[b]Underworld[/b]
[b]Born slippy[/b]
[i]"Lager, lager, lager"[/i]

That's the best. And [i]why[/i] did they have to quote [i]that[/i] Pink Floyd song? :angry:

I'll check that later.

I suppose there's depth in slapping bitches and consuming cocaine and being shot... FIVE times.

Best lyrics? Without a doubt:

Immortal Technique
Jedi Mind Tricks
Mike Patton

Quick, recommend some good music. I've got money to burn.

[QUOTE=slackjaw]Quick, recommend some good music. I've got money to burn.[/QUOTE]
Genre?

EDIT forget it I'll check your profile.

OK let's see...

Check out Spastic ink, pretty awesome prog band. Also check out 65 seconds of static for ambient stuff. eh... For alt/indie... I guess... Bloc party is quite amazing.

Today's been...erm...interesting (That's probably the only word to describe it).

I started out writing and it felt absolutely brilliant, all the juices were flowing, I had a nice poem going. Then I decided that I'd branch out a little on it, and...well...it's turned into prose. I'm really diggin' it so it looks like I'm laying off the poetry for a bit.

If anyone wants a look at some of the prose then give me a shout either on here, or by e-mail/MSN (drumass04@hotmail.com)

Hope you're all busy writing!!

Timmy P

Eh, any genre will do.

Yeah, heard of Bloc Party. I remember one of their tunes. Real catchy, but I dunno, that band seemed like it might've been just another flash in the pan.

I love ambient music, though. I do most of my writing while listening to stuff like Boards of Canada.

hmm... Interpol doesn't float your boat?

The bands was 65 DAYS of static... hehe... weird. Anyhow... I've been listening to Sigur Ros and Godspeed you! Black Emperor... but I guess you've listened to that already.

Porcupine Tree is another amazing buy. Sonic youth... I was thinking of Murray Street, it's an amazing album. Check that stuff out.

Yeah, I should check out Takk.. been meaning to. If it's as amazing as ( ) is, then ... yeah.

Slackjaw, Bloc Party are fairly well-known over in the UK, they actually charted in the top 20 a few times I think. Either way, they've kind of gotten lost in the clamour over the Arctic Monkeys and their ilk.

Which brings me on to my next point. How over-rated are the Arctic Monkeys?! They're okay for a quick listen once in a while, but they're nothing special, and I'm certainly not considering running out and buying all their albums and stalking the band members.

I couldn't agree more!!!! People seem to have gone totally over the top about them, it's ridiculous. I'm shocked at how well they did in the recent NME awards. They knocked Oasis off the top spot for Best British band, they are the first band to do that in around 12 years I think. I don't think that they deserve it...They really haven't stood the test of time yet.

It'll be interesting to see where they are in a year or twos time.

Timmy P

[QUOTE=drumass04]I couldn't agree more!!!! People seem to have gone totally over the top about them, it's ridiculous. I'm shocked at how well they did in the recent NME awards. They knocked Oasis off the top spot for Best British band, they are the first band to do that in around 12 years I think. I don't think that they deserve it...They really haven't stood the test of time yet.

It'll be interesting to see where they are in a year or twos time.

Timmy P[/QUOTE]

Very very rich??? They've got the fastest selling british album ever (and that includes the Beatles albums and stuff). Too bad all their songs sound the same. I won't say I really dislike them, but I don't really see them as that great: lots of current indie bands are far better.

It may be the fastest selling, but that doesn't really mean all that much. If they get more albums sold than the Beatles then I really will eat my hat. It basically shows that they managed to set up their band well. They worked from all the tiniest bars in Sheffield, gradually building up to the bigger venues, building a huge fanbase just from their live work. Their album is no-where near as good as their live performances, and it's their live performances that people are buying the album from.

It just shows how clever the music business is really.

Timmy P

Mind you, I'd rather a band had a crud album and were awesome live than having a band with an awesome album who suck live.

I love hearing something new on old CDs. I was listening to [i]Agaetis Byrjun[/i] at work today and [i]Flugufrelsarinn[/i] made me feel all warm and tingly.

And I gave in and bought the new one from Death Cab, My Morning Jacket, and Sigur Ros. So good, all the way down to the packaging.

The live versions have a certain aura about them... It's really a great experience. For instance, despite I'm not particularly fond of Blink 182, I'd buy their live albums just for the silly poop jokes and the overall performance they give. hehe.

Anyhow, I have to listen to this Arctic monkeys... if it's overhyped, then it's subject of revision.

Hmmm, I do like a band that can produce a good studio sound, but to back it up they need to be able to put out a decent performance as well.

Just look at Coldplay, I know many don't like them (they're one of my favourite 'indie' bands) but their live shows really are something (been to see them three times, get better each time). Their live performance is matched by their studio sound as well, in my opinion anyway.

Timmy P

[QUOTE=drumass04]Hmmm, I do like a band that can produce a good studio sound, but to back it up they need to be able to put out a decent performance as well.

Just look at Coldplay, I know many don't like them (they're one of my favourite 'indie' bands) but their live shows really are something (been to see them three times, get better each time). Their live performance is matched by their studio sound as well, in my opinion anyway.

Timmy P[/QUOTE]

I could spend hours ripping it out of Coldplay for their poor lyrics, but they're almost permanantly on my playlist.

Currently I've been back on a bit of the old Bright Eyes and also some prog-metal in Threshold.

Everybody must now critique my new piece, "Splinter."

What's with this universal distaste for "swear" words? What, exactly, makes these words so "useless?" The only context that makes these words futile is the context of these elitest pricks who claim disown to them. "Dude, it weakens the piece."

I completely disagree. "Swear words" are only thus because of people who claim distaste for them. I, for one, enjoy profanity. "The F Word," to me, is a very, very poweful word. Not to mention the historical significance of why these words are "bad" is completely lost in a contemporary setting, and the only reason people acknowledge the "bad"ness of these words is because they're told to do so from external sources. (Parents, teachers, etc.)

I don't like swear words because they are emotionally vapid, not because of some great aversion I have toward their perceived "badness."

That's pretty cool that you want to call me an elitist prick because of a small criticism I had about a fu[b]c[/b]king dumb word like fu[b]c[/b]k. Thanks, homeslice.

[QUOTE=slackjaw]I don't like swear words because they are emotionally vapid, not because of some great aversion I have toward their perceived "badness."

That's pretty cool that you want to call me an elitist prick because of a small criticism I had about a fu[b]c[/b]king dumb word like fu[b]c[/b]k. Thanks, homeslice.[/QUOTE]

Who said I was talking about just you? You're not the first, don't flatter yourself.

What makes them emotionally vapid, then? What makes these specifically isolated groups of words dubbed profanity emotionally vapid?

[QUOTE=Sade]Who said I was talking about just you?[/quote]Oh, you know, just the fact that this discussion comes up after I post a comment regarding this exact topic. Maybe it wasn't directed at me specifically, but I did feel like I was among those in mind.

[quote=Sade]What makes them emotionally vapid, then?[/QUOTE]I should clarify. I don't really care for them when it comes to poetry. I think they're weak because they're incredibly over-used and only serve a single purpose: to give emphasis, to communicate intensity. Funny thing is, the strong impact they're [i]supposed[/i] to have is effectively negated by the fact that they're so widely used. And really, what emotional meaning does the word fu[b]c[/b]k have? Hardly any. It's used as an intensive most of the time. People tend to think it has an emotional quality because it [i]sounds[/i] mean, but how it sounds has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

[QUOTE=slackjaw]Oh, you know, just the fact that this discussion comes up after I post a comment regarding this exact topic. Maybe it wasn't directed at me specifically, but I did feel like I was among those in mind.

I should clarify. I don't really care for them when it comes to poetry. I think they're weak because they're incredibly over-used and only serve a single purpose: to give emphasis, to communicate intensity. Funny thing is, the strong impact they're [i]supposed[/i] to have is effectively negated by the fact that they're so widely used. And really, what emotional meaning does the word fu[b]c[/b]k have? Hardly any. It's used as an intensive most of the time. People tend to think it has an emotional quality because it [i]sounds[/i] mean, but how it sounds has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.[/QUOTE]

You see, that sort of subjective justification is fine with me. I actually...wasn't talking about you, you know. You just put the topic into my head. :lol:

However, I do disagree; simply because the derogitory context of these words adds alot to me in certain pieces. Perhaps it doesn't you, and that's fine; but what bugs me is the dismissal of the words without actually examining any context they might be included in.

I wouldn't say I 'dissaprove' of swearing in poetry, or any form of writing come to that. But I do feel that so called 'profanities' are so over used in every day life that they have, over the years, lost their meaning. They no longer have the same effect that perhaps they did 100 years ago.

I find that using other words can now create a stronger effect than swearing. I'm not saying that there is no longer any need for swearing in our society, I'm just saying that there are much better ways of putting across your point.

When it comes to insults, I find swearing is so overused that it no longer means anything. I could hurt someone a lot more, using other vocabulary.

*Goes to look at 'Splinter'*

Timmy P

Indeed. I don't mind the critique of swearing when it's in "insulting" someone. Hah, if I'm ever actually being "serious" about getting my point across to someone, rarely, if ever will I swear. But I like swear words. They're raw, and visceral. It's almost like the person using them actually DOES lack the "depth" to use other words. It's that sort of effect that I like them for.

I'm not here to impress anybody with my "big vocabulary." Omg look at all the words I can say besides the f word, guyths!1!

It ruins that "raw, bare bones" feeling and replaces it with some empty thesaurus.

Hahaha, yeh. I rarely swear in everyday life, but it does have a particular feel to it, when you use it in the right context.

Timmy P

[QUOTE=Sade]You see, that sort of subjective justification is fine with me. I actually...wasn't talking about you, you know. You just put the topic into my head. :lol:

However, I do disagree; simply because the derogitory context of these words adds alot to me in certain pieces. Perhaps it doesn't you, and that's fine; but what bugs me is the dismissal of the words without actually examining any context they might be included in.[/QUOTE]Ah, sorry about jumping to conclusions then. And about context, see, I think emotion comes through best within a context, like something you craft [i]throughout[/i] the entire piece. So with curse words, it's like you're working outside of that context and just getting to the point, and, I dunno, it tends to have a superficial impact.

I do like poetry that has a bit of dirt in it, though. And swear words certainly [i]can[/i] be attention getters if they're used well enough.

I don't like it because there's this weird sense of... well, badas[size=2]s[/size]ness when you swear, probably because of years and years of listening to Limp Bizkit, more particularly "My generation". What slackjaw says is just right: emotionally, or even when adding stress to a certain sentence words like f[size=2]u[/size]ck or sh¡t or c[size=2]u[/size]nt or whatever are just... pretty meh. I prefer the mor carnal words... for instance:

[I]Under these sheets of vapour
fornicating, in carnal encounters
of brief death mist
that ripples from our shaking hands
we fall and tremble...[/I]

would that sound better if I put f[size=2]u[/size]cking? No. There are certain words, like in this case, fornicating, that add up so much intensity. Or say, instead of t¡ts, I'd prefer to use "chest" or "breast". Maybe I'm overly influenced by the late 19th-early 20th century symbolism, but I really like certain words that say much more than you'd expect them to mean.

Yeah that.

What's with this universal distaste for "swear" words? What, exactly, makes these words so "useless?" The only context that makes these words futile is the context of these elitest pricks who claim disown to them. "Dude, it weakens the piece."

I completely disagree. "Swear words" are only thus because of people who claim distaste for them. I, for one, enjoy profanity. "The F Word," to me, is a very, very poweful word. Not to mention the historical significance of why these words are "bad" is completely lost in a contemporary setting, and the only reason people acknowledge the "bad"ness of these words is because they're told to do so from external sources. (Parents, teachers, etc.)
^ THANK YOU. About time someone said it. I'm going to critique your piece now.