The feelings for a forgotten friend:

A friend of mine recently suffered brain damage from a car accident. He was by no means a good friend as of current, but when we were young, (and he was geeky....pre-stone/punk) we were pretty good friends,and dare I say one of my best friends. All the way up to grade...7-8 I as I recall. At that time, he went from geek to basically your average boarder listening to Metallica, Megadeth, Rage and etc. I also went my seperate way, blooming my own personally "unique way". I've talked to him off an on, and even tried to embarass him by showing a elementary year book (ala geek years). Even after graduation I talked to him only once. Yet when I heard this awful news, especially of how serious it was, it just kinda nudged me in the heart in someway. Not exactly all the childhood memories with him came flooding back, but more of an aroma of it sent a bit of a quiver in my eye. I guess that's the power of friendship sometimes, and despite my selfish and often apathtic ways, I really can't deny the human nature of feeling sad when something bad happens to an old friend.

Sincerity in art:

I can smell bullshit. Actually I really can't. The problem probably lies in what I like and what I don't like.

I like = good art
I don't like (or my friends don't like) = bullshit.

Anywhoo...Sincerity in art is basically the person being faithful, putting their 100% or more into an art project; but most importantly, making art that doesn't exactly undermine the audience in the most easy way.

Now don't get me wrong, effort does "sometimes" equal the sincerity I speak of, but do it wrong, then you get IMHO bullshit. But effort does not necessarily = "time put into it." It always comes down to quality vs. quantity.

Now the fact of the matter is you can never get 100% of the people to say "Wow this artwork is honest and sincere...good." Hell, you can put the sincerity I speak of into the artwork, project whatever and still get people (or even 99% of them) saying this is bullshit. That's expected. Now I'm not encouraging you to cater to the greatest common denominator cause art is usually a way to communicate on your terms, and if not to at least put your representation of what someone else's communication.

But there is this.....um...so to speak "aura" of art that people get when they take something in. That's the idea of sincerity. It's easy to do, and for me to do cause most often I have people who saw me go about the process in constructing the art. They know what effort I put into it and what I even think about it. However the general audience doesn't know that.

Now I can't really desribe how to do so, but as we can see, rushing something is sometimes not the way. The worst thing you could ever do is filler. Hell even professionally exhibiting showing exercises are bad too. I dont' know, once again that's my opinion. I'll talk more about it later.

Blah

The Cult of Cult films.

I know of two things that produces a cult film.

Either really good in a strangely gripping way. Or supremely crappy that being serious (or not serious) is an appeal to itself.

I have my own cult film of Hudson Hawk. I don't think it was the fact that it was so bad, so off the cuff, so insanely a cumalation of being one of the greatest box office flops ever that made me like it. I just liked it. I was a kid when I first saw it, and as a kid I was kinda oblvious to the whole world. Seriously I was. I would watch a movie and never know the name of it, let alone know why it was good. I just inhaled it in, without any perceptions or anything. I didn't bother to remember names or even try to remember stars until I was much older, perhaps AFTER I saw Jurassic Park. I was in my own little world.

Hudson Hawk was a movie that I watched and kinda liked when I was a kid. It wasn't until later and through no help of others that I began to watch it often. It was like one of my "spend a whole weekend" watching movies additions. Soon enough when my mother "re-ordered" for the store it because she knew it was my favorite film, I watched it even more. Just cause I liked it. the more I learnt about it the more I liked it, how actors absolutely hated it, yet in the film they possibly played some of the best parts of their lives....IMHO of course. The characters were stock, yet the perfect kinda stock. But I think what stood out the most was the plain wackiness and it stuck in me despite my "oblvious" days.

Cult film fans just seem to be unified in only one thing, being fervor to the thing they like. Not some hoity toity acknowledgement like the Rollingstones, but a type of thing so obscure (or at least fringe enough to scare people of your knowledge beyond normal reachable grasps) you have to make an effort to like it.

I guess it's hard to describe cult, at least for me. I constantly find it being so over-used than anything becomes cult, even Pokemon.

Why I hate Kloburn Lundquist.

It's a combination of things. It could be the fact that my friend Donald described Kloburn as a person who insults you often, but also is a faily swell guy. I kinda latched onto the negative aspect of him and kinda glossed over his finer points of being incredibly well-versed in various reading mediums as well as latin. A very sharp and smart mind and probably has even more guts than I, in being so "bizarre" in public. I admit I am jealous of these traits as well for his dedication to his art which often I hardly have the will to do anymore. If anything I suppose I am so jealous even afraid of his dominance that I belittle him in my half-hearted ways in order to feel superior. I have a big problem with that. It could be the fact that he is fat and ugly, but not an ugly that I can admire but an ugly that acutally repulses me; despite those of my friends who call him a pussy magnet (and you know who you are). The fact that he's an asshole furthers my detest for him.

However he has always bested me at times, more than I have to him.

Point to him

Calling me on how Rage Against the Machine lack integrity due to their sell out status (aka buy our shirts). I could probabaly reply with the fact that Zack de La Rocha holds press conferences to speak out on the injustices of human imprisonment of speakers against third world dicatorships, but I lack any substantial evidence to further it beyond that. Plus to bring it up would be petty, but that's what enemies are for ain't it?

Point to him

Me acting like an asshole, talking to him at a art gallery picnic. I really had no right to bring it up especially when most people there were his friends. But nevertheless I was petty then.

Point to me

Calling Kloburn on how he didn't know that Empire Strikes Back was not directed, let alone written by George Lucas.

Point to me

Art review...nuff said.

Semi stupid point to him

First words to me at his and Patrick's art show this year, "Sorry Stephen we couldn't fit in a chair this year". This referring to a chair art project I made last year. It didn't register, and even when it did I didn't really care.

Stupid point for me

Showing him...the "tape" at his departure from the bus station...stupidly after showing him and making a scene (kinda) I walked out. Only to return and say it's contents. Kloburn didn't get any of it, since it was too gargled. I looked like a complete moron there.

Well that's how it pans out, our little duals. Petty? Yes...but I think it all boils down to pratice for the real world. I haven't really had anyone to antagonize and in effect make me further my ability to debate let alone create out stings back in the a moment. This isn't something I obsess about 24/7 but when I think about it, I put plenty effort into it. This is a way to harden me and pratice my skills to debate out a point.

Besides, Kloburn still hasn't written a rebuttal to my review.

The “Illusion” of Kung-Fu

The mystic gem of Hong Kong movies. For what Hong Kong lacks in ultimate cult weirdness that the Japanese produce, they are primo in Kung-Fu fighting scenes. Albeit I have only truly analyzed (aka watch seriously) a literal handful of Kung-Fu flicks, those being: Once Upon China 3 (4?), Drunken Master 2 and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. There are others, but these are primarily used for my descriptive benefits.

The Matrix was a gateway drug to Hong Kong Kung-Fu flicks, or films emulating them. I’m sad to say, just like the Playstation, Pokemon and Final Fantasy 7, this gateway drug essentially broke into a mainstream public and paved a road for “good products” and “bad products” to be exported to North American consumers in excess. Sadly the bulk of that excess has been pre-dominantly the latter.

Now I’m not one to rightfully complain so much, because despite how much I complain that…say… I feel FF7 has ruined the whole FF7 genre if not the whole genre of console RPGs, the reality is that it’s still up to us the consumer to choose which ones are good and the others are nuggets of crap. I might be bitter due to the fact that ‘Nintendo “Propaganda Machine” Power’, long ago taunted me with these beautiful screenshots of RPGs that I would possibly never see on North American shores short of learning Japanese and importing it. In the opening of the general gaming public to RPGs due to FF7 I was fairly pissed off that no-brainer ports of old-skool games (Star Ocean, Tales of Phantasia), that would guarantee profits, were overlooked to produce the next “cinematic RPG”.

But back to the point, as we can see, since the Matrix (not so much in 2002 mind you) we’ve been seeing half-baked stories; wrapped around a kung-fu film which only has one shot gimmicky Kung-Fu moves. And to tell the truth, most of them suck ass. I may not be the expert on Kung-Fu flicks, but watching enough “Imperial China” Soap Operas chock fulla kung-fu, they are sadly even better than some of the movies of yesteryear. Once again I may not be informed, but I know what I like.

Now it’s been on my brain a while, “What in holy Wong-Fei-Hongius are these people doing?” I hardly see any Kung-Fu let alone comprehend WTF is going on. I see arms moving, legs kicking, hearing blocks and thuds, but nowhere am I seeing it. This of course leads me to observation #1.

1. Far out DUDE!: One major problem I have been seeing is that cameras are going in way too close to film the action. If anything they’re filming the action of torso, back of heads, which leads me to indicate that this isn’t a drama flick. You don’t need close ups on Kung-Fu flicks in that way people are doing it. These-sharp angle shots inherently suck ass. I mean if you can do it well then do it, but it better be damn good or else just stick with the good old, “side on” shot ala fighting games.

This leads me to refer to Drunken Master 2. Now the final fight scenes were great cause it was far away, not these muddled crowed paparazzi shots we were getting. Yes static, but if your kung-fu is good enough young grass-hopper, then people will enjoy. Not too mention the idea that it was super far when Jackie Chan was kicking ass with a bench surrounded by axe-wielding meanies. This super far = super good.

2. Long…continuous…shots: Continuing on the legendary Jackie Chan, Drunken Master 2 featured some of the longest “single continuous” shots I have ever seen. Understand that through this you accomplish two things. One: a great kung-fu scene…to pull off such a feat is to construct a l337 enough sequence to keep one’s attention. Two: it’s long man! To have people to pull of such a feat is to be admired. But what if you don’t have the resources or dare I say it….competent actors/actresses to do so? The refer to observation #3.

3. The illusion of “long continuous shots” aka flow: After my friend had the consideration of exposing me to the wonders of Drunken Master 2 I harbored a small vendetta to prove that Drunken Master had less time on continuous shots than my personal Once Upon China 3/4?. Instead to my dismay there were lacking in continuous glorious kung-fu shots…but something was also brought me to another aspect…the “illusion” of continuous shots.

Put it this way, ever action has an equal and opposite reaction. You Tiger and Crane attack an evil Boxer Association Villain, then the evil Boxer Association Villain dies with blood a-spewing. How to capture it to create “flow” is the key. You make it so you are there watching this fight, not some half-assed wrestling show that captured someone after getting tossed onto the commentator’s table. That is what Once Upon China 3/4? has an great sense of flow that doesn’t seem like an editor’s mess but a glorious smooth flowing shot of kung-fu glory.

Which brings me to my closing argument:

Bullet time:…*silence*

You know the saying; Too many "D"s spoil the gameplay:

Of course this is discussing why I dislike 3D games. I have only a few qualms about 3D games, but to tell the truth, these are very important ones. To start off, I still have hope for 3D games, because like it or not...they're here to stay. The only salvation we would EVER have from 3D games would be the GBA and SNK/NeoGeo. The very fact that the GBA has become almost the "neutral system" in the battle of the consoles, goes to show how important it is in supporting what I consider a vertible golden age of gaming, the 16 bit era.

I do consider that 3D games are in what could be related to the early 16 bit era of video games...if not, then at least in the late stages of the 8-Bit era. WTF am I exactly talking about? I think 3D games are at a point where developers are still trying to iron out the details of what is and what isn't good. I think that I should be at least patient because the developers not only have an incredibly amount of dimensions to work with, but also how to use the camera to facilitate it. Given time I think that we would be seeing much better games.....despite how the PSX initially broke into the market and basically pioneered the pratice of quantity over quality.

Anyways here what I have a problem with 3D games:

1. 3D games for 2D minds: This may be the case since I was weened in the 8 Bit era - 16bit era of gaming. I joined the 32 bit era half heartidly due to the lack of buying games plus the fact that I only bought a PSX for FF7. But I'm digressing. The fact of the matter is even though it might be the problem that I am conditioned to play in a 2D world (which I feel I'm not but I do have to acknowledge it as an explanation) I still think that our human minds are still too simple to even fathom the idea of a 3D plain. Hell, even our lives are mainly 2D with both our feet planted firmly on the ground, and yet developers expect us to jump 20 feet in the air, fall down caveren and not feel dis-oriented? Ok I'm pushing it a bit too far, but the fact of the matter is one main problem is "how" we see ourselves in the game. FPS' may not be such a problem due to being the driver's seat 24/7. Third person's are probably worse off due to camera angle considerations. We might sometimes want a "movie-esque" fighting/shooting sequence, but for that we end up losing on practicality of movement and periphial vision.

But ranting once again, just to say there's just WAAAY to many dimensions for the simple mind to fathom which leads to my next point

2. The more stuff you have, the more "crap" you have: I'm not dissing the fact that level designers have to stare at a computer screen from hours upon end (as a job!!!!11!!) to develop an enviroment that would blow our minds, let alone try to confuse us into thinking it to be some sort of "real life" equilavent. Kudos to them to make it wonderfully beautiful....but one damn thing that pisses me off is the amount of wandering involved in these carefully detailed, but half heartedly constructed worlds. And it's not JUST wandering, but how "wandering" suddenly becomes this dominant theme. Just like the recent PS2 Shinobi, the basic run down is:

1. Run down hallway
2. Enter room full of enemies
3. Flip out and kill them
4. Repeat 1-3 until you hit the boss.

Now yes...there is plenty of action, but as you can see it's almost like a burst of action. It's like the enemies get aquainted with a 3D world and say "Wow! Look at all this room! Well fuck this...I'm not going to stay in the hallway anymore. This broom closet could fit 10 of us!" See what I mean? Suddenly the concept of "action games" become "wandering into action" games. Granted in the early 32 bit systems were too slow or lacked power to exactly put about a dozen 3D enemy characters cramming down your throat while you banish them to hell with your Invincible God Fist attack, hell even "Zelda" who's biggest attractions was entering rooms FULL of enemies and having to kill them all. Nintendo somewhat rectified that in Majora's Mask.

Plus the fact that what you see is what you get. I was always surprised by the fact that two dozen enemies on the screen "and see them" but with 3D games especially FPS', with stuff blocking your view, it suddenly becomes a seemingly tedious task of "who's coming next?" especially seeing that when you defeat something, an elaborate death scene only distracts you and muds up the scene all together.

Another thing with this wandering is disorientation....not ONLY due to the "fake" walls that developers put up, but also the the whacked out way that cameras can shift worse than a carnival ride. Example? Playing Donky Kong on N64...hell I was swimming in the sea for 10 minutes only to figure out that I wasn't getting ANYWHERE and was swimming along a fake wall. Anyways speaking of Zelda it brings me to this point......

3. Auto-Targetting: I appreciate the fact that there is auto targetting. Playing Zelda while actually strafing around a targetted object was cool indeed. Despite that still some games are rough even with auto targetting, but the fact remains it's lazy. This is almost like shooting fish in a barrel...no....make that shooting fish in a barrel WITH a laser scope AND some husky dude guiding you to aim for it's head. There was nothing to prevent me from just auto-targetting the enemy and just arrow the shit out of it. Nor in Perfect Dark with the "Rail Gun" (with a convenient x-ray scope I might add), I was picking off bots with only two buttons, the "secondary function" auto target of "R shoulder" and the shoot button.

Now with FPS's I imagine, yes we do need it because one shift in an angle could make the difference between a bullent settling in nice, warm, gooey, grey matter or the side of Fido's doggy house. But seriously, even if the US Army are specifically trying to recruit people who played a lot of "multiple tasking" violent video games, would you want a soldier to come up to you and scream "Is there auto targetting in this Army Issue M-16 SIR?!!!!111!!".

I say, instead of auto targetting, replace it with guns that have shit for accuracy (like an uzi) but becomes "indirectly" the "spread gun" of Contra. You may not be the best shot in the west, but at least you have a firing range of 20 meters LONG and 3 meters HIGH...more than enough to hit at least some of the hulking mass of green alien lumbering your way. If you want to improve your skills, switch to a sniper rifle. Deadly accurate but your auto-targetting skills are ALL in your hands. But the fact of the matter is that it's game. We want all people no matter how lacking in hand-eye coordination in order to join into a lovely death match and watch their best friends lungs become part of the decor.



3D stop playing with ma heart.

An art idea in the hand, is worth 2 in the "Louvre"

If you haven't already guessed it...I love art. But the fact of the matter is once again I'm getting almost to the point of burn out of art. My short time spent in art classes had drastically changed my way to of approaching art, let alone creating it. I haven't picked up a paintbrush seriously in years and I don't think I would in the years to come. It's kinda hard to say what a "good" art idea is. Hell just saying "Interesting" in a critique isn't merely a staller of time but another neutral word to use before you say whether it's crap or not. The most referred artist of our century would probably be Warhol and to anyone with solid praticality as their leading instinct, he had one shitty idea. I think I'm here to somewhat discuss it, not absolutly define it but dicuss it.

For me, making art is more of a cumlation of what I learned "is" art and somewhat making something out of it. Not neceesarily copying it (although that's a story for another time) but more of switching a small twist into the fray. For me, since 99 art has ALWAYS been about society. Perhaps not as a whole, but aspects of society. I have hardly ventured into art ideas without this concept backing it. The more I go into it, the more I hate the fact that I'm somewhat copping out and saying:

"This piece is about society's (___insert plausible rubbish___). And that's what it's about."

The fact of the matter is despite how much I want to get away from it, it still dogs me...I want to do an art project about form or the subject but NOT about society....but I'm digressing. The fact of the matter is to me art is a way to communicate. For a more humourous description, "Art is (social) nit-picking". Why "social" as an option? Take an art history course and you'll find out. The fact of the matter since the invention of the camera thus destroying's art's purpose as "representation of reality" art has been degrading it's form, function etc. into every single permutation of life you can think of. Hence abstract black holes in the middle of gallery floors. That is what art is, nit-picking the hell out of life and communicating it in such a way that the audience "gets it" or doesn't...hopefully the former, yet hopefully the latter.

Now my art ideas are anything beyond practical, and not even CLOSE to something to be brought home to show off to your friends....unless I'm dead, you're goths or Eurotrash and it's 200 years into the future. But I feel that somehow it makes a small "dent" in people's minds to say "Hey this is my message...get it". I'm not so much for form as to social commentary, much like the Seinfeldian ramblings of Kevin Smith, or Seinfeld himself. Yet I want to discover this idea of fun and humour behind my art....and the same time perhaps piss off a few people. But that's my way....I feel that an art project is good on my behalf if:

1. I have acheived my initial plan or produced an alternative/adaption that I internally accept
2. I have my friends like it and praise the living daylights out of my while I act modest to get more compliments (I'm such a bastard)
3. I felt that this idea was totally mine, with NO doubt on how good it is and seemingly not half-assed in the thought process, (but possibly half assed in the execution).

Hence my initial comment at the beginning. If I have one great idea, then the two semi good ones anywhere would not satisfy me as much as that one.

*Critique Mode On *

"It is interesting"

*Critique Mode Off*

White people speaking Chinese:

Say the following with me:

Joong Gok...

No...that's not it...use more of your tongue. Not so high. It doesn't sound natu...fuck forget it.

I for one am a person who thinks I can teach anyone anything. It's all the matter of "how" you get the point across. At the same time I think I should offer some little nuggets of wisdom to particularily english speakin people on how to speak Chinese.

Advice #1: Accept only "half" of the anglosized versions of Chinese words. I mean it. The fact of the matter is that of half of the anglosized Chinese I ever read, was like some half assed attempt to cram a circle block in a square hole. I call it "Changlo" from here on in. Actually to tell you the truth, "Changlo" isn't too bad. The most effort you should put into Changlo is only to use it as a guide and ONLY a guide. Why? Later.

Advice #2: You're tongue, nasal passge and throat is going to go to places that you don't even know you have. To me, Chinese (more specifically Cantonese) is a nasal language...no upon reflection it isn't.....then again yes it is. It's hard to say. To go with everyone else, Chinese is more throat oriented than english. Whereas english has reverberation in the nasal passage about 90% of the time, Chinese needs only like 10%, and of that 10% it's only as an aid to smooth out sounds in our fabolous oft seeken language. That's why Chinese people are loud, it's all from the throat baby! It's almost half your nasal cavity is blocked off, forcing the sound to smack the top of your mouth and rocket out of it.

As the throat, nasal passage and tongue get at it, they're there to aid in the sound...not create it. Imagine english as a nail, where when you pound it, it goes in and you know where you stop. As opposed to a screw when is twisted in, smoothly without much stopping...ok bad analogy but the fact is english is direct and have stops and pauses. The sound comes out and stops. To go back to a stereotype, when you hear old stereotypical Chinese people speak in the 60's movies with the lighty flighty air and the "ah...yes...ah....ahaaaaaa" that is somewhat true. Even though a the main part of a word in Chinese might have stopped, the sound of it continues almost continually with small indications of breaks. It's like a wave, and not matter how small the wave is (in this case the aaaa....ah...ah yes blah blah) it's still a part of it to make the complete wave. Which leads me to...

Advice #3: Don't ever say the sound of a Chinese word. It horrors me to teach my friends and hear it so badly. They sound like a robot, let alone in my younger years I felt that they were even making fun of me. You have to observe more thatn meets the eye and ask the positioning the tongue...and don't rely on english positions either. Think of your mouth "transforming" into another machine, to prove the same function of kicking ass, but in a different fashion. Ask how the air seems to come out, where it went, the shape of the tongue and for the love of God, feel breathless, feel that you start each word with an exhale of silent air and end with a exhale of silent air.

That is why Changlo is somewhat acceptable...it gives you a rough "idea" of where to position your tongue, throat and other mouth orfices but it's NOT the way to do it. Ask someone else!

Now...say the following with me:

Tsim Tsa Tsui




No..fuck............forget it.

Sub that shit up!:

Being a geek I often wander into the land of foreign celluoid. Places where most of the ears of my clan (North America) have hardly ever set eardrums upon. The land where semblance of language graces our minds..but more importantly our souls. I'm not saying I'm the expert on foreign films, because my history is piddly short. Hell, I could probably count only up to 20 films that were NOT french versions of an North American English Language films, let alone films outside of Hong Kong flicks and anime. However despite the small atom sized list, I still know what I like. That is...

"SUB THAT SHIT UP!"

It's kinda obvious why the hell dubs of any foreign film potentially sucks. The mere mention of "Dub" sends shivers up my spine let alone brings my brain to meltdown even if I tried to listen to it. And of course here are my main reasons.

1. It's like photocopying. It's like this....Character in movie ----->copied/acted by------>Foreign actor------>copied by------>cheaply hired voice actor with no job.

So it's basically a copy...of a copy. Of course a copy of a copy isn't exactly the most pristine representation of the original content. Not to mention the fact that sometimes adaptions had to be made in order to "synch" up with the lip movement. Which leads me to #2.

2. It's a different culture. Sometimes the fact that comedy in a different language should be left as so. Much like swearing. A French person could say "Pass the fucking Peas" to his mom, but the second they say "Tavernack", out comes daddy's belt and mommy's rolling pin. Pure comic gold.

This is especially true of anime since sometimes cultural attributes such as Japanese girl characters having incredibly high pictched squeaky voices could in fact fit perfectly in a unknown Japanese language context, yet decrease my happiness level expotentially when done in a language I understand. I think at the same time it deals with not ONLY reading the sub-title which in effect is totallly different than listening to it in english, but the fact that in that culture this Japanese glass shattering squeakiness both "fits" in that culture AND is pure first copy emotion to human heart...not the mind. There's no words for being excited or extremely pissed off while blood is spewing out of the arm that was oh so stylishly hacked off. The only qualm really is the whole concentration of a sub film is upon the lower half of the film. Nearly 60% of your attention is upon those wonderful white words, explaining in literary detail what exactly the fuck is going on.

On that note, the only two good dubs I have the pleasure of hearing are

Ghost in the Shell: I cannot emphasize this enough. It might be the fact that I saw Ghost in the Shell in english first, but to tell the truth, this is possibly on the best dubs ever. It could be the fact that there isn't any tongue in cheek Anime humor like bleeding noses or Super Deformed characters running around what looks like table legs with small balls (psst...it's feet people) following it whilst floating hypnotically rampant along the screen. It's a drama/action so what must be covered is how intense said drama is and it is done to a T. Considering the need to justifiably synch up the lips and dialogue even further amazes me. But the fact that sometimes there aren't even lip movements and there is almost 1/3 of the movie done "in transmission" makes it's a easier job.

Brotherhood of the Wolf: It's a French film...with english accents for dubs. It's actually not too bad. Why? Well with French and English being pretty close in both words and pronouciation, not to mention the actual cultures being more similar than say....a Anime from a completely different culture, it's fits well. This is actually a dub where I didn't actually think...."This is a dub". Not too bad, but then again not too great.

I'll sub you later!

When mainstream becomes crap:

Sometimes I have an almost racist fervor when it comes to the mainstream. Not that the fringe could be any better since at the same time, their probably trying to see the profit margin appear. But I always wonder how or why when something good goes mainstream...that it almost instantly becomes crap? I can see two things, dilution of the message...make that only one thing.

This always stem from dillution of the message. To suddenly change something to induce mass appeal, sell the most toys and get the most licensing deals. You create this extreme that people weened in a world of short attention spans that even an 2 year old would get (yet at the same time parents don't). Of course for the select few (and not necessarily great) the new mainstream was already something something seen so clearly that there is no "other" attributes that made it good in the first place.

Yet how can some things like Elton John, Billy Joel, Nirvana, the Beatles, Madonna etc. still be "mainstream" and yet not dillute the message? Well the Beatles was kinda a no brainer due to their talent superceding hype and how the hype in effect shaped music in where-ever the hell they were going. Nirvana was mainstream in a time where teen-age angst was suddenly this silent rebellion behind doors as opposed to the punk era of the 80's. So not necessarily changing yourself to fit a society but more of the right place a the right time.

SO I guess that is my answer...to be at the right place at the right time and not necessarily "changing" un-awarely to fit society since society has instead fitted to you. Just like Weezer how their self imposed exile from the murk of alternative rock, through the horrid dredges of pop in the late 90's arrived near the end in order to take the crown as a leading institution of the current music scene. It was different enough for the next leaders of our society be it bosses, the cool ones or short order chefs to latch on because it was the only handle in a sea of doors.

two topics today:

Early Weezer, stalker extrodinare?

This isn't exactly just for Weezer...as alwways I could relate this topic to the Tea Party.

This is just a small observation on some of Weezer's Blue Album lyrics. Mainly "No One Else" andThe Wolrd has turned and left me here". Now this is speaking in a literal sense.

From No One Else lyrics we see: "I want a girl who would laugh for no one else/When I'm away she puts her make-up on her shelf/When I'm away she never leaves the house...etc". Now of course this is merely allegorical, more of saying that a partner should be faithful but not necessarily exactly follow the supression of the menial tasks above, but mere saying laughing = love/sex, make up = flirting? house = relationship?. To take it literally I feel that the person in the song is liken to Buffalo Bill in "Silence of the Lambs"

The Word has turned and left me here Lyrics of: "I just made love to your sweet memory/1000 times in my head/You said you loved it more than heaven". Can anyone say obsessive? If a break up as been done, then it's fine to whine about it but this is bordering on mental breakdown of what is reality and what isn't. Also the controlling nature of Tea Party's "Emerald" where they sing "Do exactly what you're told" which is kinda hyprocritical when they say "Release" is a song on the same album is about abuse of women and how to appologize through this song.

But once again I'm over-analyzing.

The source my artistry and insanity.

I blame it all on tv, video games, and comics.

Movies:

To tell the truth I have become jaded towards movies now. I have the un-healthy habit of fast-forwarding movies, especially those that suck. It's either that movies are horrible nowadays or my standards have offcially gotten to a new high that I hate all others. My most recent "peak" was "Fight Club". By far a favorite, (not THE favorite) I seem to have gauged all other movies against this 100% goodness. It was entertaining, big budget yet still full of grit enough not to seem so. Sure it made hypocrites out of a lot of the actors/actresses who continue in their own daily gluttony of excess, but it's the movie that counts.

I don't know, perhaps at the same time, the new crop of actors/actresses hasn't really stood out...or those who did quickly faded into the realm of mediocrity.

Natalie Portman? A semi good Amidala in The Phantom Menace but continues the block of wood syndrome in a character who is anything but. Let alone her lovely "Mother daughter" movie with Susan "I'm an activist" Surandon.

Jason Scwartzman? Fabulous in Rushmore. However take a look at Slackers and you can see wasted talent...or was it that he sucked in the first place? That movie created doubts for me.

LeeLee Sobe-eski? Tha Glass House? Please...I think she's being confused with being a young Helen Hunt or more so with Julia "Art House" Stiles.

I don't know anymore. Perhaps the older we get, the harder we get to acting. We are only surprised by the acting done in our generation where WE were impressionable, easy pleasing minds.

But hey...there's always "Really Dude...Where's my car."

I want to disscuss how I became a Tea Party Fanatic.

For those of you poor sad decripid souls who do not know of the Tea Party, they are basically one of the better bands in Canada...not anymore as results of changing music treads and their half assed attempts to "conform" to it. I still love them, but not as blindly as I used to in my early years from the result of their two most recently lack-lustre albums. This kinda pisses me off since even though I felt I matured, I suddenly feel I'm lost in the musical world with no "direct connection" with a single band that I hold above all others.

Basically to chronicle my very first venture into my own music collection I liked....umm...

Bush X. Yes...I liked the good jolly old band from England. The temporary voice for all disenchanted youth and skaters and essentially becoming the so called "Femenine Side" of skateboarding punks...most of which who probably tried to hit on chicks saying that they were "deep" because they liked "Glycerin".

Yes I listened to that album to death, more than the legal recommended dosage. I look back and actually feel molested by the fact that I like that music, let alone even put it above anything else in my music collection...which was NON-EXISTENT. I bought the lovely double CD which featured a half assed recording of live shows.

Eventually I did buy "Razorblade Suitcase" became dis-enchanted since I did not like every single song on the lovely CD.

That's a thing with me...four things I know of my musical tastes.

1)If I like a song...I will listen to it to death. I don't know if it is a sort of "filtering mechanism". I will listen to the song hundreds of times, immersing myself into it....noticing small intracicies that wish was forever embedded in my head for musical pleasure. I would repeat rifts and solos over and over again...wishing it would continue forever in a song, knowing full well that without the previous music beforehand it would render them meaningless.

The thing is...if I stop listening to it I will lose interest. That's what happened to Bush. I was on it so many times that the fact that I constantly keep my listening bliss on repeat until the batteries run dead or until a blackout, I would forever be stuck in that period, with no time to reflect on the long-term effects.

2. I tend to buy albums that are all or nothing. I make some exceptions such as with Tea Party, just to masochistically continue my collection...but if the album is not at LEAST 98% likeable by my standards....I tend to sell it or leave it to collect an imprint of the hardly used sleeve of my CD case. Hence my minimally small collection of albums.

3. Tell me you like this song...then I will like it. I'm that easily influenced.

4. Violins, Violas and Cellos do it in for me. It could be crap music, but you play that high spirit lifting crecendo I will melt like butter.


Continuing on:

After a long time of being dis-connected from any real source of music to call my own and skipping being one top 20 to the next...I eventually saw the Tea Party's music vid "Temptation" on the TV. I made a small poem about my first experience with their music. I have seen their vids before, but never fully...that one was Sister Awake..I think about 3 years previous. Nevertheless I actually called my brother out of the kitchen to tell him look at how high this singer's voice went up during the chorus.

Little did I know that it was planting a hypnotic implant into my head to buy this fucking album.

Well my brother went to Vancouver for a small visit, and I wanted the single to this song. Sadly the only way to get this song was through either the actual album "Transmission" aka TX, or through Big Shiny Tunes 1. The thing is, even though a lovely amount of music that I liked (still in my top 20 mode) was on the album, Marilyn Manson, which I intended never to have a connection with was on it. I bit the bullet after much consoltation. I would rather have one song that I hate on a album full of song I "like" as opposed to the vice-versa. So I told my brother to get Big Shiny Tunes.

My brother's mistake would become my blessing.

He came back and got me TX. The rest is history...not really. It took Mike Mueller for him to like a few songs before I started to like them. another thing...I brainwash myself to like songs sometimes. Let me listen to an album I have some semblance of liking and I will like it.

I hate life.

Damn it.

As I was saying,

Everyone loves to watch a car accident.

Damn computer....didn't post my first message...but who cares. Long story short, I'm selfish but working on it.

The end.