Pemulis

I deeply love the cultural framework of the 60' in the USA, for me the american counter-culture produced some of the best music ever created by mankind. I have an odi et amo relationship with the folk movement: on one hand I admire their political involvement, on the other hand I think that the movement was reactionary (paradoxically!) and somehow disconnected from what was going on in the USA back then. The emblematic sign of that is what happened to Bob Dylan during the infamous concert in Newport 1965, where the pubblic booed and challenged Bob and his band cause they prepared an electric set. In hindsight, it is something that makes me smile, especially considering how music evolved later on. I'd need another chapter to rant on how the influence of the folk movement raped and almost destroyed italian music, but that would be another story.

I did not catch any of these claims in the lyrics, to me they were about the clash between the urge to express our individuality and the conformism, which is kinda general. It's okay anyway to write lyrics which carry their meaning in an implicit way, but I do not see any implicit attack to heteronormativity in them (or to anything else specifically). Writing music with lyrics is not mandatory, therefore when the artist decides to put some in their songs I use to expect something. Anyway I red the bio of this group and they have all my support in their battle against the russian regime, what a bravery! I guess other works in their discography have to be very interesting, I'll take a better look.

In my perception, this is straight forward a female version of XXXTentacion. Lyrics are also very... trivial I like some rap music but I'm not very compatible with such kind. Which artists are you referring to? Lying on facts it's a kind of freedom I try not to give to myself, but yeah I got your point eheh

It's true — in fact, I don't believe that an artist's aesthetic research necessarily has to be cerebral or experimental. I believe that an artist should simply use it as a means to express the emotions or concepts behind a piece, rather than delegating all the communicative power to the lyrics. This process, generally, can be carried out without creating anything too “weird” to listen to. It all depends on the subject of your activism, and what you want to express about it. For example, imagine you want to write a song about civil disobedience. Aesthetically speaking, expressing anger and violence certainly doesn't require any particularly elaborate musical tricks. For example: On the other hand, if you want to talk about more complex topics, the aesthetic boundaries (at least the mainstream ones) of music must be pushed in order to fully express extreme emotions and concepts. The classic example is the attempt to write a song about war. An artist can choose to write absolute garbage like Mad World by Gary Jules, turning the madness of war into a crying little tune that might as well be about a failed romantic relationship; or they can attempt to express that madness through the music itself. It goes without saying that in such an attempt, the common aesthetic sense must be left behind — because the violence of war does not fall within common aesthetic norms. It therefore becomes necessary to break out of conventional frameworks if one wants to speak credibly about something like that. For example: Or: Music is art, and when some "music" is clearly not art then it is clearly not music as well: it becomes a commodity. Of course there's nothing criminal in enjoying consumer music, but as listeners we have at least to know what are we consuming. I am free to eat McDonald's, but I am not free to say McDonald's is a top class full of nutrients meal. Also I don't believe that a high degree of musical education is needed in order to appreciate complex music, assuming you are talking about technical knowledge like music theory, harmony etc. The only thing needed is curiosity! I'm barely able to read a staff, for example, but I can enjoy a lot of contemporary classical music. It's more about ideas than technicalities! About the original subversiveness of rap, I think both of those aspects were already true for rock/blues music.

You are right and I should have replaced "hip hop" with "rap". Regards the loss of socio-political topics in rap music, surely a product in order to be sold to the majority of public has to lose its divisive traits and trying to be as generalistic as possible. This process is applied to every underground social movement in the exact moment it become mainstream. Anyway, my opinion on Tupac and most of the 'historical' rappers is generally very low despite the fact I can appreciate their activism. I prefer when such activism is expressed working on the musical-aesthetic framework and the lyrics, not just through the latter: you can write books if you want to communicate exclusively with words.

Hip hop music can be considered, chronologically speaking, the last avant-garde musical movement to have reached widespread circulation in pop culture. Despite the general tone of the lyrics found in many rap songs — "Poopy-di scoop / Scoop-diddy-whoop / Whoop-di-scoop-di-poop", from Lift Yourself by Kanye West — hip hop music stands in the history of music as the genre that pushed to the extreme the subversion of Western musical tradition—a process already initiated by rock music at the beginning of the last century: the dominance of rhythm over harmony. Western musical culture, for centuries, made the study of harmony its defining stylistic trait. To simplify this concept and connect it to your everyday experience, just ask yourself how many times you’ve found yourself unconsciously tapping your foot to the beat while listening to a symphony from the 19th century or earlier. The answer is likely close to zero. Symphony orchestras, in fact, traditionally consist solely of instruments whose role is to play notes—in other words, pitched instruments. Even orchestral percussion instruments (such as timpani, marimba, glockenspiel, etc.) are tuned and play definable pitches that can be written on a staff. There is, therefore, no instrument whose primary purpose is to explicitly mark rhythm; rhythm in Western classical music is present only implicitly, as an underlying structural framework. Rock music disrupted this balance, bringing the essence of African tribal music into contact with the Western mainstream. Tribal music, as is well known, was originally composed of purely percussive, non-pitched instruments. These were not intended to play notes (a concept that didn’t even exist in traditional African cultures) but rather to mark time during religious rituals, allowing participants to dance in sync with the beat. So, in the 19th century, the modern drum kit was invented. Jazz and rock music radically transformed the cultural landscape of Western countries, whose musical tradition was suddenly renewed through its encounter with African-American musical heritage. But what does hip hop music have to do with all of this? Hip hop music further radicalizes this aesthetic process through two key mechanisms: the simplification of musical structure—made deliberately repetitive and ornamental so that it serves only as a backdrop—and the transformation of the vocal line into a purely rhythmic element. The voice, traditionally the primary vehicle for melody, becomes a percussive instrument; it stops singing, and thus stops producing pitched notes (and existing within a harmonic context), becoming instead a purely rhythmic expression. A precursor to this idea can be found in Sprechgesang, a vocal technique developed by Schönberg as a middle point between singing and speaking. That said, the truly sad part of this whole story is that most rappers—and the people who listen to them—are completely unaware of this historical and cultural nerdiness. They're like children using a nuclear reactor to warm up their steak. Truly fascinating. Poopy-di scoop / Scoop-diddy-whoop / Whoop-di-scoop-di-poop

This might be one of the most embarrassing things I've seen in my life

0ad is not dead, it just smells funny.

Fratello mio, scrivimi in privato qui sul forum così vedo di aiutarti. Mandami uno screen dell'errore che ti esce fuori così quantomeno possiamo essere precisi nel capire il problema.

These are some old ss I have, 1492 is one of Geriatrix doppleganger. I don't remember precisely why he started acting like that, but I guess it's not really the case to find some logic in all this. In my opinion there's not much to do beyond ignoring him, since the need for a punishment is probably already being met by his own life.

A technology for unique formations? I've always wandered what's the point of unique formations that some civs offer. In reality, they consisted in a material advantage for melee troops during fights. In game, they are more or less completely useless. Would be viable to offer some buffs with their utilization (thought the research of a related technology)? E.g., roman testudo was designed to offer more cover against ranged troops, so it could be reflected easily in game with a buff on ranged defense. I find would be very cool if the historical and tactical revolution such formations brought to the field was represented in game.

I totally agree on this, giving to them something more than the other spear champions would be very reasonable. But I think there were something going on about this on the borg-'s post about differentiating Spartan civ. By now the biggest issue for this civ is imho the very poor mobility.

It's amazing how far entertainment has gone. I wonder if one day we'll see a COD tournament among the presidents of the most important world countries.

Pemulis

I saw his biography, looks like he had very important influences. I'm very curious about him, gonna listen more of his works. I want to say thank you sharing an amazing rock album from my country. Let me know what you think if you give it a chance. At the very beginning I wanted to add The Sound of Muzak in the opening post And I'm a huge fan of Tool as well! Happy to see someone else here who loves that band, they are outstanding: the part of 10,000 days where Marie finally reaches the gates of Heaven is one of the few musical moments that gave me physical goosebumps in my life.

I lost that message, as a football lover I truly agree about what you said in the second point

The album is amazing. It's always hard to make rock music in a different language than english, and I'm always amazed when I find an artist able to do that. I'm grateful you shared that, hope others will share more as well. I'm also happy to see many people here play an instrument, would be cool to share some of our attempts in covering songs or whatever. The greater thing about internet is that it can be used as a passepartout for our shyness.

My ex girlfriend was chinese, and I know what are you talking about very well. She had a pure hatred towards Japan for such reasons. Anyway as you just said, "what imperial Japan did to other Asian countries". Hitler is still remembered today for what he did to German citizens, hope you get the point. It's not a matter of cruelty but of sheer madness, and that's why would be very interesting to point out the reasons of Nazi racism, which are not well known at all even among europeans. I understand that without knowing them it's impossible to understand what Nazism was about, and why I'm so not incline to accept comparisons.

Could be a easily shared opinion if Hitler was just a politician who killed people for exquisitely political reasons: e.g. wars (USA main example), systematic elimination of the internal opposition (Stalin main example) , bad/mean economical reforms (Mao main example) etc. But Hitler led a contemporary european country (not a wild and poor province in Africa) to the systematic and scientific elimination of a part of its own population due to religious reasons (regards that, it's interesting to take a look about the Nazi mysticism that offered the basics for most of the Nazi thoughts about german race supremacy and so on). Organizing the search, the transport and then the elimination of its own fellow citizens in the middle of a war. In the middle of Europe. Literally less than 100 years ago. Yesterday. Of course also the USA massacres in the Middle-East are disgusting, but I hope you can understand the main difference between the two phenomena. Anyway I've noticed many times that outside Europe nazism is perceived just like a form of cruel dictatorship like many others in history, so I can understand your point of view (I guess you are not european). But the reasons of the Holocaust make Nazism something deafening and negatively unique, and I cannot find a single dictator/political movement in the recent history who's crime are comparable in the "quality" and the quantity to the Nazi party ones.

I'm not a fan of censorship at any level, but of course I can understand to control and censor offensive words in the main lobby. Still, I cannot imagine a single person in the world who could be offended by a wtf. Should I consider it a profanity then? A... profanity? Wtf? Wtf. Isn't it a little too much? It costed me days being muted to remember I cannot write "sh1t" in the main lobby, seems like I should prepare myself for some more silent days.

You seem very confused @vinme, and some of your last posts border on sophistry. Imho there are two big mistake in your thought: when you talk about politeness, you are implicitly talking about being polite for purely utilitarian reasons. Which is just a 'subcategory' of politeness (or better, of hypocrisy); which ofc is a disgusting thing, but you cannot use critiques to it in order to attack politeness itself. They are different things, and of course a truly polite person is not polite for the sake of a manipulatory purpose. Your reasoning is misleading and starts from a fallacious point, 'cause nobody would ever use the word "polite" in order to refer to the things you are talking about. you believe that being direct and honest means to be brutal, and that such behavior is even admirable. This is something I've noticed very often, since many young people nowadays believe that the right to spontaneity means the right to be petty. I'm a big supporter of etiquette and I believe that people that deliberately ignore it tout court are lazy and intellectually sloppy. Following your feral self-centered pulses of domination and aggression doesn't make you a direct or honest person, otherwise we should say that all animals are honest beings. When my dogs bite my leg if I step too close to his food, should I consider myself honored with his honesty? Both JC and Shyft are simply violent like animals seeking for domination and opinionated like the worst delusional prophet, I really cannot believe you are doing this words-breakdance to justify the behavior of a person who says "you should have been aborted" when playing a videogame. I've always accepted both of them in my lobbies, I have no problems with them, but it's natural to admit that such conduct is embarrassing and pitiful especially for themselves in the first place. But unfortunately there's no scientific explanation for this, it's purely a matter of personal sensitivity, so maybe it's useless to talk about it.

I really can't understand how some people could say you are toxic. I'm starting to believe that there's an Anti-JC Agenda going on, maybe ruled by... Anyway, to justify a lack of courtesy with the "I say the truth" card is typical from a person who ignores totally the relationship between content and form. Also, knowing some Rimbaud poems doesn't make you an educated person, maybe a learned one. As you surely know, education comes from the latin verb educo which means to extract/push out. Which is clearly referred to a process of self-awareness and development, not to the storing of informations in your brain. Ergo you are just as educated as my hard disk.

Sure it's personal, in fact I would never judge someone who tells me that he doesn't like my favorite composer for reasons that came from a conscious and critic listen of his works. The point is if that person doesn't even know what it means to listen to it. By the way I can suggest to you the albums Zappa made in the '60, the later ones are full of satiric songs that can be funny and cute but imho were a tremendous waste of his talent most the time (maybe you are referring to some of them). Still have to watch all the video, 'cause my brain is very helpless recently. I can say that when we talk about the "why" pop music is what it is I always consider primarily the fact that we are talking about an industry, that works exactly like an industry that sells biscuits of whatever. The purpose of an industry is always the same: to make a good selling product, by matching what most of the people have in common in order to maximize the profits. And... what we all (or almost all) have in common if not feral pulses centered on sex, power, being rich and all irrational stuff? I have a relatively high level of cultural experience, but still I'm interested in sex kinda the same way a 17 yo illetterate from Naples does. It's natural that following this economical rule, pop art production will always be crap: 'cause desires for crap stuff is what we ALL have in common. This is what has the highest demand, what is most profitable to invest in. I don't think it has nothing to do with the "disadvantage" in letting people owning ideas. I think pop industry works in a very naive way, and who works in it doesn't care at all (or probably isn't even aware of) the cultural crimes they are perpetrating over the years. In a world in which songs with political/social meaning sell a lot, pop industry would make them 'cause it would be profitable. It's kinda a problem to concern about the artistic value of what you are producing, if your only real purpose has to be selling 1.000.000 copies of an album in order to not lose billions of dollars. But still I don't if this has something to do with the content of video, I excuse myself if I'm just talking nonsense.

I think you already gave a nice answer to that issue. Some fields in art (let's say all the "serious" art) requires a certain amount of efforts to be at least understood, and consequentially a certain amount of time and energy: now, most of people lack of both for various reasons (work, family, duties in general, etc.) Let's say they cannot/don't want to pay the price in order to understand them, and that's okay. I think it has always been like this through history. I don't believe any kind of "cultural experience" is required in order to be happy, despite the link knowledge-wisdom-happiness is very popular through all the history of philosophy. I'm not saying such things cannot help, but simply they are not the only path. The real special and unique thing that the experience of culture (don't know if I'm using this word properly in english, with it I mean all cultural products like arts, philosophy, architecture etc. etc.) gives us is the ability to understand the world in a better way, and to organize our thoughts consequentially. The real big loss of a life without intellectual experiences is the lack of social and political consciousness in the individual, imho. Because listening to Bach, in our society, requires some preliminary efforts: you have to encounter his name somewhere, then be interested in him, then search his works and check if you like them. I know it sounds very easy to be made, but maybe for some people it is not so banal. I'll never forget the first time I listened to Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart: it was one of the most ugly and unlistenable album I've ever encountered in my life. I red a lot about it, and I listened to it multiple times, and now I'm able to understand it conceptually and to appreciate it aesthetically. It required time and energy that I was willing to invest 'cause I love rock music, and lot of artist and critics that I respect loved that album. Maybe if I was too busy working 12 hours a day I wouldn't even have found the time to find his name exploring the internet, you know what I mean? I don't know if my point is clear, but I can summarize saying that art is something very elitist and most of the time talking about music/art tastes is almost like talking about the social class you are in.

@BeTe I really appreciate your story! It's amazing that you managed to improve your listening skills also on a technical point of view. Unfortunately the desire for entertainment has become a real poison nowadays. I don't feel I can condemn it tout court, but still today it clearly became a plague. An amazing novel by D.F.Wallace is centered on a tape containing the final entertainment product, called Infinite Jest. Every individual who comes across that tape and watches it, finishes to die on his sofa forgetting to take care of all his biological needs: the pleasure given by the tape is so profound that erase everything else. I think entertainment can have a positive role, cause a mechanical stop of our inner thoughts can be good sometimes: who could recommend to a plumber, who works X hours a day, to watch an interview of Derrida instead of some sports when he finally returns home after a long day? But when we starts to over-use this possibility, our brain lost itself in this haze made of empty pleasure. It's like heroin, but at least heroin kills you (joking). Returning to music, I failed multiple times in letting my friends see what they are missing. I truly believe that the starting point has be arise naturally, as it happened with you. However becoming good art enjoyers is not mandatory, it's just very sad to be delusional about it.