Jump to content
Budweiser

Post pictures of random stuff you've bought recently

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Alexander McQueen is, or was, a VERY famous designer who died recently I believe.  I bet you've heard of Vivienne Westwood though!

I think Ive heard of Westwood from that Skin head doc you turned me onto! Name was familiar prior but that was the most info Ive had. :smiley-confused2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, soon said:

I think Ive heard of Westwood from that Skin head doc you turned me onto! Name was familiar prior but that was the most info Ive had. :smiley-confused2:

Vivienne Westwood was the girlfriend of Malcolm McLaren and was the co-owner of the famous Sex shop on The Kings Road where Malcolm found The Sex Pistols.  All the early punk clothes that you see the lads kitted out in where Westwood and McLaren creations, she got her start from the punk movement...and from there has gone on to be one of the biggest and most respected designers in the world.  You see a lot of her in old Pistols footage and interviews and documentaries.  Rotten hated her, thought she was a ridiculous old bag.  But all those famous designs they wore, the Destroy shirt, the two cowboys with their cocks out, the bondage trousers, the whole look of punk had a lot to do with her designs.  Stole a fair few ideas from Rotten and of course the prescedents set in NYC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Vivienne Westwood was the girlfriend of Malcolm McLaren and was the co-owner of the famous Sex shop on The Kings Road where Malcolm found The Sex Pistols.  All the early punk clothes that you see the lads kitted out in where Westwood and McLaren creations, she got her start from the punk movement...and from there has gone on to be one of the biggest and most respected designers in the world.  You see a lot of her in old Pistols footage and interviews and documentaries.  Rotten hated her, thought she was a ridiculous old bag.  But all those famous designs they wore, the Destroy shirt, the two cowboys with their cocks out, the bondage trousers, the whole look of punk had a lot to do with her designs.  Stole a fair few ideas from Rotten and of course the prescedents set in NYC.

Right, right, right! This and the pics are jogging my memory! I know a fan of hers who arrived 20 years late to the Riot Grrrl movement. She talks all about Westwood. I used to leaf through some sort of coffee table book with her pieces at her place. Really great stuff! It seems that Westwoods been ripped off and not really given her dues over time here. All the fashion is here but not so much the history. But this chick even had hair and clothes like Westwood in these pics.

Thats McLaren in the bottom one? He look so innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, soon said:

Right, right, right! This and the pics are jogging my memory! I know a fan of hers who arrived 20 years late to the Riot Grrrl movement. She talks all about Westwood. I used to leaf through some sort of coffee table book with her pieces at her place. Really great stuff! It seems that Westwoods been ripped off and not really given her dues over time here. All the fashion is here but not so much the history. But this chick even had hair and clothes like Westwood in these pics.

Thats McLaren in the bottom one? He look so innocent.

Loads of whats worn today can be traced back to punk.  The adventurous hairstyles that are just normal now, who had that shit before punk?  Severe shaved backs and sides, mohawks, spiky messes, punk dragged this shit into the mainstream.  Boy London, thats a brand thats had a bit of resurgence as of late, that was the second punk shop on the Kings Road, run by Andrew Czechowski.  Torn jeans/trousers, where did you ever see torn clothes before punk?  Its effects on fashion and society are visible today.  Even hip hop, there was a point there early doors where the two genres kinda overlapped and punk helped propel hip hop.  A lot of the aesthetic was similar too, the DIY aspect of it, the rejection of mainstream culture, the subversive fashion (hip hoppers openly wore fake or deliberately bastardized versions of high end designers, as created by people like Dapper Dan of Harlem, as a form of kinda ridiculing such designers and the yuppie culture that embraced them so...ironic now that hip hop is embracing that very same shit), it was like a renegade thing.  People like Debbie Harry drafting in Grandmaster Flash and Fab Five Freddy, The Beasties and Rick Rubin, Johnny Rottens work with Afrika Bambaataa, The Clash arriving in New York and embracing the graph' artists and even doing their own gammy legged take on rap music, its kind of a forgotten part of hip hop culture. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Loads of whats worn today can be traced back to punk.  The adventurous hairstyles that are just normal now, who had that shit before punk?  Severe shaved backs and sides, mohawks, spiky messes, punk dragged this shit into the mainstream.  Boy London, thats a brand thats had a bit of resurgence as of late, that was the second punk shop on the Kings Road, run by Andrew Czechowski.  Torn jeans/trousers, where did you ever see torn clothes before punk?  Its effects on fashion and society are visible today.  Even hip hop, there was a point there early doors where the two genres kinda overlapped and punk helped propel hip hop.  A lot of the aesthetic was similar too, the DIY aspect of it, the rejection of mainstream culture, the subversive fashion (hip hoppers openly wore fake or deliberately bastardized versions of high end designers, as created by people like Dapper Dan of Harlem, as a form of kinda ridiculing such designers and the yuppie culture that embraced them so...ironic now that hip hop is embracing that very same shit), it was like a renegade thing.  People like Debbie Harry drafting in Grandmaster Flash and Fab Five Freddy, The Beasties and Rick Rubin, Johnny Rottens work with Afrika Bambaataa, The Clash arriving in New York and embracing the graph' artists and even doing their own gammy legged take on rap music, its kind of a forgotten part of hip hop culture. 

Right, that all makes sense. I know Boy London for sure. Seems like its always been popular here, actually. 

Similar to the irony in hip hop fashion around yuppie culture, is that a sort of conflicting thing for punk? Did it seek to mainstream itself? Did it disrupt fashion irreversibly or was it simply coopted and appropriated by big business?

Rolling Stone Now just had a great interview with an author who just wrote a book about the early Beastie Boys. Talked a lot about how they were at the very first NYC punk shows and says that experience prepared them to really jump in with the birth of Hip Hop. And I think they talked about how Rappers Delight was basically disco and not representative of hip hop on the streets and in the clubs. That Rubin and the Beasties punk attitudes helped save early hip hop from a pop bastardization. I have no idea if thats him overstating it, but its interesting how they cross pollenate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Very chavvy and uncouth.

You rang? :D 

Quote

Similar to the irony in hip hop fashion around yuppie culture, is that a sort of conflicting thing for punk? Did it seek to mainstream itself? Did it disrupt fashion irreversibly or was it simply coopted and appropriated by big business?

I think with every new thing it begins in the minds of a chosen few, who are often pilloried for it...before it filters down into the mainstream.  I think it disrupted fashion and...I dunno, these things always reflect their times don't they?  It was all very severe.  There comes a time when the same old just becomes remote from the reality of peoples lives.  I mean walking around mid 70s London, half the country on strike, civil and political unrest, riots and all manner of strife...and then there's all these people walking around in flares with long but neatly ordered hair talking about peace, love and macrame, it just becomes remote from the reality of peoples lives and people find themselves living a parody.

Quote

Rolling Stone Now just had a great interview with an author who just wrote a book about the early Beastie Boys. Talked a lot about how they were at the very first NYC punk shows and says that experience prepared them to really jump in with the birth of Hip Hop. And I think they talked about how Rappers Delight was basically disco and not representative of hip hop on the streets and in the clubs. That Rubin and the Beasties punk attitudes helped save early hip hop from a pop bastardization. I have no idea if thats him overstating it, but its interesting how they cross pollenate.

Perhaps a slight overstatement but a really valid point nonetheless.  I think the key difference between punk and hip hop is that hip hop kinda embraced capitalism, hip hop wanted the big flash cars and status and all that comes with it, whereas punk seemed sort of embarrassed by riches.  I've heard it argued before now that it was like a black and white thing, like hip hop was art form of black guys that came from some pretty dire poverty and as such made no bones about wanting to be rich as fuck whereas punk was more a case of like...they just wanted another way, their way, their thing, the end game wasn't really money (not that thats a bad thing entirely), it was more like...creating an identity to where you can be something because so far you're nothing.  I've often thought that maybe its like an English vs American thing, where Americans are all well up for getting rich over here people are suspicious of the rich.  America appears to be going that way too in certain aspects.  

All in all I think there's a lot to that anti-materialistic shit.  I mean money is good, its OK but to me its kinda like...just a whim thing, something that can facilitate a laugh (and keep the rain off your back, which is always good) but I think there's good reason to be concerned about a generation such as mine that was kinda raised with this idea that money is everything, from growing up in the 80s in the yuppie era to hip hop culture becoming the foremost pop culture that kinda has this thing where money is like...God.  I think that anti-materialism has a really important function in the sphere of art, I think its a catalyst.  The flipside of that is people who have tasted true poverty don't give a shit for all this theorizing, when you come from the shit you wanna get out of it, its that simple.  

A bit of puritanism is good too, as long as its kept in check.  Its really interesting that poor American black people response to poverty was, initially at least, party music and poor white English working class peoples response to poverty (this is labouring under the presumption that punk was an entirely working class concern which is a falsehood) is angry resentful music.  They have a great deal in common though, hip hop eventually became like, y'know, what The Clash called 'news giving music', like we're talking about whats happening now, here, in our lives, its sociological, political, with a capital as well as a lower case P.  

The worrying thing about hip hop is that, in embracing riches as it has done, it has become to value riches, the modern hip hop artist is an astute businessman, they talk about investments, marketing, maximising revenue etc etc etc  What began as wanting to rise above ones circumstances and get riches and rising above oppressive circumstances has sort of turned into like...The Apprentice.  Punk, for all its cynicism, at its heart was very idealistic.  The Clash, in moaning about their circumstances were calling for a better way, The Sex Pistols in bellowing about 'your future dream is a shopping scheme' were kind of highlighting something they felt was fucked up.  There's ideas of integrity and a sort of morality behind it all.  Whereas hip hop is really deeply cynical, it kinda wants to be the head dick in charge for its own sake and I think eventually the culture suffers because it turns the art form into something you use to become, I dunno, a mogul or something.  

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

I must say deliberately torn clothes is fucking dumb.

Its all thoroughly ridiculous really.  Thats why I think it mustn't be taken too seriously.  i mean what began with covering our big hairy arses from the elements evolved into the peacock principle and eventually gets to a point where certain people won't leave the house without, I dunno, 2 hours of fuckeries in front of a mirror.  Or not at all if they don't have what they want.

Ripped jeans began with Link Wray I think but his used to rip during performance and everyone loved it.  It was actually Iggy Pop who was the first to just come out on stage with jeans already ripped due to pre-show fuckeries.  In the punk context Richard Hell from New York in the mid 70s was the first one to wear ripped clothes held together by safety pins because his bird threw him out of the house one night and hacked up his clothes with a pair of sisscors, since he had a show to go to he put them back together with safety pins and went to work.  Later Johnny Rottens clothes were torn cuz he was poor and squatting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Its all thoroughly ridiculous really.  Thats why I think it mustn't be taken too seriously.  i mean what began with covering our big hairy arses from the elements evolved into the peacock principle and eventually gets to a point where certain people won't leave the house without, I dunno, 2 hours of fuckeries in front of a mirror.  Or not at all if they don't have what they want.

Ripped jeans began with Link Wray I think but his used to rip during performance and everyone loved it.  It was actually Iggy Pop who was the first to just come out on stage with jeans already ripped due to pre-show fuckeries.  In the punk context Richard Hell from New York in the mid 70s was the first one to wear ripped clothes held together by safety pins because his bird threw him out of the house one night and hacked up his clothes with a pair of sisscors, since he had a show to go to he put them back together with safety pins and went to work.  Later Johnny Rottens clothes were torn cuz he was poor and squatting. 

Yeah I guess all clothes which aren't purely functional have an element of fuckery to them. But I dunno, deliberately ripped jeans is just lame imo. If they're naturally ripped fair enough, still, it's time for replacements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worse again are designer ripped jeans that somebody (cough, Rose) has paid $10,000 for.

PS

Just arrived through the door today. Fiver on Amazon right now,

MI0003697423.jpg?partner=allrovi.com

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

But I dunno, deliberately ripped jeans is just lame imo. 

Why? If you like that certain look, then that's all that matters, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Why? If you like that certain look, then that's all that matters, right?

Thats a fair point as well.  I mean I think its a bit naff but at the same time, its a look innit end of the day, is someone asthetically appreciates torn clothes then knock yourself out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I think its a bit naff 

I liked the 90s look with just the ripped knees.

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor kurt cobain ripped jeans

But I don't care for the way some people have it nowadays. 

Gerelateerde afbeelding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Worse again are designer ripped jeans that somebody (cough, Rose) has paid $10,000 for.

PS

Just arrived through the door today. Fiver on Amazon right now,

MI0003697423.jpg?partner=allrovi.com

You know what I don’t get about classical music?  It ain’t a band is it?  So like, what constitutes the ‘proper’ version as such?  Cuz its gotta be different people performing it right?  And they’d be of differing quality I imagine?  So whats the real mccoy?  Or don’t it work like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

You know what I don’t get about classical music?  It ain’t a band is it?  So like, what constitutes the ‘proper’ version as such?  Cuz its gotta be different people performing it right?  And they’d be of differing quality I imagine?  So whats the real mccoy?  Or don’t it work like that?

For some of the latter (early-mid 20th century) ''famous'' composers, Elgar, Stravinsky, Shostakovitch, etc., there are actually some early recordings of them conducting their own works. Many conductors are famous themselves, Toscanini, Karajan, and there is a bit of an overlap between composer and conductor. Richard Strauss for example did a lot of conducting. Movies having arrived, some of them branched-out into film work. Leonard Bernstein, who you'll know from film, did three symphonies. 

But for your 18th-19th century ''biggies'', Mozart, Beethoven, their work exists solely in notation and you rely on recordings of conductors/ensemble - for symphonies those ensembles are orchestras. Sometimes it is simply a case of recording a live performance (there are a lot of historic recordings with poor audio quality, but they are treasured because they are by somebody like Furtwängler in the '30s). More often, especially these days, conductor and orchestra put on a work specifically for recording with pristine audio quality. 

For a classical music fan - and this is where it differs from rock - you have, to select an ubiquitous work, '10 or 20 9ths'' (that is 10-20 versions of Beethoven's 9th). Because despite the notation there is a lot of variation between different recordings based on,

- tempo (quite subjective an interpretation despite being written down)

- dynamics (id)

- instrumentation (the instruments in Mozart's time were rather different than today)

- historic fidelity (some conductors believe works are capturing more a ''spirit'' of the work if they do not scientifically stick to the notation, whereas others seek to reproduce the work as much as possible)

- age and fashion (it was fashionable during the Wagnerian age and into the 20th century to do big ''Romantic'' orchestral versions of Mozart which were not very historic. Now the practice is on smaller more authentic ensembles.)

- audio quality (just the same as in rock music)

And of course the subjectivity of the listener. One man might love Karajan's 9th. One man might hate it. 

But some recordings do get a seminal ''definitive'' quality such as the Tristan und Isolde I am always raving about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

For some of the latter (early-mid 20th century) ''famous'' composers, Elgar, Stravinsky, Shostakovitch, etc., there are actually some early recordings of them conducting their own works. Many conductors are famous themselves, Toscanini, Karajan, and there is a bit of an overlap between composer and conductor. Richard Strauss for example did a lot of conducting. Movies having arrived, some of them branched-out into film work. Leonard Bernstein, who you'll know from film, did three symphonies. 

But for your 18th-19th century ''biggies'', Mozart, Beethoven, their work exists solely in notation and you rely on recordings of conductors/ensemble - for symphonies those ensembles are orchestras. Sometimes it is simply a case of recording a live performance (there are a lot of historic recordings with poor audio quality, but they are treasured because they are by somebody like Furtwängler in the '30s). More often, especially these days, conductor and orchestra put on a work specifically for recording with pristine audio quality. 

For a classical music fan - and this is where it differs from rock - you have, to select an ubiquitous work, '10 or 20 9ths'' (that is 10-20 versions of Beethoven's 9th). Because despite the notation there is a lot of variation between different recordings based on,

- tempo (quite subjective an interpretation despite being written down)

- dynamics (id)

- instrumentation (the instruments in Mozart's time were rather different than today)

- historic fidelity (some conductors believe works are capturing more a ''spirit'' of the work if they do not scientifically stick to the notation, whereas others seek to reproduce the work as much as possible)

- age and fashion (it was fashionable during the Wagnerian age and into the 20th century to do big ''Romantic'' orchestral versions of Mozart which were not very historic. Now the practice is on smaller more authentic ensembles.)

- audio quality (just the same as in rock music)

And of course the subjectivity of the listener. One man might love Karajan's 9th. One man might hate it. 

But some recordings do get a seminal ''definitive'' quality such as the Tristan und Isolde I am always raving about.

That sucks so we'll never hear it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

For some of the latter (early-mid 20th century) ''famous'' composers, Elgar, Stravinsky, Shostakovitch, etc., there are actually some early recordings of them conducting their own works. Many conductors are famous themselves, Toscanini, Karajan, and there is a bit of an overlap between composer and conductor. Richard Strauss for example did a lot of conducting. Movies having arrived, some of them branched-out into film work. Leonard Bernstein, who you'll know from film, did three symphonies. 

But for your 18th-19th century ''biggies'', Mozart, Beethoven, their work exists solely in notation and you rely on recordings of conductors/ensemble - for symphonies those ensembles are orchestras. Sometimes it is simply a case of recording a live performance (there are a lot of historic recordings with poor audio quality, but they are treasured because they are by somebody like Furtwängler in the '30s). More often, especially these days, conductor and orchestra put on a work specifically for recording with pristine audio quality. 

For a classical music fan - and this is where it differs from rock - you have, to select an ubiquitous work, '10 or 20 9ths'' (that is 10-20 versions of Beethoven's 9th). Because despite the notation there is a lot of variation between different recordings based on,

- tempo (quite subjective an interpretation despite being written down)

- dynamics (id)

- instrumentation (the instruments in Mozart's time were rather different than today)

- historic fidelity (some conductors believe works are capturing more a ''spirit'' of the work if they do not scientifically stick to the notation, whereas others seek to reproduce the work as much as possible)

- age and fashion (it was fashionable during the Wagnerian age and into the 20th century to do big ''Romantic'' orchestral versions of Mozart which were not very historic. Now the practice is on smaller more authentic ensembles.)

- audio quality (just the same as in rock music)

And of course the subjectivity of the listener. One man might love Karajan's 9th. One man might hate it. 

But some recordings do get a seminal ''definitive'' quality such as the Tristan und Isolde I am always raving about.

Im fuzzy on this, but didnt the composers of yesterday use a (slightly) different system of staffing the notation then what we use today, too? Meaning that composer before a certain point in history's intentions are even more opaque to the modern conductor

And I think in many cases they were composing for specific ensembles and conductors, so within the limited conveyance of the staff, they had a 'sense' of how the conductor and principal violinist would interpret it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking excellent post, Len!!

On February 15, 2019 at 4:32 PM, Len Cnut said:

I think with every new thing it begins in the minds of a chosen few, who are often pilloried for it...before it filters down into the mainstream.  I think it disrupted fashion and...I dunno, these things always reflect their times don't they?  It was all very severe.  There comes a time when the same old just becomes remote from the reality of peoples lives.  I mean walking around mid 70s London, half the country on strike, civil and political unrest, riots and all manner of strife...and then there's all these people walking around in flares with long but neatly ordered hair talking about peace, love and macrame, it just becomes remote from the reality of peoples lives and people find themselves living a parody.

Makes sense to me. Sabbaths non hippie origins have been explained in a similar way about the image of the hippie dream seeming so far removed from the workers reality.

The point about the socio-economic landscape in the 70's is something that Right wing Muricans should look into. The 70s saw failures of capitalism and hardships for the people, the 80s saw recessions and union busting, the 90s saw slowdowns and trade deals exporting good paying jobs and the 00's saw the 2008 collapse. The only times Capital was fulfilling its promise to the people was in the 50-60's when the US had a marginal tax rate of up to 90% on the uber wealthy. That marginal tax rate coexisted with the golden age of American capitalism... Sorry, thats a tangent for a different conversation. :) 

On February 15, 2019 at 4:32 PM, Len Cnut said:

Perhaps a slight overstatement but a really valid point nonetheless.  I think the key difference between punk and hip hop is that hip hop kinda embraced capitalism, hip hop wanted the big flash cars and status and all that comes with it, whereas punk seemed sort of embarrassed by riches.  I've heard it argued before now that it was like a black and white thing, like hip hop was art form of black guys that came from some pretty dire poverty and as such made no bones about wanting to be rich as fuck whereas punk was more a case of like...they just wanted another way, their way, their thing, the end game wasn't really money (not that thats a bad thing entirely), it was more like...creating an identity to where you can be something because so far you're nothing.  I've often thought that maybe its like an English vs American thing, where Americans are all well up for getting rich over here people are suspicious of the rich.  America appears to be going that way too in certain aspects.  

Right on. This has me thinking a few things, will try to give my thoughts some semblance of order, lol.

So, Ive seen a lot of early rappers with Muslim names and wonder if that was, in some cases, related to the Nation of Islam? I mean in relationship to hip hop embracing capitalism, the Black Economy is a notion that is pushed by the Nation - To generate wealth and keep it in the black community. So that would be a more separatist ideal form the Civil Rights era. The Malcolm X side of the coin. With MLK on the integration and thriving in mainstream society being the other side of the coin. Im wondering if both of these manifestations of Civil Rights theory impacted the attitudes of early hip hop. Both are about thriving and getting the money. Whereas the Communist currents of the Civil Rights movement were largely dead, living as fugitives, imprisoned or trapped by the introduction of crack - like Tupac Shakers mom. Or Exiled like Tupacs aunt. COINTELPRO left mostly a pro-capitalist praxis in place in the black community just in time for the birth of Hip Hop?

With punk its odd to me. Would it be wrong to say that punk started as a business venture? An artistic and iconoclastic one, but a business none the less? The fashion, the clothing stores, a band created by a businessman?

I get what you mean about a British/ American different outlooks on financial success.

On February 15, 2019 at 4:32 PM, Len Cnut said:

All in all I think there's a lot to that anti-materialistic shit.  I mean money is good, its OK but to me its kinda like...just a whim thing, something that can facilitate a laugh (and keep the rain off your back, which is always good) but I think there's good reason to be concerned about a generation such as mine that was kinda raised with this idea that money is everything, from growing up in the 80s in the yuppie era to hip hop culture becoming the foremost pop culture that kinda has this thing where money is like...God.  I think that anti-materialism has a really important function in the sphere of art, I think its a catalyst.  The flipside of that is people who have tasted true poverty don't give a shit for all this theorizing, when you come from the shit you wanna get out of it, its that simple.  

A bit of puritanism is good too, as long as its kept in check.  Its really interesting that poor American black people response to poverty was, initially at least, party music and poor white English working class peoples response to poverty (this is labouring under the presumption that punk was an entirely working class concern which is a falsehood) is angry resentful music.  They have a great deal in common though, hip hop eventually became like, y'know, what The Clash called 'news giving music', like we're talking about whats happening now, here, in our lives, its sociological, political, with a capital as well as a lower case P.  

The worrying thing about hip hop is that, in embracing riches as it has done, it has become to value riches, the modern hip hop artist is an astute businessman, they talk about investments, marketing, maximising revenue etc etc etc  What began as wanting to rise above ones circumstances and get riches and rising above oppressive circumstances has sort of turned into like...The Apprentice.  Punk, for all its cynicism, at its heart was very idealistic.  The Clash, in moaning about their circumstances were calling for a better way, The Sex Pistols in bellowing about 'your future dream is a shopping scheme' were kind of highlighting something they felt was fucked up.  There's ideas of integrity and a sort of morality behind it all.  Whereas hip hop is really deeply cynical, it kinda wants to be the head dick in charge for its own sake and I think eventually the culture suffers because it turns the art form into something you use to become, I dunno, a mogul or something.  

Fuck yeah, great insights!

I heard an interview with the director of this doc on radical hip hop and hip hops origins in resistance, recently. Sounds great. I just started it watching. Thought you might enjoy it too.

 

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

That sucks so we'll never hear it properly.

Well we'll never be 100% but there is some wonderful ''historically informed performances''. We however will not here exactly how classical opera sounded because of the demise of the castrati!! Those roles are given to female sopranos these days. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2019 at 7:53 PM, DieselDaisy said:

We however will not here exactly how classical opera sounded because of the demise of the castrati!! Those roles are given to female sopranos these days. 

 

Feminism just ruined everything for men, didn't it?! They can't even have their testicles removed as infants anymore. 

In all sincerity, thank you for the insight of recording and interpreting classical music. That makes a lot of sense. I feel a bit wiser now. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

Feminism just ruined everything for men, didn't it?! They can't even have their testicles removed as infants anymore. 

Nah, now we just wait until marriage. :lol: 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

Feminism just ruined everything for men, didn't it?! They can't even have their testicles removed as infants anymore. 

In all sincerity, thank you for the insight of recording and interpreting classical music. That makes a lot of sense. I feel a bit wiser now. 
 

Thank me as well, if i hadn’t’ve asked him no one would’ve heard nothing, i want some credit...and a chocolate biscuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Len Cnut said:

Thank me as well, if i hadn’t’ve asked him no one would’ve heard nothing, i want some credit...and a chocolate biscuit.

You knows I loves you, baby.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×