mark

new mark ronson. its ok. he always makes something derivative feel a little different, which is respectable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzE5dS6fnFk

the back of beyond

the back of beyond. horace kephart said that. i like to think about it.

been a while since ive done something good on here. how many times have i said that, quite i few i think.

had one of those parting thoughts last night before i fell asleep. i think it was about the civil war but i cant be sure. it was pretty good i think, cause i remember thinking about turning on the computer to blog about it right quick, but i didnt. oh well.

anyway, finished my last term paper today. turned out alright, i really like tracing stakeholder positions, especially when they are rooted in the 1930s. love my title too. If you build it will they come? discussions on cemeteries, the environment and economic development in the great smoky mountains national park.

right so i really like the be good tanyas. frazey ford is one of them.


very moogy and oscillating. which i like. robert moog had the perfect name for what he does.

cool read

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/song/gwelch.html

yeah, you right

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2010/07/listen-up-is-it-wicked-not-to-care.html

i like finding things

check out these guys



This fits well into some film soundtrack, somewhere.

The film adaptation about a novel bolano never wrote about africa. damn thatd be good. will anyone ever be able to adapt a bolano? i can see oliver stone ruining it. one of the nolans distracting it from its inherent reality. spielberg making it sappy. etc etc. the only people i think who can do it are inarritu and arriaga, but theyll ahve to start talking to each other again. but it has to happen.

great

i like stories

i

hiya

always loved this song

benin 1970

to her last birth to be broken up

what songs do i think of when i look at turners.

good question.

ill try to stick to the same paintings i talked about back around march, might add a few more.

im going to actually do hyperlinks, maybe ill learn their value.

self portrait- the grid-phillip glass. is he coming forth or going hence? probably coming forh

The fighting Temeraire- neighborhood #3 (power's out)-arcade fire- because the violin arrangement is being dragged along behind the rhythm and battery. industry vs enlightenment.

Snow storm: Hannibal and his army cross the Alps- crystal visions-the big pink- psychedalic, but what wasnt psychadelic about all those guys coming over the alps with elephants, looking like fools? talk about the meeting of hubris and frustration. hannibal is portrayed as comically tiny. the chorus is perfect. do you know the way to the silver covered road/by the city thats run dry/to the secret covered horse/and they're waiting for us to arrive.

Slavers Throwing overboard the Dead and Dying—Typhoon coming on- de natura Sonoris no. 2-penderecki- it just sounds like a shark attack from the perspective of someone watching from a boat. even has some ship's bell sort of effects thrown in. heat of the day too.

Modern Rome, Campo Vacino- 1901-Phoenix- i got to see this painting last summer (well i guess i saw all of these last summer) at the scottish national gallery with a big Turner in Italy exhibit they had running. it was good, cause to be honest down south in london they kind of want you to think that all turner ever did was english historical landscape watercolors. turns out thats wrong. so yeah, 1901. youre sitting on this hill, which to me is kind of like this hill, which is where i spent a good part of a month reading roberto bolano, kafka, jan neruda and kundera. you show up on the hill, hit play, and 15 seconds later the song really starts. that gap makes what youre seeing seem broad.

Rain, Steam and Speed- i've seen it all-bjork- a great train song. the rhythm in the song is the sound of a train along a track. not so limited in scope, as the strings and bjork lift the song a lot higher than a heavy train bound to rails.

Wreckers Coast of Northumberland- Venus in Furs-the velvet underground-I'm ceaselessly fascinated by the wreckers, whether they be on the cornish, scottish or northumbrian coasts. basically these were people who would take over lighthouses, cut their lights, and instead set up decoy lights designed to confuse the navigators of ships out at sea to the point where they would become lost and crash their ships onto rocks near the beach. the wreckers would then go out and plunder the ships. id love to write a novel on the topic.

thats good for now

damn you, pitchfork

pitchfork isnt much different than some orwellian-huxleyian hybrid of a music blog. it suits all of our musical needs and music is all of our needs. something like that. anyway. we know that there are better resources out there to get our music fix, ie the quietus, stereogum, drownedinsound, boomkat, etc. but we always turn to pitchfork.

alors. they had this new group up today. sort of a four tet/flylo mix on this track, with that 'flashing lights' sort of LA-ness to it. it exudes the 'look at me' confidence/narcissim that is uniquely LA. some of the others go a bit into dubstep, so thats good. anyway, keep your ears on them, they could be the second half of 2010's floating points.

and while were on the topic of huxley and orwell. listen to these guys.

http://boomkat.com/vinyl/319833-on-sylvain-chauveau-steven-hess-something-that-has-form-and-something-that-does-not

talking about dead white men

nothing peeves me more then when i hear the so called religious right, a group i believe to be grossly out of touch with the majority of americans, and certainly something totally unmainstream, talk about how we're a 'Christian nation' and the like, and then cite the founding fathers, that routine, that the constitution says we are (it doesnt), etc etc. i always wondered about that debate but never really looked at the roots of it, which i think is a necessary condition, especially when were talkin' constitution. sure i had an opinion on the separation of church and state, but it was one founded on the climate i live in and some scattered readings of jefferson, and not much in between. so today i wanted to look deeper into that debate and see what i could find.

heres it in brief. well sort of in brief. as brief as i could make it.

before we were a nation, we were a conglomeration of 13 colonies, with no central government (bar that of the crown) with very few legal and formal linkages between colonies. some colonies were private economic enterprises, some were set up by religious separatists seeking freedom, then georgia was a penal colony. we werent a nation in the political science or social definition (or really any other) nor were we trying to become one, in the beginning. after the first few generations of americans, or rather pre declaration of independence americans, curiously many political figures, and especailly those who would go on to found the country, maintained the an adherence to what would be considered anything but Christianity.

Sure we can look at our founding fathers and say most were in fact Christian. on the surface. Jefferson became a deist at william and mary and in his writings rejected the Trinity and that Jesus was the Messiah. he also claimed that the disciples were a"band of dupes and impostors." In what has become known as the Jefferson Bible, he trumpeted Jesus's moral philosophy, ommiting anything resembling a miracle (telling Adams that separating what he perceived to be fact from fiction was like 'picking diamonds out of dunghills'), citing his own research which supported the conclusion that miracles were later papal additions to the story, and that Paul created a corrupt institution. He also said that he believed the stories surrounding Jesus's birth would one day be viewed the same as Minerva's emergence from Jupiter's brain. Later in life, he considered himself a unitarian, then accepted as a branch of Christianity, just as that movement was beginning. he never joined a unitarian congregation, because there were none in virginia, and he died within a few years of that movements establishment. unitarians would go on to view jefferson as an important figure in their movement.

So far that addresses just his personal beliefs, which are important, in viewing the much wider implications of his legacy on public policy. Jefferson was a staunch advocate of the separation of church and state. Jefferson wrote his own epitaph, on it were only three things: author of the decl. of independence, the statute of virginia for religious freedom, and the founder of the university of virginia. prior to writing of the statute for religious freedom, office holders in virginia had to swear allegiance to Christianity. The episcopal church was also funded by state level taxes. in the law, it was stated that there could be no interference by virginia in the personal religious beliefs of individuals, and that it could not affect their civic standing. We can't talk about jefferson's interpretation of religion via the dec. of independence, because, and many people fail to realize this, religion was never discussed. Words that are said: Nature's God (the way deists describe the creator), Creator (every religion has one of these), Divine Providence and Supreme Judge (simply appeals to a higher being).

Later, jefferson would vigourously defend the separation of church and state as it was in the 1st amendment, referring to it as 'the wall of separation'. he did not see a place for state religion in government, nor government in religion. he even defended the morality of the atheists, a pretty hot button issue, then and now. read some of his letters on the topic, all are illuminating, but at the same time are too many words to put on here.

i guess the logical progression would be to go to john adams next. starting with his core beliefs. adams was a self described unitarian. initially a congregationalist, he became unitarian when the congregationalist movement formed/evolved/whatevered into unitarianism. Adams too rejected the Trinity. he was perhaps the second most important founding father (a lot will say the most) but didn't add much to the religious side of the debates. pretty straightforward guy there.

we're not really going to talk about washington, because he wasnt really a founding father. but its worth mentioning that he was another of those episcopal turned deists who still retained a christian morality. he never took communion after becoming an adult.

ben franklin. one of the more complex ones, because like everything else he did in life, he went back and forth. Adams described him as a 'man which people saw their own religion'. for all intents and purposes another deist who rejected the Trinity. perhaps hes best described as a 'generalist' who believed primarily in virtue and not in perceived dogma. also an early proponent of separation of church and state, believing that a good church is one that can support itself. when it cant, and God can't, then its a bad one. <-his words in brief.

paine. the one that got the whole things started, but now the one that nobody gives a crap about. tragic the way history is. anyway. he wrote 'the age of reason' which basically got him killed when he went back to england, the country of his birth. it advocated deism, highlighted perceived inconsistencies in the Bible which he called 'fabulous mythology' and not the true word of God or that the Gospels were even written by the disciples, and advocated the free thinking ideals of the enlightenment, that reason should triumph over revelation. believed church and state needed to be separated through radical means, or else they would become corrupt. his creed:
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe
so that was basically him.

Now who the Christian right really needs to be citing is patrick henry. although he never signed the declaration or the constitution. he was like basically the only prominent political (ie non church) figure in that crowd to advocate for state Christianity. there are like a million letters between him and the other guys where they yell at each other. he strongly belived in state sponsored religion, and tried to pass a bill giving taxes to churches, but that individuals could earmark and decide to which church their tax went. non deist episcopalians supported it, everybody else shut it down. the act that passed in its place was jeffersons statute on religious freedom.

Madison. father of the constitution. atheist? probably. born an episcopalian, pretty much like the rest of them. he kept his views pretty private, but in his day as well as today, its thought he was an atheist. this is informed in part from correspondences and statements, and also for his vigorous defence of the separation of church and state at the state and national levels, though that defence cant make him an atheist. he certainly didnt practice anything in particular, that much is known, but much of the rest is inference. God, or anything Christian was never mentioned in teh constitution until the bill of rights was passed, a couple of years later. the two clauses in the first amendment that deal with religion, the establishment and the free exercise clause, say congress can't make a law establishing a state religion, nor can they pass laws preventing the free exercise of a religion.

monroe-never really said anything on the topic. they think he was another one of the deist by way of episcopalian though.

hamilton-became religious and more Christian-er later in life, but at the time of the constitutional conventions he made jokes about God. one often cited one is that he was asked why the word God doesnt appear in the Constitution and replied 'We forgot it.' one might question the context of this statement, but hamilton was a notorious sarcastic so its accepted that this was in jest.

i guess thats about all of the big ones right.

its interesting really when you think about it, that conventional wisdom has lumped the puritans in with the founding fathers, when tehy couldnt be more different. the founding fathers, barring henry and a few lesser signers, were all philosophically borne out of enlightment tradition and not christian theo-social paradigms. The american revolution, and americas foundation as a country were not triumphs of Christian ideals, that religious victory occured with the formation of the colonies that made the later formation of the country possible, it does in fact appear to be the other way around.

The ultimate irony, which is comedic to a point, is that by promoting state sponsored religion as an american ideal, proponents are aiming for the same policy that was a primary input for america to be formed to begin with. it was the rebellion by minority religions and sects against the crown's state episcopalianism that sent so many across the atlantic to begin with. so for a country who, in its formative years in the late 1700s united behind principles of religious tolerance and freedom, to promote this ideal goes totally against the spirit and the word of our founding fathers and documents. luckily though, even guys like john roberts have read the constitution. so yeah, religious right, take back the country and take it to.....george's 18th century England? good riddance.

i have to admit, i learned a lot from this. i thought t jeff and madison were the ones going against the grain, i didnt realize that they actually represented the majority.

i thought it went like this-christian guys get together and write down some stuff saying that we're free to practice whatever religion we want, but that the spirit of the writing indicates that it damn well better be christian.

i didnt realize that it was more like-guys who would be considered heretics today (seems like itd be hard for people to call obama a 'half breed muslin' today if they knew about our founders, wouldnt it?), but were mainstream with their beliefs then, got together and wrote some stuff that pretty much did actually mean, in spirit and in words, that in the eyes of the state, we're free to practice what we want.

its really astonishing me to think that we as Christians have let this Christian nation paradigm permeate, which many argue is born out of the cold war differentiation complex, and did not exist any earlier than that. the Godded americans vs the Godless soviets. i mean we always forget that in the pledge of allegiance they didnt add the 'one nation under God' until 1954, when things were starting to kick off between us and them. Certainly this notion solidified under reagan for the same reason, hell ill even agree with them and say that the nationalistic hoopla in the 80s let us beat the commies once and for all. consequence though-it was a whole hell of a lot easier to fight them than it is the organs without bodies that we face today. or is it rather the organs with bodies, taht we refuse/fail to understand. but thats a different direction and question entirely.

full of it tonight

whoever said writing comes in waves was probably an author. no shit. anyway, im on one of those. been listening to the new transatlantic sessions disc, which is actually the original but remastered.

probably what i would call my best thing ive written so far would be what i did for ib music senior year, tying the musical traditions of the southern appalachians with those of scotland and ireland. it was a no brainer in a lot of ways, but its kind of the cornerstone for everythign that i have written since. big point with it was connections and linkages arent singular. for any two things theres more than one link between them. same goes for that. makes looking at the world a little different. also for good economics.

music, words, thinking, talking, all of it.

cant embed. heres some good stuff though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urB_EuOb2rY&feature=related

aint it good

to see these two singing together. there is hope yet for the those left lost by the everybodyfields.

May 2010 from Jill Andrews on Vimeo.

odd shaped objects

when interpol emerged in 2002ish, from presumably an s&m club in some f-ed up alleyway in hells kitchen, nyc, everybody paid attention. given their origins as nyu students i totally believe it. (both being privileged and depraved)

for a while they made it fashionable to mix cocaine, cigarettes, books, and the words of 'the wasteland.' and weirdly shaped objects, as witnessed in nearly every one of their videos. most often through furniture and bjorkesque/neogeisha/matrix chique girls doing odd things on top of said furniture, interpol and their music video directors created a sort of stylistic ethic around the band to rival radiohead before them arcade fire after, at least for the 'mainstream indie' consciousness (the words not as contradictory as they may appear). it was effective, it translated to great live shows as i can attest having seen them, and the music wasnt half bad either. now though, it all just feels pedestrian. the first two albums are gold, and are going to hold up to time pretty well. but for anything new, that scene is just dead and gone, especially when carlos d, the most vividly terrifying member. all in all though, not bad for a band who took from joy division and ts eliot and didnt contribute much themselves.

live they were just cool, especially in the swampy feeling tabernacle in atlanta. spartan set design, wearing all black, hardly any stage lights, most light coming from the member's cigarettes during the show. plenty loud too.

heres the newest, which looks like the oldest. but sounds much worse. time for me to go listen through 'turn on the bright lights' and think about 2002, which for all intents and purposes was four thigns for me. this album, 'amnesiac,' 'is this it' and 'rush of blood to the head.' that was a good year. a year id do again. its amazing how new those albums felt. they all come together so well in the context of that year. theyre all of course defined by 9-11. amnesiac predicted it, rush of blood thought less of it, turn on the bright lights found something else despite it, and is this it said fuck it.

whats the day

you just cant beat anco at their best.

the unfinished task of staying alive or too much beer, too many fireworks

last week was one of those weeks, when faced with the ability to do, i did not. those are the worst. at least we as sentient, functional human beings are blessed with hindsight though, because without it, itd be hard to fathom the possibility of digging out of those times before some form of intervention, divine or common.

im not sure how much of that is some sort of redressing of history though, brought on by a night of heavy drinking, as the 4th certainly was. maybe its during the recovery from that that brings on a certain lucidity, maybe its as if my mind is unable to say, through the way its wired, 'dont do what you did in the last 24 hours.' rather the only thing it is programmed to say for these sort of damage-control instances is 'dont do what you did over the last 7 days.'

its amazing that given the human experience, the however-long-it-lasts journey of self-doubt, self-discovery, self-reliance, otherness, and whatever else goes into that curiously endless, limitless but yet indisputably finite list, that we are never going to answer these questions. sure during my postmarxist, psychoanalytic days i learned a lot about the tools, and the processeses, but more than anything that taught me that for everyone who argues for a 'third way', theres probably more who are 'no way'. but then when you think about that more, the 'no way' isnt really that. that yes, there isnt really a consensus, but there are communities that very much do achieve consensus. millions of them. but i digress. the operative point here is what zizek calls the vanishing mediator, i think. its good to be a human.

but who knows. too much beer, too many fireworks.

right now im watching one of the pbs frontline docs, this one on regional airlines and the truth behind them. pbs is great. what ive started doing is alternating nights between frontline and american experience. its beneficial.

seems like ive got squirrels in my attic here. my literal attic. the attic of my apartment. that one. more on that as it develops.

and now for something different

so usually for dance stuff you all know i tend to stick with downtempo dubstep/jungle/wonky and some grime. i dont like glitch too much, but i do like boy 8-bit and crystal castles (their early stuff was more or less 8-bit, but now theyre more synthrock, a la M83). though the guys defining these genres are pretty much doomed to fail, so call it what you will. it doesnt really matter anyway.

they call it 8-bit because samples are from gameboys and other late 80s-early 90s video game systems, which used 8-bit computers in them. so thats neat.

summer heat and editing and an unfortunate encounter in the shower, with a hornet.