gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
630621 Posts in 25255 Topics by 3594 Members - Latest Member: WonderBill April 20, 2018, 04:53:57 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 356
51  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Beer, Wine, Liquor, Spirits, Cocktails...Open Bar. Discuss, Recommend, etc. on: March 15, 2018, 10:22:36 AM
What does the Cap drink these days? Wink

While I thankfully can afford better than Hamms or Glueks these days, I’m still not so picky. I prefer IPAs but like a decent kolsch, Hefeweizen, or most anything that isn’t TOO dark. (No porters or stouts for me.) and I’m not into the gimmicky infusions.

Wines, I like reds. Nothing too sweet.

Booze, I’m ok with most mixed drinks, minus gin. But I don’t drink a lot of liquor or have any palette for it.
52  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: What are you watching now?/Favourite Movie of the Moment on: March 15, 2018, 08:48:56 AM
This week I began rewatching the fantastic Horace & Pete, which Louis CK released to Hulu maybe 15 months ago after first dropping through his website. I was really glad to see it still there after the publicity of his creepy masturbatory habits as part of the #MeToo stuff. It’s a great show. He’s a talented guy and I hope he keeps putting out new content—and that outlets continue to be willing to show it.

But hopefully he’ll stop jerking off in front of colleagues who aren’t into watching him do that.
53  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Beer, Wine, Liquor, Spirits, Cocktails...Open Bar. Discuss, Recommend, etc. on: March 15, 2018, 05:58:59 AM
Hamms, jeezus. About 15 years ago, in my often impoverished earlier days, a friend and I found a nearby store selling a local brand (Glueks) for an insanely cheap price. 12 packs of bottles were roughly the price of other brands’ 6-packs. I want to say $6.99 or so.

We said we couldn’t afford not to drink it.

Then we founds 30-pack cases of Hamms cans for double that, so basically 30 for the price of 12. That summer I probably did permanent damage to my waistline, brain, and liver.
54  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / General Music Discussion / Re: Worst Vocal Decline on: March 14, 2018, 03:16:47 PM
Keeping it off topic, it's a bit like blindfolding yourself and crossing the street. Somebody is going to do it and get to the other side. Most people won't. Some people who aren't blindfolded still get hit by cars crossing the street. And more who aren't, don't. It's a game of chance at some level, but there are definitely ways to play that increase your chances.

Well, for a while. You die eventually either way.
55  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Unpopular Beach Boys opinions on: March 14, 2018, 08:54:57 AM
This isn’t going to be productive unless I better explain myself, I don’t think: I think I must’ve been unclear based on your responses. Since I’m at work and posting from my phone, that’s going to have to wait.

This has come to pass. Because it’s off topic to a large extent, I put it in the General Music forum. It’s “Wise Beyond Your Ears,” if anyone feels like wasting time reading an over-long and probably still under-thought tome along the lines of our convo about context in music discussion/appreciation.
56  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / General Music Discussion / Wise Beyond Your Ears (continued from Unpopular Opinions) on: March 14, 2018, 08:51:54 AM
Wise Beyond Your Ears
 
Board member southbay said in the “Unpopular Beach Boys opinions” thread on March 11 something with which I disagreed strongly. A few people weighed in with various perspectives, with HeyJude opposing my perspective at length. I wanted to respond to HeyJude but because the discussion would pretty seriously derail the original thread—already did, actually. Sorry.—so I began this thread instead. I hope HeyJude or anyone else interested participates here.
 
southbay said of “Rio Grande”:
 
Quote
I don’t think any of us who were fans in 1988 ever dreamed Brian could come up with something like Rio Grande (or Melt Away) at the time. He was able to do those things in spite of Landy, in spite of the heavy drug cocktail. I was expecting an album of I’m So Lonely’s [sic]. You have to take all of those elements into consideration when looking at those songs.

I disagree vehemently with the last sentence—especially the “have to” part. And that’s what led to almost all of my responses. That said, everything prior to that last sentence makes perfect sense. I can totally understand being pleasantly surprised by the solo album based on those considerations.
 
Experience Of versus Study Of
Art—and we’re talking about music here—is something that can be experienced in several ways. Because of that, it’s not hard to understand why there can easily be different, even opposing, views on points like southbay’s and mine. My argument here is that if we are talking about the experience of art, it’s important to separate that from the study of art (and artists). This isn’t to minimize the value or otherwise delegitimize the study of art whatsoever. It is to try to tease them apart, though, with a particular focus in arguing against that one, previously noted sentiment: “you have to take [the study of the artist] into consideration when looking at those songs.”
 
Studying art and artists without question can lead to a richer understanding of the art, and that richer understanding can inform someone’s opinion of the art, either for the better or the worse. Let’s consider the Bible. (Some of you may know I’m also interested in the history of religion; I’m relying on subjects I know, here…) There have always been, and there still remain, people who would argue that to truly understand the Bible, one needs to understand more than the text. For Gnostics, one needed to have access to the hidden knowledge of initiates. For the Catholic Church, one needed to have the interpretation of the Church itself, its priests, with their understanding of context, of Church history, of tradition, even of allegorical interpretation. Martin Luther and others in the Reformation argued against this, saying there was no hidden or secret meaning, but rather that the plain text itself was sufficient for a normal, reasonable reader to determine its meaning.
 
This is a little bit apples-to-oranges, but I don’t think so much so that we can’t use the analogy. (Pop music and religion? Come on, it works perfectly! John Lennon was more popular than Jesus and all that…)
 
A person can be a Biblical historian and study how the book came about. This might impact his understanding of its meaning. For example, if you learned that educated Greeks wrote the anonymous Gospels, which were decades-to-centuries later titled with the names of Jewish apostles or apostolic companions, you may well stop considering a verse in Matthew to be the words of the Apostle Matthew. That’s entirely possible and entirely valid.
 
A person can be a theologian and study how the doctrine of the Bible works. This might impact his understanding of its meaning, and may well change his denomination (based on an understanding of the mechanism of salvation, for example) because of it. That’s entirely possible and valid.
 
But what if a person is just a normal, literate person who wants to read the Bible. That person won’t know the history of the book, or the details of the theology. Must the person do that study before reading the Bible and identifying as a Christian? (Or reading it for fun as literature, for that matter.) I think most people would say no, that while there are different layers of appreciation or understanding that are possible, those things exist as academic exercises outside of the experience of the writing itself. Of the art itself.
 
What about a painting—say, a portrait? Is a study of the painter’s life essential? What about the subject? The technique used? The brushstrokes, the paints, the canvas? What is essential knowledge in the appreciation of that painting? In my argument, studying any one of (or all of) those other aspects surrounding the painting’s creation are interesting and even valuable, but they are academic exercises, not the experience of the art.
 
With music, we could be discussing the composer’s history, including his circumstances when he wrote the music. When he recorded the music. When he released the music. We could discuss the recording technology and tools. We could discuss the state of the genre at the time. We could discuss the recording’s popularity, and with whom. We could discuss the music as part of the artist’s catalogue. We could analyze the music itself: structure, form, melody, harmony, arrangements. We could analyze the lyrics from any number of angles. None of those is invalid, but none of those is essential. What is essential is to listen to the song. An opinion of the song’s merits need not go further than that. Any study that impacts a listener’s opinion of the music isn’t changing the merits of the work; it is changing the perspective of the listener, and possibly shifting him into another “game” (as discussed below).
 
What is essential for art is that it be experienced as art. That’s all. To move beyond that introduces a kind of (unintentional, I’m sure) elitism into the experience of the music—and considering the music is pop music, I think that’s anathema. It would be saying you need to do homework to really “get” it. It implies that the people who have done this extra-experiential legwork are better experiencers of the music.
 
If that were true, rock and roll (as a populist art form) literally would not exist.
 
Mere Pleasure
HeyJude made several comments that I think demean “mere pleasure” in experiencing music, but also built a strawman of my point dismissing the essentialism of studying context.
 
To choose to study the nonmusical aspects of music is valid, but not superior. A person isn’t a better music fan by being a historian, or a musicologist, or a cultural anthropologist, or an armchair psychologist. Or even a music theoretician. Any music—any art—that insists otherwise is in the wrong business. The jazz pianist Cecil Taylor—according to Wynton Marsalis as shown in Ken Burns’s Jazz documentary series—said that since he practiced his work, the audience should practice their listening of his work, that, in effect, they should study him, and that if they don’t, they were “bad” listeners. Marsalis properly (in my opinion) totally rejected that idea as egotistical and elitist nonsense.
 
There is nothing wrong with experiencing the music as it is, as it sounds. To belittle it with “if you’re about nothing but what music gets you off, what music instantly pleases you, then nothing else matters and then, is there really much to discuss beyond saying “I don’t like that,” “that’s okay,” etc.?” First, to paint that experience as “just” or “only,” as if it were some lesser experience, isn’t fair. Second, the introduction of “instantly” to the conversation was out of nowhere and adds another layer of judgment that I think is unnecessary: nowhere did I say careful consideration of music—as heard, but without study—had anything to do with anything.
 
I wasn’t suggesting that music should be an intense and immediate rush of pleasure, some sort of empty calories, a hit of crack, and to imply that to appreciate and discuss music without undergoing some study-penance is the equivalent of that is unfair. Music can be carefully considered and discussed at great length without some study of the nonmusical aspects such as those listed above.
 
Natural Context
All that said, HeyJude was entirely correct in saying “context can inform what one perceives to be the “quality” of the music” and “discussing the “merits” of music is a very, very subjective process.” Absolutely, 100% agree. But to some—I’d say large—extent, that kind of context is more a natural, or even passive, context, and does not require some study of nonmusical circumstances.
 
For example, western music is traditionally very different than eastern music. The 12-tone chromatic scale, the development of melody based on diatonic scales of half and whole steps, the development of functional harmony emphasizing resolution (or suspension) of five to one, seven to one, and four to three, are all purely contextual. (Well, there is math in overtones, especially fourths and fifths, but that’s another day’s topic.) Other musical systems were based more on rhythms, other scales or melodies built on different sets of pitches than our 12 tones. And so a European listening to Far Eastern music 150 years ago would have almost certainly said “that’s crap,” with the inverse also true. This isn’t objective on an ultimate level.
 
But there are objective criteria within the context. Once we’ve established a system that includes these 12 pitches, that considers these combinations consonant and these combinations dissonant, then we can objectively judge whether the artist hits those marks. Things develop more specifically into various genres and subgenres. You’re within a language group, then a specific language, then a dialect, then an age-group specific slang within the dialect, etc. So too with music.
 
A listener can judge the merits of a piece of music based on the music as it exists in that natural context. To discuss it with the wrong person—a person outside of that same natural context—might be interesting, but it probably won’t be especially valuable. (The classic rock fan of a Beach Boys message board often seems ready to go to his grave rejecting the very idea that rap is music, and so the huge majority of modern pop music fans for whom rap or rap-influenced hip hop culture compose the bulk of their listening experience may as well not have that conversation. There is a chasm in natural context.)
 
To put it another way, to decide who’s winning, who’s won, or who’s lost, everyone involved needs to be playing the same game.
 
But if everyone is playing the same game, they can discuss and debate the merits of each team, of each player, at some great length. They don’t need to know who invented the game, and when. They don’t need to know that there are other games that other people play, some of whom excel. They know the game, they watch the game, they talk about the game, and it’s more than just “I don’t like it” or “that’s okay.”
 
HeyJude also said, “‘Using music to assess music’ is kind of silly and kind of reductive.” I don’t agree with that, but it depends on more specifically what he (I think HeyJude is a he. Guess I’m not sure.) means. Certainly I don’t mean to introduce some kind of purely self-referencing method, some circular reference. (“Rio Grande sounds like “Rio Grande,” so it is good because it succeeds in being itself.”) That would indeed be stupid. But what I meant was that the extra-musical context, the extra-musical study—even if relevant to the art or artist, and even if valuable to some listeners—is not essential to the experience of the music.
 
The End
Which is, of course, kind of the whole point of this big, long post that, if you’ve completed, proves you need to find better ways to spend your time. I mean honestly. I can’t even bear to reread this to correct any mistakes or clean up the language. It may well be incoherent, as most of my clarifications end up being. Have a nice day, everybody.
 
57  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Unpopular Beach Boys opinions on: March 12, 2018, 04:27:34 PM
Aw f***, this reminds me that I'm supposed to go back to my previous posts and HeyJude's and put together a thoughtful restatement of my point and/or response to his. Damnit. I'm not in the mood. I'm trying to drink, here. And you've gotta leave room for liquor.
58  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Unpopular Beach Boys opinions on: March 12, 2018, 04:24:39 PM
Like Billy, I wasn't around in the '60s (or conscious in the '70s, though I enjoyed a solid three-and-a-half years of those). So I'm speculating more than some here.

But I can't imagine Smile would have had the impact that die-hard Beach Boys fans who waited almost 40 years for it wished, dreamed, and sometimes still insist it would have had. The reason I say so is that our sample group (say, all albums released by popular bands to some substantial hype) shows that most albums don't. The comparison for decades was Pepper. Well, how many albums were Pepper? (One, and plenty of people have spent the past 20 years shitting on that.) Most albums, including most hyped albums by great bands, aren't considered era-changing, even when they're considered great. This one could have been unique, but the odds are against it.

Beyond that, it isn't just about comparing it to other big acts' hyped albums, but to a big act's hyped non-album whose myth grew for decades. There are, naturally, fewer comparisons at this point. VU's would-be third album, Beefheart's Bat Chain Puller...and these aren't remotely similar in terms of popularity.

In short, I think the hype after the fact makes living up the the hype before the fact unlikely to impossible. A 1967 Smile could not have lived up to the hype that 2003 pre-Smile had reached.

If I may speculate--and frankly, what are you going to do to stop me, tough guy?--I'd guess it would have been a mediocre seller with a ton of hipster cred at the time and since, cycling through lists of best-ofs based on the changing fashions of subsequent years. KDS is right that something like a finished Surf's Up would have been acknowledged as immaculate, and set alongside the other cornerstones of the album, it would have been impressive for sure.





59  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Unpopular Beach Boys opinions on: March 12, 2018, 07:21:58 AM
This isn’t going to be productive unless I better explain myself, I don’t think: I think I must’ve been unclear based on your responses. Since I’m at work and posting from my phone, that’s going to have to wait.
60  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Unpopular Beach Boys opinions on: March 12, 2018, 07:07:31 AM
I don't think any of us who were fans in 1988 ever dreamed Brian could come up with something like Rio Grande (or Melt Away) at the time. He was able to do those things in spite of Landy, in spite of the heavy drug cocktail.  I was expecting an album of I'm So Lonely's. You have to take all of those elements into consideration when looking at those songs.

No, you absolutely don't have to take all--or even any--of those elements into consideration when looking at those songs.

A song is as good as it is, whether it was written and recorded by a prince in the lap of luxury or a homeless veteran who scrounged up a few nickels. That Rio Grande was more than many fans expected at the time is irrelevant to how good it is. That Rio Grande was done by someone under the control of an abusive doctor is irrelevant to how good it is. The personal story surrounding the music is separate and apart from the quality of the music. The quality of music is based on the sounds that one hears when listening to it.

The shitty finger painting on your refrigerator isn't good because your 3-year-old niece painted it for you. It's still sh*t. It's just sh*t that means something more to you, regardless of its actual quality.

Depends on what "looking at those songs" means to you. If you don't care about context, about being a student of the history of the band, or of examining what songs or recordings might mean contextually, and are 100% about the pure pleasure (or lack thereof) that you derive from hearing a given song, then you can choose to look at it that way.

Obviously, I think the deal is that most fans are going to take a mixture of a number of factors to build the context around which they digest the music. Otherwise, is there much of a reason to be a "fan" of a particular band? Typically, a "fan" listens to the next new Brian or BB release because they're already a "fan." So it already has something of a context. You're presumably predisposed to digesting that next release because there is already a context: You're a fan, and you like previous output from that artist (and if you *don't* like any recent previous output and you're still listening to the stuff, then that's a whole other set of issues to examine).

I don't think it should ever be the case that we literally lower the standards of what constitutes good music because Brian (or anyone) is somehow compromised. But if Brian was going through mental anguish, or under abusive care, etc., then that does provide some appropriate context and may help one appreciate the music more.

I would argue that buried under weird synth arrangements on "Love You" are some truly excellent compositions; some amazing chord changes that some may be missing because they can't get over the weird arrangement and presentation. But separate from that, the content, especially lyrically, is informed quite a bit by and gives great insight into Brian's frame of mind at the time. It's almost frighteningly innocent and without pretense. I can't imagine a student of the band's music *and* history not finding some keenly interesting things going on with the album.

"Rio Grande" on BW '88 is a similar case. It's Brian, while being abused by Landy, having an executive egg him on to basically ape the "Smile" format to try to wring something similar out of him. It's a mixed success at best. It does feel forced/contrived, whatever. But he did write all of those sections, and it does show that the talent/ability was still buried under there somewhere.

But again, context matters if you're at all interesting in actually *studying* or *discussing* this stuff. If you're about nothing but what music gets you off, what music instantly pleases you, then nothing else matters and then, is there really much to discuss beyond saying "I like that", "I don't like that", "that's okay", etc.?

But for students/scholars of the band, it most definitely is important in digesting the music to know that Brian was f-ed up under Landy while making BW '88, or that Brian was where he was at during "Love You." It doesn't mean something has to be labeled as great, as if  "man, it's amazing he was able to string together a sentence let alone record an album", but knowing Brian's frame of mind and what he was through most definitely does help with an *appreciation* of "Love You." And understanding the contexts of these projects more *can* help one enjoy them/like them more. It doesn't mean anything is going to make "Mona" or "Little Children" great songs to me. But it might make listening to those songs more intereresting.


The story is interesting. The story is informative. The story, when known, can change how a person approaches or appreciates the music. But it doesn’t affect the merits of the music. The implication that by using the music to assess the music is simplistic, just about “what gets you off” or “instantly pleases you” is a straw man: I’ve never implied anything remotely like that. And to say that using music to asses music leaves you stuck at “I like it” and “I don’t like it” is absurd. Scholars do exactly that: they analyze and discuss music based on its content. And your post shows you value scholars, at least of the message board/ pop variety. (Other scholars focus more on artists’ stories over music: they’re historians.)
61  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Unpopular Beach Boys opinions on: March 11, 2018, 05:48:20 PM
I don't think any of us who were fans in 1988 ever dreamed Brian could come up with something like Rio Grande (or Melt Away) at the time. He was able to do those things in spite of Landy, in spite of the heavy drug cocktail.  I was expecting an album of I'm So Lonely's. You have to take all of those elements into consideration when looking at those songs.

No, you absolutely don't have to take all--or even any--of those elements into consideration when looking at those songs.

A song is as good as it is, whether it was written and recorded by a prince in the lap of luxury or a homeless veteran who scrounged up a few nickels. That Rio Grande was more than many fans expected at the time is irrelevant to how good it is. That Rio Grande was done by someone under the control of an abusive doctor is irrelevant to how good it is. The personal story surrounding the music is separate and apart from the quality of the music. The quality of music is based on the sounds that one hears when listening to it.

The shitty finger painting on your refrigerator isn't good because your 3-year-old niece painted it for you. It's still sh*t. It's just sh*t that means something more to you, regardless of its actual quality.
62  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Unpopular Beach Boys opinions on: March 11, 2018, 04:58:18 PM
I agree entirely about Rio Grande. Well, not entirely: it doesn't suck. But it's not especially good, much less great. And it's absolutely given more credit (I think) because it was stitched together, making people fawn over the "suite" idea that always seems to excite BW fans, allowing them to ascribe some grander scale than "just" pop music would.

My only real quibble with The Cigarette Light Joke's five statements is number four: I don't think Smile is better than the hype. I also don't think it's worse than the hype, really. I think it's about right for the hype (although whose hype would have to weigh into the equation). But it's a really, really great set of music, which is what it was hyped up to be. At the higher end of that hype, it was something that would have changed the world, totally altered the course of pop, which I doubt. It's just great stuff.
63  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: The What Are You Reading? Thread on: March 09, 2018, 06:26:34 PM
Finally began my copy of Dostoevsky's "The Adolescent" that I picked up a few weeks ago.
64  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: So what did we all EAT today? + recipes. on: March 09, 2018, 06:11:03 PM
Haven’t quite mastered palak paneer, but I will. goshdarn it.
65  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Brian's next solo album (NPP followup) speculation and info thread on: March 09, 2018, 03:57:46 PM
Makes sense, for sure. But then of course there are other affiliated possibilities: Todd Sucherman, Jim Hines, etc. D'Amico only (relatively) recently became the "Brian Wilson Band" drummer.
66  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Brian's next solo album (NPP followup) speculation and info thread on: March 09, 2018, 10:39:02 AM
That raises some interesting questions or points I hadn't been thinking about.

1. Does Brian have a record contract right now? Is there a label? Or is he just recording with the idea of figuring it out once there's something to sell?
2. I'm not concerned about any Joe Thomas involvement, honestly. I liked the past two studio recordings quite a bit.
3. No question that Brian's band comprises fabulous and more-than-competent musicians, but I have no qualms with these studio pros, either.
4. I can't imagine the players having any effect on record-buyers for BW. Those who know the names in either case would almost definitely buy in either case; some who know BW but dont' have a clue wouldn't care; and those who won't buy are unlikely to buy regardless (unless there's some fanatic Kenny Aronoff or Waddy Wachtel fans out there...).

I want an album. I want it to include new songs, not the eternally promised rock 'n' roll album (though if that's what it is, that's what it will be, and I'll buy it). I want background--and probably lead--vocals by people other than Brian when appropriate.

After that, I'm easy.
67  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Brian's next solo album (NPP followup) speculation and info thread on: March 09, 2018, 10:08:16 AM
I find it interesting as we see names like Waddy Wachtel and Kenny Aronoff that, for the third consecutive album (meaning the Beach Boys TWGMTR and Brian's NPP) we're seeing what might be substantial work by people outside of Brian's core band, at least instrumentally. Granted, it might be that these guys are only on one song or something, but we're not hearing anything from BW band members (other than Blondie, who hasn't exactly been a core member anyway), are we?

I'm curious to see what eventually comes out.
68  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: New Politics Thread 2018 on: March 07, 2018, 06:54:26 AM
I don’t mean to say we’re increasingly insensitive to those deaths, just that it’s increasingly easier to do so.
69  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: New Politics Thread 2018 on: March 07, 2018, 06:31:21 AM
The biggest difference or change is:
- traditional war: lots of Americans going away, many come back dead
- more modern war: fewer Americans going away, fewer come back dead
- special ops: even fewer and even fewer
- drones: fewer, fewer

It’s easy to ignore the number of enemy or foreign civilian deaths as that trend continues.
70  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: New Politics Thread 2018 on: March 06, 2018, 04:13:14 PM
Unfortunately it's entirely understandable why the drone idea was so appealing, and I think both of you showed you understand it. We want our way internationally, and we don't want to deal with the messiness of American citizens' kids getting killed and maimed at a high enough rate to cause trouble. So, presto, remote control...

I'm not entirely sure they're not an elegant solution if you're going to fight a war regardless. But we, of course, aren't so much fighting wars as fighting semi- and pseudo-wars in nontraditional combat zones against nontraditional opponents. I don't think the drones are so much the problem as military actions without fully fledged wars. Whether we kill civilians along with or instead of purportedly appropriate targets by drone, by the kinds of missiles advertised throughout the first Gulf War, or by whatever other method, the issue is that we're doing it.
71  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: What are you watching now?/Favourite Movie of the Moment on: March 06, 2018, 04:06:32 PM
Wow, that's ambition. That was the sort of thing I tried to do across media (movies, albums, and books) in the lead-up to 2000, where there were a lot of top 100s. However, I can't imagine even trying that anymore, much less 1001+. Good luck to you!
72  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: What are you watching now?/Favourite Movie of the Moment on: March 06, 2018, 07:50:42 AM

The 80s comedy Summer School is a lot of fun. 


I unabashedly loved that movie and have probably seen it 15 times (though not in years ... or decades). Absolutely fun and funny.

For what it's worth, I've also wondered whether Chainsaw and Dave weren't the models to some extent for Bill and Ted, and maybe even Beavis and Butthead. But the two inseparable friends, there for comic relief, mostly existing inside their own little fantasy world (of horror film for C&D, rock for B&T, and, well, uh, huh huh huh for B&BH), entirely useless from the outside world's perspective.

It also had some quotable lines: "Don't wet your pants. Watch this." "I cannot study. I'm going to the library." "...very very very very very much. [number] words on the dot. You can count them if you want."
73  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Songs Inspired by The Beach Boys on: March 01, 2018, 09:11:59 AM
That whole EP-turned-album was all Beatles/BBS pastiche. Pet Soul.
74  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Dean Torrence influence on Brian Wilson on: February 27, 2018, 01:35:39 PM
Great post. I agree entirely. Several years back I wrote a “defense of mediocrity “ or something, probably on The Record Room, dealing with some of those ideas. It actually might be somewhere here, too.
75  Smiley Smile Stuff / Welcome to the Smiley Smile board / Re: Ask the Moderators on: February 26, 2018, 03:42:13 PM
Kudos on a great post. I support you fully.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 356
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.165 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!