From: Jessica Murray <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
To: city.windsor.on.ca
i picked some up at home hardware the other day....
thanks anyways.
j
ollie
I like going through my media chronologically, in all aspects. I started with wwi. After immersing myself in WWI media, docs, literature, art, etc for about a month, the joy of those early 20s jazz recording sprang to life and didn't seem trite in the slightest. I've actually been doing this for a couple of years now and I'm in the early 90s now. Its a fun experiment that I'd highly recommend.
I want someone to invent an app so people can build historical/chronological playlists with friends. It would be cool if people could have a best of 1990 cross media playlist to crowdsource
... or a best of 1782
jessica amber murray
i was building chronological playlists on youtube for a while, but have kind of let it sit since i moved here. 60s - 00s. plus one for "serialism" which i took a broad definition of to include any kind of abstract jazz. and i suppose i'm building something like that on my web page, slowly, although it's cross-linked to literature and other things as well. i think it's a neat idea, too. http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIx9xafrMCgYqDYIp4SK6tA/videos?view=1
ollie
I have this book, its a historical atlas of world history. I think it forms an excellent template for how people should interact with their media. Sort of like a google earth with a timeline that media could be tagged to by date.
I'm meeting with someone in the next month to develop the idea. If you have any input I'd be interested to hear about it.
I want it to be a crowdsourced documentary organiser that can serve as a tool for historical schooling.
jessica amber murray
i think that sounds like a lot of programming! i've played around with geographical lists to organize bands in scenes (montreal post-rock, or seattle grunge, or whatever) and can see the appeal to approaching music this way, at least up until about 2000 when the internet sort of abolished the local music scene by opening up the spread of ideas. the kind of isolation that created the washington/oregon punk scene probably isn't going to happen again. what we've seen more recently are scenes jumping up around hashtags. a good example of that is "chillwave". it's interesting, but is it anachronistic? and, if so, if the focus is *history*, does that matter? i was actually thinking of building something like this for my programming project. i ran it by a bunch of people and they all questioned whether there was any kind of demand for it. my answer was always "well, i'd use it.". but after thinking about it, i sort of think they're right. i mean, i like the idea - i'd use the site. but it's hard to see why people would move from spotify (although i should point out that spotify didn't exist at the time, and my idea may have been interpreted as an alternate model for spotify that took in aspects of discogs, which also didn't exist, and timeline, which also didn't exist....) or last.fm for that reason, or why the media companies would license it. i've been slowly building up a timeline on facebook, though. just my own records. just a hobby. but i do hope that, one day, it's a large resource. having something like that opened up and crowd-sourced would definitely be interesting. but, again, why would people use it instead of wikipedia, besides the gui? so, i guess my input is it's a cool idea that's going to require a lot of work and will probably have a hard time sustaining itself. but i'd use it. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jessicas-Music-Collection/505092896244390?ref=hl
ollie
I don't know a thing about programming, but the first step from my basic perspective is meta-tagging fields for detailed date information, so your date tag for Sgt. Pepper says June 1, 1967 instead of 1967.
As for local scenes being relevant or not, think of how this could be applied as an event promotion/ local media collection tool.
jessica amber murray
you'd probably end up storing it all in xml files with those tags and then putting a searchable interface over top of it for usability. the user would be able to construct a timeline of desired events by genre, individual, whatever so that timelines of 'john lennon, 1960-1980' or 'punk rock, 1976-1996' could be constructed.
ollie
Bring in the geographic tag and it becomes a historical media atlas. With a calendrical interface, people can contextualise their media historically.
Computer, what was happening in October 1962?
its already on wikipedia, just not the direct link to the media
First James Bond movie, first Beach Boys album, first Beatles single, Cuban Missile Crisis.
jessica amber murray
yeah. it's a neat idea. i wish you had asked me this five years ago, though, when i was in the right head space. right now, i'm personally more interested in building a personalized timeline that focuses on my own writing, reviews, interpretations, etc than opening it up to crowdsourcing and objective analysis. but i do think the latter would be interesting to see exist.
ollie
That's where it becomes a promotional tool.
A database for event footage so that people can familiarise themselves with a local art scene.
I'm looking forward to developing it. Know a couple of teachers who think it will be a good teaching tool for history.
I'll keep you updated.
jessica amber murray
i'll just point out that if you compare it to something like discogs or librarything, something that bogs those sites down is the user content. wildly inaccurate or borderline reviews by people that don't really know what they're talking about. i guess that's more something to worry about down the line. but i think the major usability challenge on the timeline is likely to be clutter. maybe another example to look at is the phenomena of the soundcloud comment.
ollie
I see it working more like facebook, where you add users based on the quality of their content. For instance, there would be some interest in having an Idle No More or an Oxford History department newsfeed for tagged media.
studies will show that metalcore fans will have higher rates of stress related illnesses.
(deleted)
well, they will, once the audience reaches heart attack age. which is probably not that far into the future.
well, if anybody does the studies, anyways. there's a research idea, at the least.
(deleted)
hardcore is a type of music that developed in the late 70s and early 80s, mostly out of the punk movement. early hardcore bands included the likes of bad brains, the dead kennedys and black flag. it had some influence on thrash metal bands like slayer, which is what this sounds a lot more like, and a mild, roundabout influence on progressive metal bands like dream theatre, which provide the missing piece in the equation. yet, it lacks the political messaging that defines hardcore as a genre. i'm willing to concede that this isn't as bad as the modern "metalcore" that derives itself thematically from bands like limp bizkit, but it has essentially nothing in common with hardcore as a genre. labeling it as such is really highly disingenuous; thematically and conceptually this is metal, and not punk.
i stand by my hypothesis, however, and think you're providing more evidence for it than you realize.
(deleted)
i'm actually a middle aged schizophrenic weirdo with a masters degree and a good sense of misanthropic humour, but that's a nice try.
i'll still take beethoven over rossini, though, because it has that release. this doesn't. listening to this is like bottling your emotions up until you explode....
...and arguments otherwise are basically labeling that explosion as stress relief.
(deleted)
i think release could refer equally well to an idea from music theory and a reduction of volume and/or intensity. what you're getting at is the opposite of release. it's not my fault, it's just what the word means. but i sort of explained that already, too - what you're doing is creating high amounts of tension, watching it explode and then calling it release, when what that is is either tension (relative to the first meaning) or implosion (relative to the second).
i also have to admit i don't hear a lot of chaos in this. it's very ordered.
(deleted)
yet, none of these words express relative concepts. you're consequently spouting pretentious nonsense.
what you mean to say is that the record makes full use of the spectrum, which i can mildly agree with, and also that you enjoy the adrenaline rush and subsequent burnout.
the price of this disc is going to increase dramatically if heroin users find out it produces endorphins....
(deleted)
converge is a type of progressive metal. i've used the term thrash in this thread and would continue to. they don't draw much influence from hardcore (which preceded them by a good ten years) and never did.
certainly, converge and dillinger are more similar to each other than either are to black flag or bad brains or minor threat or....
From: the city of windsor
To: "death.to.koalas@gmail.com" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
Hi Jessica.
I just wanted to let you know that you can come down to pick up your new boxes. We are located at 3540 North Service Road East (corner of EC Row & Central Ave.)
We are open from 8:00 am to 4:00pm. I will just have you write down your name and address and then you can collect your boxes.
tomhulcelover
how are you gonna say the beatles ripped off of journey? haha didn't that beatles song come out before?
deathtokoalas
that's right. these are all rip-offs of let it be.
most shocking statement of the century, said nobody: all pop music is ripped off from the beatles.
...although the dude that pointed out that it's just a basic mathematically correct chord progression is also right, even though it just obscures the reality that pop music has been stuck in tonal stasis since the 1700s. people in mozart's time frame wouldn't have insulted you for your lack of originality if you had played something with a mathematically correct structure, they would have accused you of channeling satan and destroying music if you deviated from a proper chord progression.
the mathematics of tonality underlie the primary reason that creativity and popularity go together so seldomly and are often defined more by atmospheric changes rather than tonal shifts. if you want people to react well to your music, you need to conform to the mathematics underlying harmony. it's consequently us, the consumers, that drive a lack of originality in popular media.
that's all this is really pointing out.
tomhulcelover
umm ok
deathtokoalas
the channeling of satan part is historically completely accurate. chopin is one example. and beethoven was regularly accused of trying to destroy music (and, in fact, was.). let alone, you know, ozzy.
the intervals and shifts that we interpret as acceptable are precisely the intervals and shifts that the church declared to be acceptable. that's not a coincidence.
tomhulcelover
dude, im sorry but i dont really care
deathtokoalas
seems like you do to me. whatever.
Tom Alma
Bear in mind that Waltzing Matilda was around a long time before The Beatles...
deathtokoalas
sure. and celtic folk, as we know it, came from renaissance lute music. most of the songs in the list, though, are let it be, including the journey tune. i was more drawing attention to the background that it all has in sanctioned christian tonality (itself derived from pythagorean number mysticism).
babalooey100
Cool I thought the Pythagoreans only played triangles .
deathtokoalas
except that pythagoras (who was head of a philosophical school that fused number theory and music theory into a kind of buddhist mysticism) stole his theorem about parallelism (which is actually wrong in the geometry we live in) from chaldean sages while he was stumbling through babylonia searching for wisdom, and they themselves probably ripped it off from the egyptians, who probably stole it from atlantis and/or aliens, at which point our history currently begins and we can't go back any further.
Jimmy Greer
Uhhhh, dumbass....the reason Mozart and them could be more creative is because they've got about 60 more instruments to use than your average rock n roll band.
deathtokoalas
yeah, that makes perfect sense, you illiterate nincompoop.
in terms of creativity, the beatles blow mozart out of the water, and it's precisely because they're on the other side of the abolition of a set of rules that mozart was expected to follow. nobody talks about mozart's creativity - because he was not a creative artist. rather, people hold him up as the finest example of a dullard who followed the set of proper conventions, as they were pushed down from the hierarchy above.
if you're going to bother, try and keep up. but i'd rather you just shut the fuck up.
Aussie Dave
Mozart was amazing
deathtokoalas
you could create a computer algorithm, call it "mozart" and lose nothing of value from the original. i suppose there will always be those that praise form over function, but creative is not the correct way to describe his music.
Matthew Joseph Harrington
Too many notes for you?
deathtokoalas
you don't even realize that you have no idea what you're talking about....
i mean, i'd like to produce a witty come back, but it just doesn't make any sense. it's, like, not even wrong.
BryanPiekarski
You're crazy. "All pop music is ripped off from The Beatles." Unless this statement was satirical, in which case, I retract my comment.
deathtokoalas
i don't even think it's controversial.
BryanPiekarski
The Beatles definitely did have a lasting impact on popular music, their music spawned a lot of copycat bands trying to copy their sound and success throughout the 60s, but The Beatles were pretty much gone by the 70s. Besides, The Beatles were no where near as influential to even rock n' roll as the likes of Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry.
deathtokoalas
i don't see any use in arguing with hipster revisionists about something that is not considered controversial by anybody with the slightest bit of understanding on the topic.
you probably don't realize that the beatles actually changed the rules of music theory when it comes to harmony, which is what the video is about. there was music before and after the beatles. there are very few artists that can make that sort of claim. you can talk about bach, beethoven, debussy....and the beatles are next in line. there hasn't really been a shift away from this yet, but there have been a few near misses (kurt cobain's concept of harmony was radically different, but he didn't have enough of an effect on what followed to cause a shift. reznorian tonality has been recently seeping into pop music (see the most recent avril lavigne song for an example) but it is repackaged impressionism.).
i mean, you don't even seem to realize that buddy holly and chuck berry existed about ten years before the beatles did anything worth listening to, or pushed through the changes that i'm talking about. 50s, 60s...same thing, right?
BryanPiekarski
I don't understand your last paragraph. You seem to agree with me but you're also berating me?
deathtokoalas
chuck berry and buddy holly belong to the era that existed before the beatles. they were both influential on the beatles, chuck berry moreso, but trying to compare their influence is basically a category error. it's like comparing michael jackson to kanye west.
in terms of direct influence, it's a joke to suggest either one of them even come close to the influence the beatles left. in terms of their influence on music, they are only important in terms of the artists they influenced, which would also include the rolling stones and the who and pink floyd and many others. and, if you want to play the game of stringing things backwards, you have to string it back further than the 50s, and you have to consequently conclude that neither one of them deserves more than a footnote in history - neither did much more than market traditional folk and blues arrangements that were written well before they were born.
the beatles transcended all of that, and in the process changed the very fabric of what pop music actually is.
BryanPiekarski
is 1957 to 1964 really a huge cap in time? "neither deserves more than a footnote in history" lol. What did The Beatles really change? Their impact doesn't seem to resonate today as it did throughout the 1960s.
deathtokoalas
you think that because you don't understand the changes they made.
the britpop movement aside, every time you hear a string section in a pop song ballad, that's the beatles. and, as i've mentioned they're responsible for a shift in tonality. shifting tonality is gigantic. there's only a handful of artists that can state that, and i listed them already.
you admittedly have to stretch a little to pull metal out of helter skelter, or techno out of tommorrow never knows, but the blunt reality is that these were the beginnings of those genres. and, they of course hold a central place in psychedelic and progressive music; you can hear their influence still across that spectrum, from tame impala to radiohead to the mars volta.
but, in terms of chord progressions, the key is that shift in tonality that they pushed, with the help of george martin.
speaking of michael jackson and the beatles, most people don't know that michael spent a good deal of his childhood living with paul mccartney. it's known they collaborated a bit, but paul did a lot of ghost writing and michael mostly relied on his producers so the extent of his involvement in michael's work is a bit of an open question, in my mind.
the influence of those five dudes is really just immeasurable.
...and as for lennon's work in the 70s, it's worth noting that he wrote what is probably david bowie's biggest hit (fame), amongst other things.
i'm not kneejerking. the death of mandela is a good opportunity to draw the world's attention to the fact that, in truth, not much in south africa has actually changed.
i think this article makes some valid points, but it goes a little too far and in the process exposes the author's reactionary white privilege.
my reading of mandela is essentially that he didn't really know what he was doing. he campaigned from the left based on it's ideals and then found himself in power at the confluence of the collapse of communism and the rise of neo-liberalism. he followed his advisers to the implementation of failed reforms.
i've compared him to trudeau before and will again. people attack trudeau for his economic policies. the truth is trudeau didn't actually understand anything about economics, he was a lawyer with an interest in philosophy, and if you spend some time searching through his biography and reading some of his statements you'll realize he admitted as much. on the one hand, trudeau took power in an economic mess - nixon shock, opec embargo, collapse of keynesian economic theory. even if he did have a clue, the challenges were substantial. he would have had to rely on advice, regardless. and we now know that the experts studying the situation were as flabbergasted as anybody else.
so, trudeau - a social liberal by any concept of the term and one with a background in workplace organizing that ran on an election platform that promised direct democracy - ended up carrying out experiments on behalf of milton friedman. canada liked monetarism before it was cool. and trudeau had no idea what he was implementing.
likewise, when mandela's advisers came to him and presented trickle down as a solution, he went for it because he trusted the advice and believed it was the way forward in a post-communist future. the task, now, is to point out that it failed. there's no need to vilify and no value in it.
---
this article is very similar to points i made elsewhere.
it's hardly a "secret history"; it's available in any encyclopedia, even.
further, when you look at the video, it's not even clear that obama realized what he was doing. it just looks like he's shaking hands on a line. it even looks like he asks raul who he actually is and sort of cringes when he realizes it.
but this puts the silly media response into proper context: you really can't "celebrate the legacy of nelson mandela" WITHOUT shaking castro's hand in some way or another.
"For the Normans never desired any of the Lombards to win a decisive victory, in case this should be to their disadvantage. But now supporting the one and then aiding the other, they prevented anyone being completely ruined."
as professional soldiers, the normans didn't want to see an end to conflict in italy. that would have been bad for business. every time it looked like one of the princes had an upper hand, they'd bail to join forces with a smaller prince in order to ensure the war didn't end. they'd go back and forth up the countryside, reconquering the same areas over and over again for different princes. nobody really trusted them, but nobody knew how to get rid of them, either - that they were there was a fact of life, and, certainly, nobody wanted to *fight* them.
it's amazing how little things have changed....
this is a good case study, though, in explaining how abolishing the state and maintaining currency exchange will not eliminate war.
has there been a discussion around cultural appropriation and the nutcracker suite? is it even really christmas music?
dunno. but this arrangement for classical guitar is a personal favourite.
in all truth, the spanish dance sounds like german music. i'll give tchaikovsky free reign with the russian dance. the arabic dance should probably be called the chechen dance or something; it might not sound like something from the heart of the arab world, but russia has a very large muslim population with it's own culture and you can sort of hear a synthesis between russian and muslim ideas in a way that kind of makes sense, if you only assume that the composer had no real understanding of anything south of the caucasus mountains. and, likewise, tchaikovsky's concept of "chinese" probably relates more to mongolian settlement in central russia than to anything legitimately sinic. russian/mongolian as a hybrid culture is also a pretty real thing.
but, i'm missing the point. i don't want to comment on the actual ballet other than to concede any points about trivialization as entirely valid.
the thing is that the composer was probably mostly working with scales, modes and tonalities. we can debate the value of doing so, but starting off on a specific note is said - within western music theory - to have an ethnic character. so, there is a "spanish mode" and an "arabic mode". and there is a real correlation there. that's probably the extent to which tchaikovsky made any attempt to sound genuine.
that's how davis got the name of this jam. it's not spanish in any way, it's just phrygian.
so, i just watched a three hour mit food security symposium and what i learned is that, because meat consumption is correlated with wealth, the best way to promote the shift to vegetarianism is to promote policies that decrease total wealth.
they weren't even asking the right questions. so of course they didn't have any useful answers.
they danced around the climate change issue, but the closest thing to a straight answer i could pull out what was "we find that the greater uncertainty makes it difficult to make predictions, and consequently to plan".
it's fair on some level. but it's not encouraging.
what they're all more concerned about is malthus...
first, i should point out the sarcasm if it's not obvious. to them, the issue is trying to find a way to produce enough livestock to feed 8 billion people. the idea of not producing livestock seems to be outside of the ideas being contemplated.
but, malthus. he thought we'd all starve to death. a simple mathematical model.
it turned out he was wrong, but he was wrong for a specific reason: as quickly as population has risen, and it has risen quickly, technology has simply moved ahead faster: mechanization, refrigeration, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides...
that doesn't mean his model was wrong, it just means he didn't realize how useful oil would be.
of course, there's a cost.
but these guys get that. and now they have the blind faith that malthus was screaming at us all to avoid. technology has been elevated to this sort of religion, defined by some kind of creed of moore's law.
well, i'm willing to listen. skeptical. i mean, it has to burst at some point. tomatoes are finite.
infinite tomato.
anyways, what's your fancy technology that's going to beat the math this time? i'm waiting...
it's....
africa.
no, for real.
africa.
well, ok. africa is huge. makes sense on some level. that's math you have to do with a pen and a paper, not guess in your head - not due to computational complexity, but because the precision of the calculation is important. there is probably lots of arable land in africa, which is a really unfathomably big place. it just might work...
but, you're going to work in the effects of desertification, right?
*crickets*
you're going to make sure there's carbon offsetting from cutting down all those trees, right?
*crickets*
here, in the heart of the empire? we'll be the last to starve.
i'm going to retreat back to my previous suggestion of terraforming mars into a natural strawberryological cycle.
we could promote it by getting strawberry shortcake to do a rendition of "strawberry rain".
no cryptoracism.
"the red planet". wouldn't even create galactic chromopollution.
the WTO panel found that the FIT program did not qualify as an excluded procurement because, in its opinion, the energy purchased by the Ontario Power Authority was resold on commercial terms by the Government of Ontario and other public hydro entities. The Appellate Body agreed that the program did not benefit from the GATT exemption for procurement but for narrower, more complicated reasons. Their decision hinged on the fact that under the FIT program, the product to which the discriminatory local content requirements applied was generation equipment, while the product actually purchased by the Ontario government was electricity. In the Appellate Body’s view, the domestic content quota could not be said to “govern” the procurement of electricity, and therefore fell outside the scope of the exclusion.
so, if i were running the province, and i wanted to be a smartass, i could suggest that the wto ruling is calling for nationalization of the energy sector.
coal is one thing as there's a major input variable, but if water is publicly owned and wind and sun aren't owned at all i don't see why we should open power plant construction up to the private sector. that is to say that i don't see any reason why the government shouldn't build solar and wind and water plants and run them on cost; i don't see why we should collectively agree to allow somebody to profit off of generation.
it's not about market rules or natural laws, it's just about what one decides is "fair". and, of course, about business controlling government and saying "no, we won't allow this, we can profit off of it.".
i mean, the price of electricity in this theoretical grid doesn't actually measure anything except supply/demand, which is artificially manipulated. it's pretty much just a fiat scheme by a handful of wily business people. and i really don't see why we should pay into it.
there was a big kerfuffle a while back about being taxed for breathing, but we're increasingly getting to the reality where we're paying (quite a bit) for sunlight.
ok, i know that the status quo is frightened of the idea of free food.
and i know that carleton university admin represents the neo-liberal status quo, if not something quite a bit to the right of it. this is the same university that recently named a building after preston manning and has been propping up a student union that wants to shut down it's public interest research group chapter. it wants to market itself as a Conservative Party university.
but connecting these two things into such a brazenly anti-communitarian action is really something else. it's a bunch of kids growing carrots. chill out...
i realize they don't see it as kids growing carrots, they see it as COMMUNISTS!!!!!111 growing carrots. and they're not wrong, really. but there's a more disturbing undercurrent.
first, the hypocrisy. this is the same administration that will support a "free speech wall". as is usually the case with authority, "free speech" means "sanctioned free speech". and "free food" with a (anarcho-)communist message isn't sanctioned free speech.
there's this tendency to blame the whole thing on an exclusive contract that the school has signed with a big catering company. it seems like a rational explanation. it creates the right boogeyman. but if you spend any time on campus, you'll notice that christian groups (and specifically christian groups) don't have any problems getting an exception to the exclusive contract.
...meaning that you're only allowed to hand out free food at carleton under the condition that the school approves your message, and the message the school approves is essentially thatcherism: free market economics and churches for social work.
it seems like it's not just an explicitly anti-leftist thing. i mean, it's clear that the school doesn't want leftists in the tunnels handing out food, and that's part of it. but it's also clear that if you want to try to do any kind of socially sort of thing that's not specifically connected to christianity, you're going to get harassed. it's a very exclusive message they're pushing, to try not just to decrease the role of leftism but also to increase the role of religion.
it would be scary if it wasn't right out of engels. vulgar marxism to it's absolute extreme.
what these kids might have to start doing is co-opting the church groups. in some sense, that's multi-tasking.
mandela was the perfect neo-liberal: campaigned on the left, governed on the HARD RIGHT.
Far from presiding over a “post-apartheid” South Africa, the popular-front Tripartite Alliance of the ANC, SACP and Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has instituted a neo-apartheid capitalist regime, still subjugating the impoverished black working people in the interests of the same capitalist masters.
born:
died: 1524/1525
father: john wishart[1]
mother: janet lindsay [1]
spouse 1: janet lindsay [1]
child: james wishart[1]
spouse 2: elizabeth learmount [1]
child: george wishart, martyr[1]
"justice clerk and king's advocate". note that this source is
silent on the relationship between the two janet lindsays, while
internet sources claim they were cousins. i do not have any further
information at this time.
gorgeous day. took advantage of it by finally taking the hour long trek out to get a blue bin and a red bin. i wasn't expecting them to be so big (well, i could have grabbed tiny ones, but that seemed silly - no middle or 'normal' size was the weirdness). so i looked pretty odd hauling these two giant bins around for 5 km. not sure if the honks were sarcastic or in solidarity...
it was a nice walk, though. and it'll be nice to get these four month old juice cartons out of here.
and now i'm kinda sleepy. so i think i'll get back to deconstructing this so-called history of the norman invasions of italy as a bunch of mythical nonsense.
you got all these people trying to convince the world that their mythology is history. i'm more interested in convincing the world that history is mostly mythology.
an "evident fiction" connects this landholder further back in time
to the scottish crown, suggesting he was descended from a robert who was
the great-grandson of david I. this robert doesn't seem to have
actually existed. yet, he is said to have "slaughtered the saracens",
saracen being a sort of slang for "muslim" that was widely used to refer
to the arab conquerors of sicily. so, it is fitting that a second
legend connects "wishart" to "guiscard" and suggests a possible norman
background. "robert guiscard" was a historical figure who is known for
conquering the arab conquerors of sicily and setting up a medieval
norman kingdom there. his relatives in france adopted the name.
as the wishart family seems to have it's earliest historical
mention in england around the year 1200, during the period of norman
control over england, the second legend seems to be more realistic; the
first seems to actually be a nationalist myth to cover up norman roots.
david I parceled out many plots of lands to norman knights as he
converted scotland into a feudal society. a plausible theory, then, is
that the wishart family was of norman descent and came to scotland via
england during the reign of david I, and that this was converted into
descent from david I in order to naturalize their rule over the scottish
serfs.
this much seems to be established (see [2]).
however, the descent directly from robert guiscard has not been
preserved by history, if it is true at all. we can surmise that the
process of conversion from norman to scottish ethnicity turned robert
guiscard into robert, an illegitimate descendant of david I. however,
there is no actual proof of this, and attempting to descend anybody at
all from robert guiscard seems to be fraught with difficulties. more
likely is that the descent comes from one of the norman aristocrats that
adopted "guiscard" as a surname - a brother or a nephew or something
else along those lines. of specific note, there seem to have been three
sons of tancred that spent their whole lives in normandy and that
history did not see fit to record descendants of; see the tancred de hauteville
page for a further discussion. so, i've set the descent back to robert
guiscard's father, tancred de hauteville. at this higher level of
generality, descent of some sort is actually quite probable, even if the
exact descent has been lost.
From: Jessica Murray <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
To: pubwork@city.windsor.on.ca
hi.
i'm just wondering how stringent they are about "home owner". i'm living in a rental unit that isn't currently recycling. can i pick up a blue and red box myself or do i need to convince my landlord to do it?
From: Jessica Murray <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
To: the initial landlord
hi.
things are good in here. shower's working. heat's working. happy about things.
i'm just wondering what the deal with the washing machine is? i do laundry infrequently. i can wait a few weeks for it to come back up. but if it's going to be longer than that, i think i should hit a laundromat.
j
why are the russians being so coy about this that they nearly come off as naive idiots?
what i've been reading into this is that the sanctions backfired, and the only way to stop iran from becoming a chinese puppet state (and 'losing it' permanently) was to backpedal.
surely, the russians don't expect the americans to show consistency and logic in their policies....? who's running the place, khruschev?
hey, barack? there's a conference call on line 1 with leonard nimoy and the ghost of khruschev; they claim your missile shield defense policy is now highly illogical, and should be re-examined at once.
mmhmm. well, i know it sounds naive, barack, but that's what they're saying. should i patch you through?
if the russians weren't so consistently naive, we'd have fought, like, 8 world wars since 1945. mad has nothing on this; what's kept the world turning all these years is nothing more than the incredible naivete of the russian state.
"well, vlad, i know we've broken every promise we've ever made, and unilaterally discarded the last 17...is it 19?...ok, the last 19 bilateral treaties we signed, but that's exactly why it's so important that you trust us, now, going forward."
smiley-face dmitri? looked like such a nice guy, didn't he?
and, boy, did we ever take advantage of his dumb naive ass. ahahahahaha...
the flip side of this is that if the russians ever stop being such naive pushovers, the world's going to run into some problems.
or, stated differently? the chinese government is not nearly as naive.
this strikes me as a likely performance art - or at least could/should have been. it's consequently hard to get a solid grasp on the awfulness of people.
i mean, i could imagine the meme: toaster steve. wants to die using toaster. does not use bathtub.
there's a legitimate level of comedy in watching somebody try to commit suicide and epically failing at it. i mean, in a life full of failure, you'd think he could at least get that right?
toaster steve. can't even commit suicide without failing.
but the comedy only applies either after the failure (and i'm sure he'll look back and laugh - and whether it was real or not, i'm sure it was meant to be funny, in a twisted way), or under the broad understanding that the whole thing is a skit. so, how many of the people commenting thought they were watching a joke?
on the other side, there's the wall of separation between reality and fantasy that video provides. even it is real, it's hard to see it as real given the media.
so, it's easy to be like "people are fucking terrible creatures", but i'm not convinced this wasn't staged - or at least that most people *thought* it was staged. that makes a big difference.
not that there aren't better reasons to be misanthropic.
blowback from the neo-liberal brainwashing machine that is designed to foster selfishness and self-interest could very well tear down the empire from the inside.
western propaganda. the political spectrum in the ukraine is defined by nato and russian puppets, who are fighting for control. the thing is this: while the western media runs stories on these pro-nato demonstrations, they don't run stories on the pro-russian demonstrations. which are usually bigger. much bigger.
ukraine wants to maintain it's sovereignty, but it does not want to leave the russian sphere of influence. it can't stay out of it for long.
speaking of which, we're kind of due for an anti-western reaction in eastern europe. the idea that countries like poland and lithuania belong in the western sphere is not sustainable. expect that in the near future.
how do they get away with printing this shit? "But of course Iran is not Japan -- a peaceful, stable democracy aligned with the West. It is a bloody-minded, terror-sponsoring, hegemony-seeking revisionist power that has serially violated its non-proliferation commitments and which aims to destroy Israel, drive America out of the Middle East, and bring down the House of Saud. Whether or not President Obama fully appreciates that distinction, the Saudis most definitely do."
the saudis, on the other hand, are a paragon of rights and virtues?
if this administration wants to demonstrate that it has a shred of decency and credibility, it should extend the sanctions regime to the saudis - who really *are* everything the propaganda machine spews out about iran, and worse.
the idea of crackpot wahhabi extremists with their fingers on the button is infinitely more startling.
this was predictable. what the americans are showing us here is how it is that rights are merely bourgeois fantasies.
legally and realistically speaking, i can't see how the current supreme court is going to rule against religious freedom in this context.
really, what it demonstrates is why health care should not be controlled by employers. and why the aca is not a long term solution.
i don't think it's an accident that the show skipped over the mennonite issue. most people would intuitively agree that it's wrong to force a religious organization to act against it's own principles like this. but the greater question is why it's on their plate in the first place.
well, bob, remember: the only alternative to nationalization is socialization. the state has two choices: it can do what people wants or it can be crushed by an angry mob that enforces what it wants. in the meantime, you can try and steal some taxes from us as you're waiting. but you can't actually ignore us.
this idea of ruling people is completely out-dated.
the ep has a lot of shape to it. always the best autechre. this is the climax/conclusion. it's really gorgeous as it is, in a way that only autechre is capable of, but it makes more sense if you listen to it in context.
yeah. the pope wants to be a politician...
i hope somebody shoots him in the face before he builds up too large of an audience. about the last thing the world needs right now is a rise in christian fundamentalism.
basically, i don't care what he has to say because the office he holds is too tainted to take any of it seriously and the threat he poses, as a religious leader, is too profound to negate any positivity he might be faking to gain power.
the media is being very irresponsible in giving him a platform. unplug his mic. send him back to the vatican. send his followers to school. let us move on...
this is sort of peripheral to the argument (which i think is not existing in this reality; middle america is not in any way represented by wall street), but why does the bourgeoisie get interesting music while the rest of us are stuck with boring folk garbage? this is a strain of thought that has long bothered me about leftists, this desire to avoid any kind of art that might be engaged with intellectually. instead, why can't we abolish folk as primitivist snoredom and embrace serious music for all?
i mean, the whole point of reducing labour through socialism is to free up time for learning and art. without art, we'd might as well just throw ourselves into the machines as sacrifices to the production process...
ok, i know how the power dynamics on this side of the iron curtain (which has shifted significantly east) work, but why the deafening silence on perspectives from russia and china? or analyses on how the greater geo-political deal plays into it?
i stated this before it happened: the americans need to pull back, because the iranians are getting friendly with the chinese - largely as a result of the sanctions. i mean, the market for their products collapsed. no americans. no europeans. that was supposed to collapse the economy, and maybe it did to an extent. but china and india remained standing with open arms, and the result was predictable - closer trade ties between china and iran, along with talks about joining the sco.
major oops.
but the media is just focusing on obama's toughness. of course. not oops, but strong negotiating. when obama scratches his ass, he needs to use a special tool because his fingers are made of steel. cower before his might.
not to pick on him, it's the system; same as bush before, same as whomever follows.
but, why no analysis from the other side? the chinese government is a fucking cult, no hope there. but do i need to start reading ria novosti again or what?
it's always so hard to tell when bros yelling at each other are being serious or not. you've gotta give it three or four back-and-forths of "come here, bitch", "i'm over here, bitch", "you wanna fight, bitch?", etc before the volume either goes up or down enough to figure it out and, consequently, you know whether to shake your head at their misogynistic attempts to verbally jostle each other into a joking submission or get out of the way while they pointlessly harm each other for entirely trivial reasons.
silly bros.
ok, be honest - how many of you know that north african pirates used to plunder the atlantic coast of europe in order to capture slaves, women and money? that there was a "european slave trade"? that cities like lisbon, london and amsterdam were victims of attacks?
how many of you know that there was a "slavic slave trade" across eastern europe? well, maybe you've realized that slave is etymologically the same as 'slav'. that is to say that the english word for slave is identical to an ethnic term that means 'slavic speaking'. slavery, in english, is etymologically a white concept; slavic speakers live in eastern europe: czechs, poles, slovaks, serbs, modern macedonians and bulgarians, ukrainians, russians...not romanians and hungarians but most other people around there...
but, how many of you know that the mongols used to capture slavic slaves in the areas around russia, poland, the ukraine and transport them either across asia or across the black sea (to the turks) to work as slaves? that there were polish slaves working under the yuan dynasty? that slavs were slaves because they were enslaved by east asian peoples - turks and mongols?
beyond the muslim turkish colonization and enslavement of the white slavic eastern european peoples, how many of you know about the janissary system? this was a particularly brutal type of turkish colonialism. they would go from village to village in eastern europe, kidnap the kids and then raise them to be soldiers - that they would send out towards the next set of villages. each generation of captured children would be the next generation of imperial soldiers, to carry on the crescent's reign of terror. they were finally stopped in vienna. austria. check out a map. that's western europe. on the other side, they were stopped (much earlier) near tours by charlemagne's grandfather. tours. check a map. that's fucking northern france!
so, something that happened during the middle ages was that europe was in the process of being colonized by imperialist muslims and mongols. first by arabs on the west coast, then by turks (with the help of capitalist venetians, mind you) in the east. after the colonization period stagnated, there were still slave raids along the coasts until as late as the early 1800s.
the only point i'm trying to make is about *knowledge*. how many of you had any idea of these things? remotely?
we're obsessed with denying the positive effects of mental difference to try and induce greater productivity amongst atomized individuals. conformity. we should be obsessed with constructing systems that allow for full freedom of creative exploration, leaving mundane modes of existence to machines and opening up *social* pathways for greater creative productivity. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/2013/11/22/creativity-madness-and-drugs
Nor Easter
Arcade Fire are an embarrassment to art. They copy, they imitate, and they do it with disgusting pretension. They have NO new ideas. Hope they all die in a fire soon.
Futur Incertain UncertainFutur
The Beatles started up copying some of the american rythm & blues, the same with the Stones. Madonna ripped off some of Blondie'S stuff and most of the disco era. Gaga is stealing her (?) ideas from just about everyone.....Motown sound came from a blend of blues and rock, Jazz came from Blues and on and on.......so, tell me what in this is true original music without any influence at all?
deathtokoalas +Parhasard57 the same criticism applies to all that crap, though. there's been heaps of original music released in the last 50 years (some of it by the beatles, after they grew out of their mop top phase) but it contradicts the logic of capitalism to try and sell an unfamiliar product so it gets virtually zero promotion. case in point: madonna actually came out of a really creative music scene. the second most popular band in that circle of people was sonic youth, who you've probably heard of. have you heard of swans? jim thirlwell? lydia lunch? glenn branca? john zorn? it was all there at the same time, it all could have been marketed, but one was an easy product that appeals to base desires and the rest challenged people to reconsider their preconceptions of what music even is.
but, the great composers all die penniless and unknown. so it's not like this is anything new.
Futur Incertain UncertainFutur +deathtokoalas I agree with most of what you wrote; and I know and/or heard some of the bands and artists you mentioned, heck you could have included many more but the point being about Art. I never thought someone would get up one morning and say: hum, today, i will write music that is Art. All those musicians do what they feel and wish to play, with basically one goal in mind: go further as a musician, or explore the limits of what they like. It is not easy for me to explain my train of thoughts since I speak French usually. And let's keep i mind how Art is not objective but rather subjective, in music as well as in painting.
So, all this to say that, although there are forms of music that are tasteless and formated that will please some, but there is also some music that MAY not achieve the status of true or pure art but may contain a vast sum of qualities. You see, many are praying Warhol as a genius but to me, it's «meh».
The bottom line being: nobody will never come up with a bunch of songs that will please each and everyone because as i said, it is a subjective medium, what is art to you may be shit to someone else. It's an endless debate.
oh, as far as «the great composers all died penniless», yeah some did but I believe Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, RAchmaninoff, Liszt and a few more did not do so bad.....Or Zappa for that matter.
Robert DeCreon +Parhasard57 It's interesting you say that, because I think Beatles and Floyd were actually pretty original, altough of course they had their inspirations, they took it all from LSD and their incredible mind. Why do you think Beatles is considered the best artist ever? Because of their inventions to the music.
deathtokoalas
that's right. the arcade fire do not belong to the same category as the beatles or floyd. their early material is better compared to something like the beegees, and they seem to have recently entered an abba phase.
you're allowed to enjoy the product, but it's not art. and it's not fair to artists to think of it as art.
Trevor Johnston +deathtokoalas I am sick of the beatles as "the best band" Best band of their time but they were basically pop themselves with there melodies and simple playing. Its music, its what you like, every body has their favorites. I listen to Floyd but I find most of the beatles stuff simple, except there later experimental stuff.
deathtokoalas +Trevor Johnston i pointed out a few posts back that i mean the material after and including revolver. early beatles up to that point is not creative and does not qualify as art. it qualifies as a successful product, but the reason it was a successful product is that it wasn't challenging.
but, no, it's not subjective, and i'm really fucking sick of fucking lazy capitalist idiots refusing to have the intellectual courage to acknowledge what is creative and what isn't. it's not interchangeable. it's not equivalent. it's not all fucking product designed to turn a dime to trickle it's way up the supply chain. it's not simply what butters your toast. there is a very clear, objective difference between producing for the sake of creativity and producing for the sake of profit.
again: if you want to listen to bland, cloned-over capitalist garbage then there's a million bands like arcade fire out there for you to explore. just don't call it art. please. it's not worthy.
Robert DeCreon
I'm not saying that Arcade Fire shall belong to a category like Beatles and Floyd belong to, but they are not like the Beeges or ABBA. Do you even know the meaning of the whole album? It's art, specially in this awful time that songs have no emotion or lyrical meaning.
deathtokoalas
i think the beegees/abba comparison is pretty good, actually. these bands were massively popular in their time and are mostly forgotten today. that will be the legacy of the arcade fire.
but if you want a more precise comparison, i'm going to draw attention to two bands: u2 and my chemical romance.
a few years ago, mcr swung out of being a bon jovi cover band and released this awful thing that was some kind of attempt to merge sgt peppers with the smashing pumpkins. reflector draws heavily from the black parade in the sense of stealing it's concept from sgt peppers.
musically, though, they've pulled a sort of ultra-paradoxical phase on u2's post-modern 90s phase. when u2 did the zooropa tour, it was a tongue-in-cheek parody on popular culture, a satire of over-the-top consumerism. the arcade fire have taken that sound and stripped it of it's irony. on one hand, it sort of makes bono look brilliant, in hindsight. but it all draws together the conclusion that this is designed solely to move units, rather than to say anything worthwhile.
Futur Incertain UncertainFutur +deathtokoalas Dear Koalas.....I have to say I've rarely read such self-indulging comments. According to you, only you and a few others are capable of real Art! Wow, talk about being full of yourself . If I follow your saying, anything that is not like what you do is shit! You sound more like a jealous musician envying anybody's success. Here's the thing: Art is not restrain to sheer creation...it is also a matter of perceptions, communication and expressions. Visual arts are so diversified, it would be prententious to point only one form as being THE one. Same goes with music. The very first goal of music is to communicate either a message, or a state of mind, or an opportunity to explore some personnal ideas. To negate anything not complying with your own taste, is a proof of a limited mind....the same applies to those pissing on anything they don't get. All you,ve been writing here is a total lack of respect for anything YOU don't like......no wonder your band is not doing much.......talking TO people will bring you more than talking DOWN to someone. Good luck, anyway.
Robert DeCreon +deathtokoalas Please don't take this as rude, but I'm glad your opinion it's just minority. You're saying like it's fact but it's acutally just a selfish declaration that you try to convince other it's a fact. Again I have to ask you: Do you know the meaning of this or the whole album? ABBA, Beeges, MCR, Bon Jovi or whatever other band you cited there (no ofense to someone who likes them) aren't capable of doing such thing. You're only showing at every comment you say that you're wrong and that you have no idea what art really is. You're thinking that art is the same that POPULAR, and POP things these days are only shit. So if Arcade Fire made sucess these days I would be surprised, because people have no capacity to recognize this as art from so much shit they have in their minds. Please don't think i'm a cunt after all these things I have said, I'm trying to be lovely at best way possible. If Arcade Fire weren't popular in a past time then you could say they are equal as Beeges and ABBA.
You're seeing the music in a intelectual level. Don't do that, music isn't supposed to be seeing that way, yet feeling it with passion. AF doesn't need to a new Beatles to change people's life or something. I'm just happy that they have the courage to put something like that in market against all others pop artists and still being considered in the top 10 albums of 2013.
Futur Incertain UncertainFutur +deathtokoalas One last thing: your self-indulging mind seems to confuse taste with critics.....Your point of view is one about taste not what is Art. I cannot beleive you pose yourself as a music «critic» on your post.....to do so, you need to be impartial and able to recognise qualities in most musics made. Anything else is a matter of personnal taste and yours seems rather limited.
deathtokoalas +Parhasard57 you've misunderstood me. i can cite a lot of art i don't really like. early kraftwerk would be an example. stockhausen, to a lesser extent. schoenberg, for sure. i find this stuff prodding and boring, but i realize it was created to push boundaries and not to move units. it consequently qualifies as art; my reaction to it is secondary. your reaction is pretty standard, though: conscientiously or not, you've taken the capitalist perspective of leaving the value of art up to markets and then accused me of trying to restrict the market. no. i'm rejecting the concept of art as a product altogether by separating out that which is meant to make money from that which is meant to be creative.
in broad terms, my perspective is closer to the historical norm whereas you're conforming to the existing neo-liberal anomaly of reducing everything to a price tag. i don't want to really think in those terms, though. i want to think in terms of a post-capitalist paradigm where the exchange of currency for art is abolished. in this proposed future post-lefist understanding of art, collectives like the arcade fire would for the most part cease to exist because they'll have lost their profit motive.
deathtokoalas +Robert DeCreon if i was criticizing a robert johnson track, i could see your reaction making sense. i could even see it making sense in reaction to something like nirvana. but, this is hardly gut-wrenching music that is going to move anybody on an emotional level. i mean, that's ultimately the basis of my criticism: this is a cold, emotionless product. it exists purely on an intellectual level in the first place, so that's the right way to deconstruct it.
Robert DeCreon + deathtokoalas Your comments are just... idiot. You keep citing Robert Johnsonn, Kraftwerk, Schoenberg, and many others things that it seens like you're trying to show that you're a badass intellectual who studied music and knows what you're talking about yet you are just playing fool here. If you were only saying "I didn't like this album" or "I don't like Arcade Fire" it would be okay, but you keep saying nonsense things instead of just speaking, let's say, casually. Youtube it's not a fucking professional critics...
“How can I stay in any field and continue to prove theorems if the fundamental notions I’m using are problematic?” asks Peter Koellner, a professor of philosophy at Harvard University who specializes in mathematical logic.
yeah, i hear you. i didn't even make it that far before i gave up. i mean, i switched to math because physics was clearly bullshit, only to find out that math was also bullshit.
worse, nobody seemed to care. "bullshit or not, i still get paid, right?". fuck this, give me my guitar....
i think they need to take a step back with the axiom of choice, actually. it needs to be weaker: an axiom of countable choice. once they do that, a lot of this debate gets sort of meaningless.
and as far the "continuum hypothesis"? well, note the name. hypothesis. hypotheses are to be determined using empirical methods, not converted into axioms. the undecidability of the statement seems to somehow verify this, in a strange kind of way.
so, we should be constructivist about it. if we can build a set with cardinality between that of the reals and naturals, then one exists. if we cannot demonstrate the truth of the negation, we should remain agnostic. the addition of new axioms may be verified for other reasons, and may have an effect on what can be deduced, but should not be affected by one's intuitive/arbitrary views on the truth of the continuum hypothesis.
and to stick with that step backwards, we should be constructivist about our choice functions. these abstract choice functions strike me as entirely incoherent nonsense. and they lead to ridiculous conclusions that are observably false.
if you're following this, you're going to think i'm some kind of completely dour wet blanket that seeks to rob mathematics of it's beauty and enjoyment, or something. not intentionally. i just don't think mathematics should be operating in the realm of fantasy.
if i'm going to operate in the realm of fantasy, i'd rather do it through sound.
i've alluded to this before, but i'll come out flatly and state it. i think that before we can get anywhere further with axiomatic/deductive thought on an abstract level we need to take some very complicated measurements of space as it exists outside of the earth's atmosphere. once we've done that, we need to empirically model the space we actually inhabit. we then need to construct our axioms based on an empirical understanding of the world around us. it is only then that we can come to any kind of fruitful discussion about how mathematics relates to the world that we live in.
in the meantime, there's two approaches that i think are worthwhile.
1) we need to restrict ourselves to very limited, finite, constructivist assumptions if we wish to apply anything to reality.
2) we should undertake a systematic evaluation of all possible positions, and catalog them as possible models. we should then explore the possible consequences of *all* of them. we can philosophize abstractly about how things might be, but until the data comes in we can't know how things are.
mathematics is not as out of touch as philosophy is, but it's not much further evolved. we have to understand the limits of this type of reasoning and get ourselves out of the nineteenth century.
we also have to understand that the necessary modelling is going to be fraught with difficulties in the attempt to apply as few assumptions as possible.
another thing that empirical study can help us understand, besides the shape of space, is whether or not space is quantized. if the answer is 'yes', mathematics need to go back to the drawing board.
(translation: it would answer the question about the continuum hypothesis (yes - our model of space in it's construction) in a way that would explode the whole field.)
there isn't really a mechanism. to me, that's the big problem - i don't see any theoretical reason to think that gmos would be more carcinogenic. there are some other low probability mechanisms (gene transfer), but nothing that makes sense on a 'causes tumours' level.
unfortunately, this is going to turn the gmo resistance (which has some valid arguments mixed in with it's invalid ones) into a conspiracy movement. it's been teetering on the brink for a while. big agriculture will be fingered as a villain, suppressing science for profit.
just like they suppressed tesla's free energy and cars that use water to split off the hydrogen on the fly.
the inevitable result is marginalization. and using logic is not a useful tool to combat it, as it just means you're standing with the conspirators.
my grade 5/6 teacher (i went to a very small elementary school that had one split 5/6 class with the same teacher both years) had a thing for playing old time radio. we got to listen to the original war of the worlds and a bunch of other things. one of them was a story of fire ants advancing on a village in south america from a first person perspective, and the carnage that ensued when they ravaged it. that's something i won't forget....it was both educational and scary as fuck....
you're all missing the point, and it isn't a particularly marxist study, either; if anything, it's upholding the idea that dystopia is a more realistic end than utopia.
what the study is stating is simply the old adage that money cannot buy happiness. happiness is tied up into purpose. so, when basic needs are met, people lose meaning to existence. if you want to see this in action, you don't need to go to an orwellian fabrication or mid 80s poland, you just need to go to an american suburb and observe the average teenager in it's natural environment.
one could perhaps argue that the solution to the ennuie that bourgeois comfort produces is labour. marxists and neo-liberals would actually agree on this point.
i mean, take it to a basic biological example everybody understands. you put a tiger in a wildlife sanctuary and bring it food, it's miserable. it wants to hunt. it has a biological imperative to do so.
humans are not as predatory creatures, but the same basic concept applies. we need to have some meaning. some challenge. some reason to exist.
this is what i wanted to see:
In practice, kits are paid off after about 18 months and subsequent electricity is free to the new owner.
here? grids are going to be more efficient on a production level, but only better on a cost level if they end up socialized. we can take that jump to the best of both approaches if we want to do it. in some places, it's happening. i don't know how likely that is in africa, but considering they're using kerosene i'd have to question it.
this was my grade 12 final project in electronic music design. the assignment was something along the lines of creating a piece of music with a social message.
the message is part dystopian, but focuses more on the idea of identifying certain threats that would become a problem in the upcoming century. remember that this was the end of 1999. how close was i?
1) intro
2) war
3) noise pollution, or pollution in general
4) conformity (or the collapse of individualism)*
5) chemical warfare
6) global warming
7) outro
*i was thinking in terms of personality/uniqueness, rather than something political. and i think the extreme conformity underlying gen y social attitudes have played this out frighteningly well, actually. it's a reaction to the radical mindset of anti-conformity that dominated gen x, but it's still a very real thing that will have very real ramifications in the upcoming decades. if you thought the 50s were creepy, wait until you see what these kids grow up into!
i should have included something about inequality. i also removed a vegan track, partly due to time restraints. besides that, i think i got all of the broad ideas right.
most of the tracks are slightly remixed/resequenced versions of tracks from inri or inriched. track 5 is brand new, and recorded on the school's synthesizer (part of the project requirements).
noting that this contains a section i've title "symphony #0", i'm going to label this piece of music my zeroth symphony.
recorded over 1997-1999. constructed in this form in june, 1999. as always, please use headphones.
1) this is track 1 from the original inri cd demo.
2) this is a combination of tracks 5 & 11 from the original inri cd demo.
3) this is a combination of tracks 3 & 7 from the original inriched cd demo.
4) this is track 19 from the original inriched cd demo.
5) this was an original track recorded on the school's synthesizer to fulfill the requirements of the project, but becomes track 7 on the original inridiculous cd demo.
6) this is track 19 from the original inri cd demo.
7) this is track 1 from the original inriched cd demo.
or, maybe, they're trying to come up out of the water and onto the land as a result of the shifts in the ocean's chemistry. hey, that probably had something to do with amphibians coming up on shore however many millions of years ago. that's how these things work.
again: you don't think that life is just going to roll over and die without a fight, do you? if it comes down to it, i'd expect more than one type of fish to give it a shot.
land sharks. consider the carnage. just another reason to fight global warming.
took me a while to find something specific worth posting. the idea is very reasonable, but only with fish that reproduce very, very quickly. which probably means not sharks.
so, i'm going to hold to that statement. i'd expect that, in the next fifty years, if the oceans continue to fill up with carbon, at least one species of fish will try and make the jump. seriously...
