the video was obviously working, and my browser subsequently stopped responding. it's likely just a sluggish server on the other end. Underdogs: Everything is Automatic (click the link, takes you to the page you're already on) LOTGA: Symbolistic White Walls (same as EIA) i don't care, really. i'd love to be able to see EIA or Anti-Pop (i love the gnome thing), but bandwidth is a precious resource, i'm well aware. just thought you'd like to know, Crusader.

whoever said The Jimmy Swift Band wins a prize. electronica-inlfuence dancey-jam rock fusion with extra elements? and it's not annoying? those boys do good work. you will hear much about Matt Mays in the coming years. wicked straight-up roots-rock kind of show. The Hip were excellent live. they keep extra mic stands on the stage, in case Downie BREAKS ONE. Matt Good's alright live. good renditions of the songs and whatnot, but when he was in Halifax last November or whenever it was, he stormed off the stage twice (possibly due to techinical issues, but definitely in anger). i love his music, but he was kind of like an angry schoolmarm lecturing his audience (though, to be fair, i'm sure he gets annoyed with people constantly requesting songs from his old band that's been broken up for a solid few years). Halifax locals Wintersleep and Superfriendz are killer live, too. and i wish i'd had the sense to go see Big Sugar when they came through last year. Sam Roberts is great live, too. awesome rock & roll show. and for all the flak they get for being catchy pop-rock, The Trews are a talented, pop-blues-rock band, believe it or not. they did a couple Zep covers last time i saw them.

i see your point. clearly, any sort of supreme being would likely try to make itself known to any forms of life it created. but it's hard to say what kinds of religion another form of life (extra-terrestrial, we're talking, here) would take on, if any. however, who's to say that all forms of theistic (god-worshipping) religion don't believe in the same god(s) but have different interpretations thereof? any message, interpreted by humans is bound to be misunderstood, to some degree, at some point, which could account for a lot of variety in religion. much like interpretations of experimental data in cutting-edge physics. would sentient extra-terrestrial beings' faith in a strange, out-there type of religion necessarily indicate that all religion is baseless, anyway? it's really just indicative of uncertainty, which is a pretty clear-cut concept, philosophically-speaking. [the following was added in the edit; clearly i should've refreshed my browser before posting] given the astronomical (no pun intended) number of planets in the galaxy (let alone the Universe), and the Darwinian idea that life can basically adapt to most things, difficult though it may be, i'd think that it's fairly probably that there's at least life out there, somewhere. however, it's hard to say about sentient life, because it's hard to say how that comes about, anyway. maybe dolphins are sentient, and we just don't know (what are the criteria for it? would you reveal yourself as sentient to us? i wouldn't, probably.) i'd like to think there's sentient life out there, though.