godthedog

i'm apparently good at looking like mick jagger.

'in utero' is MUCH better than 'nevermind', but i wouldn't consider either to be 5 stars.

i'm with you, man.

i stand corrected, we're up to 3. anybody else?

my one-and-only favorite is edwin. very smart, argues well, funny without the dryness of inc & kinetic, fellow amateur writer. also the only other person on the board i know of who has read 'ulysses' in its entirety.

can't use "subjective" and "erroneous" in the same sentence and have them both mean anything. interesting. although i wouldn't call 'revolver' my favorite, i'd argue that, moreso than probably any other album, it is just about flawless. anyway, from my collection... rolling stones: 'sticky fingers', 'exile on main street' beatles: 'abbey road', 'revolver', the white album, 'sgt pepper', 'rubber soul', 'a hard day's night' jimi hendrix: electric ladyland, 'are you experienced?' ween: 'the pod' miles davis: 'kind of blue', 'sketches of spain', 'bitches brew', 'in a silent way' john coltrane: 'a love supreme', 'ascension' nirvana: 'nevermind' sarah mclachlan: fumbling towards ecstasy beastie boys: 'paul's boutique' pink floyd: 'the wall' bob dylan; 'blonde on blonde', 'highway 61 revisited', 'blood on the tracks' the italicized ones are the "canonical" 5-star albums that i also think are around 5 stars. the plain ones are in the canon, but i don't really agree with. the bold ones are considered 5-star by me, but not by the canon.

newest vinyl find: derek and the dominos, 'layla and other assorted love songs'. thirteen dollars (which is not bad for a double album).

This bat rocks by the way. It's my new eapon of choice. Quoting your own post comes very close to putting your own cock in your mouth. VERY close. Without the rewarding feeling. i can put my own cock in my mouth. but i give really lousy head, so i never get that rewarding feeling. i get so fed up with myself, i have to finish myself off afterwards. see, doing THIS feels far more rewarding. but maybe that's just me.

This bat rocks by the way. It's my new eapon of choice. Quoting your own post comes very close to putting your own cock in your mouth. VERY close. Without the rewarding feeling. i can put my own cock in my mouth. but i give really lousy head, so i never get that rewarding feeling. i get so fed up with myself, i have to finish myself off afterwards.

i ate dirt when i was little. i would love to meet chris coey, alina, dj jeff, tank abbott, youdafoo and dames.

the amount of motivation and free time required to do this deeply disturbs me.

you have the steely gaze of a young chow-yun fat.

I'll be the judge of that. How often does he beat people to death with ceramic penises. just the one time.

there's a 21-year-old in our drama department who would make a frighteningly good alex.

times square kind of sucks, you won't miss much of anything if you don't go there.

from allmusic.com: don't tell me sabbath was bluesier than eric clapton. even aside from those already mentioned, let's look at who else was around: the stones, who, since '68-'69, had returned to a sound STEEPED in blues. 'let it bleed' and 'exile' both have damn robert johnson covers on them. at least half the tracks on 'sticky fingers' sound like harder, distorted blues songs. early led zeppelin, which i don't even need to explain. jimi hendrix, who played about as much bluesy stuff as he did anything else. this is an influence of METAL on CLASSICAL, not classical on metal. also in the late 60s/early 70s we had the art-rock movement spawning, which had a good bit of the classical influence going on.

Not bad at all. Have you seen Queen LIVE at Wembley Stadium? No, I don't get to England very often. ba dum, <tchssh>

explain.

point taken, i agree. so much so, that i woke up this morning and i got myself a beer.

blues dilettanterie edition: 1. robert johnson - "32-20 blues" 2. eric clapton - "how long blues" 3. johnson - "ramblin' on my mind" 4. skip james - "devil got my woman" 5. johnson - "malted milk"

outkast, a current artist, gets a spot on the 'all-time' list and not on the 'current' list?

i think the doors had a nice little sound & shouldn't be HATED, but morrison's vocals weren't anything special and he had some terrible lyrics. as i said before, they didn't do anything the velvet underground hadn't done 2 years before and better.

speaking as a non-hiphop fan, i enjoy 'speakerboxxx' a good deal more, mostly for the reasons already stated: more solid and lean. in places, 'the love below' draaaags. sometimes andre lets the tape run long after song stopped going anywhere & after the novelty of the sound has worn thin.

always good to see additional hate for my least-favorite movie ever. i voted for the first, mostly for its brevity and pacing; doesn't feel a second too long, characters are strongly and simply drawn. the second takes its time and tries to find its own rhythm (with a lot of dead space of characters staring out into space--sometimes to great dramatic effect, sometimes not), but it could've used some trimming. it tried to be grand & operatic a little too hard in some places, particularly some of the killings (especially the parade/assassination, with the editing & just SCREAMING, "HEY, LOOK! DON CICCIO'S GOING TO DIE! KEEP LOOKING, IT'S COMING! LOOK, IT'S SUCH AN AMERICAN PARADE, AND HE'S GOING TO DIE! WE'RE SHOWING THE DARK UNDERBELLY OF THE AMERICAN DREAM! LOOK AT HIM, SO GRAND AND HAPPY AND EVIL, WHEN HE'S ABOUT TO DIE~!!") so, yeah. none of that in part one. off the top of my head, david lynch & paul thomas anderson are much better than tarantino. tarantino is the poster-child for empty postmodernism (i.e., quoting other movies for the sake of quoting them, without saying anything of his own behind it), and while he's well-versed and very clever, i never quite get the feeling that he's trying to get at anything deeper, that there's anything more to art or life than being cool by quoting shit. scorsese, as an inverse example, quotes a LOT, but it's always in aid of telling his own story. take the pool scene from 'raging bull': scorsese baldly admits ripping it off from 'on the waterfront', but it still exists as its own scene: the greatness of the scene doesn't begin and end with, "oh, look at the way he wove 'on the waterfront' into this!", there's more to the scene. i defy anyone to say the same thing about a single scene in volume 1 of 'kill bill'. tarantino got the quoting part down pat, but he doesn't seem to care about using it for anything. the only "deep" example of his i can think of is the final diner scene in 'pulp fiction', which is one of my favorite scenes ever: it's about something larger than itself. i've yet to see volume 2, so i may be proven wrong on all this in the future, but i kind of doubt it: the praise i've heard from it thus far has been, "dude, it has a PLOT and CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!", not "wow, those characters are really well done", as if any kind of character development in itself is an accomplishment. just my take on what i've heard about it so far, not a judgment about the movie in itself.

there are guys who are more "ha ha" funny, but he was fascinating to watch. the way his mind worked, even watching him ramble off the top of his head from topic to topic is totally absorbing. also VERY pointed and thought-provoking, doing more or less the things bill hicks did 30 years later (just not as confrontational).