Francis Xavier

So I'm looking for a slim, long, fishtail parka. Thus far the only luck I've found is with... Ugh... Diesel...

What do y'all think? I like the fit but it seems a little dull. Maybe just a little. I was thinking about the new Rogues Gallery parka, too. But the arms are a little baggy for me and it's not quite long enough. Any ideas/suggestions?

You see Franny, ya really can engage in a thoughtful ,intelligent discussion. Nice job. I agree with everything you and cjbreed said...especially the part about feeling. Rock music should evoke visceral responses. It should touch you in your core.I get goosebumps every fuckin' time I hear the opening of Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower"..and I've heard it over 1000X The Who's "Young Man Blues" immediately makes me play air guitar...I think I once ejaculated to the Stooges "No Fun"

The Beatles, well, they make me smile,

Hendrix is hendrix. There's no cheap dior knockoff with hendrix because it would be too easy to spot the fake. His brushstroke was flawed in a way that you can immediately identify his presence. It's like an Italian Cold Cut from Palmisano's down the street. I can get a coldcut with the same ingredients anywhere else, but fuck man, that shit isn't going to taste nearly as good even if they do use shitty, cheap bread.

wow there are too many arguments going on here. And malaesthetique i have no interest in perpetuating a ridiculous argument with you.

but ....the reason i didn't get into the whole "define art" conversation is because it is undefinable, and for the two of us it has very different meanings, therefore the argument cannot be resolved easily and within the intended purpose of this thread. My point is that you should just loosen your grip a little. Don't take music (especially rock music) so seriously. The beatles just don't deserve the hate. Its a fact. You don't have to love them. You don't even have to like them. But you have to respect them. For a long time when i was in college (attending a music school) I didn't like them. Partly because they were so mainstream that as a self proclaimed supergenius I felt a natural aversion to them. And partly because the music was just too simple and too familiar. But i have come to learn that that is part of the genius of the beatles. It is familiar because it can be recognized everywhere in the music of so many other bands...

This is a good post. I'd like to add a few things... There are a lot of conversations going on here, but this is a good thread. People are going to call us pretentious or stupid for letting this conversation build and build into more more heady philosophical debates but I like where it is going and I don't think that we should necessarily stop because "it's just pop music." With that said...

I agree that rock music should not be taken seriously. It's a numbing agent and a stimulator at the same time. It numbs our minds and stimulates our cocks. The problem is similar to another proble that I, personally, am having with my beloved internet porn. I look at it so much that it's taking me forever to find something worth jerking off to now. It all just feels like the same empty cliche of what was once mindless and fun.

On a sidenote, music in general should be taken very seriously as long as you remember to keep feeling. Music and architecture are very similar, but the advantage music has over architecture is that music can be extremely flawed in structure and form and not come crashing down to the ground. There are no real-world repercussions to what we choose to emphasize in music and visual art minus the occasional political extremist. When we try to make sure that our music is "right" as opposed to "wrong" we lose the point. I think that's another thing that modernism sought to destroy in traditional western composition but because so many were puritanical about it, they perpetuated the thing that they sought to destroy thus making them... Hypocrites (like John Cage).

You've actually misunderstood me and we are in total agreement about the Beatles. I tried to be a little forgiving (and also condescending) however by admitting that they do seem to be quite good at tapping those universal melodies and other musical structures that transcend cultural fads and trends, which is why they are still able to reach such wide and even conservative audiences. even their lyrics deal with archetypal concepts such as God, the individual vs the group, etc. I even mentioned their indulgence in the philosophical and consumer fashions of their day, which represents the other commercially successful element of familiarity.

So why are you tripping when i contrast that with modern art? unless you have already dismissed it as a some sort of bohemian hoax only pursued by self absorbed and hypocritical narcissists (which we are, aren't we? after all this is a fashion forum).

C'mon now. I liked your posts. I was poking fun and not even directly at you. I even told you that I agreed with you so, well... Calm down. I thought I made that rather obvious. I didn't "trip" when you contrasted pop music with modern art. I simply attacked the concept of intentional modernism in art as easy and ill-conceived and tried to throw in a dash of bad humor. A lot of the worst modern art is a bolshevik-styled zeitgeist lacking depth or foresight. I also made sure not to lump every corner of modern art music into the group of hateful, reactionary know-nothings that the new elite have come to canonize simply for being anti-western and albophobic in their reactions to what they saw as "traditional" western art music. I do feel, however, that the more intelligent, expressive, and honest corners of modern art were able to liberate us from certain restraints and built upon the more expressive elements of traditional composition while opening doors to new forms honestly without being driven by hate, instead being driven by truth and ambition. What I mean is, for the most part, fuck the new york school minus Feldman even if he was Cage's most gifted "protege." For instance, I feel that Cage is highly regarded not for his music, but for the politics of his music. He was decidedly anti-western. The kind of overrated hackjob that's the Susan Sontag of the music world. The establishment at that time was experiencing a changing of the guard, and cage was a perfect poster-child for legitimizing certain sectors of the [well-intentioned but eventually hijacked] modern movement's desire to [ethnically] cleanse academic music. Not that they succeeded per se, because plenty of die-hard traditionalist conservatives maintained and still maintain a firm grasp of musical academia.

So to sum up this rant, that's the stab I was taking at "modern art" in regard to academic music. I wasn't "tripping" over anything that you said, simply muttering to myself on this forum. It was meant to be a low-brow stab at the various hacks found within modern composition because I love attacking the attackers so sorry if this post went on for too long.

On that note: Listen to more Morton Feldman. I'd start with Rothko Chapel. Try it on a relatively low volume when you're trying to sleep. It's a great example of what more of a movement should and could have been.

Oh, and to answer your question elpsoccer7, I love the beatles because, simply, I feel the beatles more than I feel the stones. Because of the nature of both musics, I can't really explain it much further

yeah the Flowbee dude probably did butcher his kids first........somebody invents and somebody uses the invention....

stop tryin' to be an aloof asshole and make a point

My point is...

YOU AIN'T NEVA GOIN' PLATINUM.

Hey Franny, where da fuck did I say The Beatles invented anything?. The fact that they were innovative does not make them esoteric....and name dropping Merzbow was done ffor my esoteric friend....yeah they are crap..my point exactly

Flush away but be careful of the back splash

Oh, I'm sorry! You made the mistake of saying that they used them FIRST! Kind of like the guy who invented the Flowbee Haircut. He must have tried it on his kid first.

When there's something strange

In the neighborhood.

Who you gonna call?

Dawson Crying.

RLgI-qbrWVo

PS- Merzbow isn't a band.

so you are in fact an idiot.

I'll take this opportunity to say a few more words about the beloved Beatles. Their songwriting is quality from a biological perspective. They capitalize well off the archetypal melodies and sounds that human beings as creatures have adapted to responding to. But these structures are not to be conflated with modern art, properly speaking, which has more demanding criteria. The Beatles were just pop stars who indulged in the fashions of their day (including shallow revolutionary political theory) while making music that had enough of these hooks to keep their conditioned followers stimulated.

Quality from a biological perspective? Hmmm... If we're going to explore the hereditary nature of psychoacoustics, the beatles are an interesting place to start, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut...

Let's not bring stuffy, overinflated, makeshift, over-conceptual mediums of egotistical compensation (jk, jk) like modern art into this as an example. We've all experienced some exhaustingly pretentious and boring exercises in futile stylistic exercise in modern art that were in no way reflective of the human experience aside from the morning BM (completely process-based). Because of that, I don't think modern art is where we should start with a conversation in this regard concerning psychoacoustics and the beatles. Right? Seriously though. That is beyond corny. If you'd like to indulge us with the relevance of psychoacoustics to pop music then by all means go ahead but do it in another post. I'm not kidding, I would really like to gab about that sort of thing.

I think that particular concept, "popular" music of mass appeal and why so many are attracted to it, can be summed up with: Group think is easier to force-feed when you're pounding a simple and familiar 4/4 into somebodies head with a heavy dose of cliche as to not make the listener feel alienated or, god forbid, reflective.

Oh, so you've seen Jesus?

20 Billboard # 1 hits. a record

Every list issued by music publications names numerous Beatles songs and albums in their "top lists"

One week in 1964 the Beatles held the first 5 postilions on Billboards top 100

They made 2 full length feature films and 1 full length animation

They made short films (videos) 40 years ago

20 of the 28 tracks that comprised The Beatles first 2 albums were overdubbed, albeit a rudimentary form of overdubbing known as "superimposition"....they were the first to use the technique

They began the modern long hair trend and molded fashion for years they didn't indulge in the fashion of the day, they helped forge it.

that's why Yesterday is the most covered song of all time...and their whole catalog is covered, even today.

I get it, if you ain't Merzbow , you ain't an artist.

they introduced alternative instruments not normally heard in pop music

the fuckin' list is endless and I'm tired of typing

You're just a wannabe esoteric who needs to be different

In other words, you're ignorant

I have no problem with anyone preferring The Stones to The Beatles. I have a serious issue with anyone that completely discounts the artistry of The Beatles.

I'm done but please feel free to continue to post.

"You're just a wannabe esoteric who needs to be different

In other words, you're ignorant"

Dude, then stop championing the beatles for "doing things differently" while slamming somebody for being "esoteric". If you wanna talk shit with a contender, don't contradict your own argument.

My. Oh. My.

Where to start?

All of these studio techniques you say that the beatles "invented" (get real) were probably invented first by highly ambitious white men who weren't cool enough to sell to the general american and british public-tards. Some of the big names being Stockhausen (who's pictured on the sgt pepper album cover), Henry, Schaefer, Raymond Scott, Meyer-Eppler, Reich, etc are to thank for the overwhelming majority of what we used then and today.

Rock acts are simply too stupid to invent anything aside from the bimbo and your daughter's illegitimate child. Whenever one uses a technique that no other bland rock act has used they get credit for "revolutionizing" music. Like how hip-hop feels that it invented sampling and looping and crap. The real credit should go to the squares, who's music is most likely far more honest and expressive than anything some dandy with a stupid haircut and a circumcised cock in his mouth could ever muster no matter how much blow you shove up his nose to keep him working.

Oh, and don't namecheck Merzbow. Merzbow sucks crap. You should be able to do better. Even if he was lucky enough to cut an excruciatingly dull 40 minutes with the sometimes great Tietchens (Even Tietchens admits in an interview that the beatles are "perfect music", but c'mon!), he still makes for a silly namecheck in that scenario.

I chose the Beatles, too. Fuck, I love the beatles. But between your muscle-bound ghostbusters outfits and this crap, I'm going to have to flush you before I even take a whiff.

Thread = Dead.

Beatles.

PS- When are people going to realize just how little the Beatles and the Stones have in common?

Let's compare John Cage to Wagner next!

You'll probably have to turn your volume up.

Vs9JgSuz8t4

Thank you bringing us the latest on the fascinating world of Nudie jeans.

PS: I bet you think you're pretty edgy with that SS Das Reich insignia

Utterly pretentious...

Edgy? Are you serious? As if communism as a hipsterism is still edgy and not played into the ground by Goucher students and Madonna. Is mine not edgy either? I suppose being German isn't taboo anymore. I guess I need a new avatar... North Korean, maybe? Congolese?

Are you seeking punishment? A steaming loaf on the chest maybe? The reason I ask is because you're shitting on the kid for having a Germanic symbol that you know nothing about as his avatar for political reasons while you sport your red star and have "commie" in your name. If you can't see how insanely hypocritical that is then you must not be seeking punishment because you're just an idiot. If that's the case, I'll just keep my doodoo in my butt and proceed, rather, to spit in your face.

Her perfect everything.

FJALLRAVEN Rucksack for about 90

Fjallraven is where it's at. I love their stuff. Their coats, their shirts, their hats. It's all great. Also can't go wrong with this Fjallraven classic avail in tons of colors:

This is the worst. The worst. I don't understand its appeal.

What's its appeal?

What's with the wigger? What's with the... Singer? They're obviously manufactured but who puts something like this together? This reminds me of the car Homer Simpson built for his brother's car company that sunk them because there was just too much bullshit...

Deutschland uber alles and all, I still feel that way but this is a mess...

In america the skinhead movement is still very much like a gang culture, new skinheads get "shaved in", and often beaten in, they have to earn their boots, where as over here its more a case of do you like oi and can you hold your beer, ok thats good enough for me. Yes there is still that sense of identity that can only be achieved by putting on your boots and shaving yor head, but its more a case of taking pride in your appearance than it is displaying your allegiance.

What you say is truth.

The style is essentially alien to Americans. To the British, the style was something organic that grew out of cultural contrast and stimulation within its own borders. It was rooted in that societies natural framework.

The image had to be transplanted to american culture after the fact. Its prefabrication leads to a certain structure, as it starts small. That is why it tries, in essence, to be more of an esoteric cult that establishes a hierarchy. It's a club, not a movement. A little boys in big boys bodies club. I'm really not impressed with the dolts and dumb-tards that I see slithering their way out of the involved hardcore scenes. They're driven by flimsy ethics, cliche imagery and attitude, and trendy philosophies and ideologies that can only thrive among people who will only find security in numbers.

As for homosexuality within the subculture, I think that's a moot point as that's in every group. Plus, who cares. If you want to get into talking about sausage fest subcultures, we can talk about straight edge, independent hip hop backpackers, graffiti writers, country clubs, varsity wrestling, fraternities and just about whatever else you can think of, but I don't think any of the above have anything to do with someone's sexual preference.

You make a good point, and I agree with what you said outside of the context of my initial post.

It's not homosexuality that was the point, really. It's the fact that this is a subculture that embraces a very, very masculine aesthetic and it's the fact that that aesthetic is probably the dominant force holding that culture together and bringing that culture together. Naturally, that kind of force will attract a lot of homo and the skinhead movement certainly has as there are a shit ton of gay skin movements in europe. I think that the reason you see those movements is because the majority of skins refuse to acknowledge the fact that the aesthetic is somewhat homoerotic instead of being comfortable with it. The fact that it is denied is what forces the homosexual element to need to define themselves as a separate sect.

The reason I brought it up was that there are a ton of really bad books and web pages that try to give the cult a more solid philosophy and structural fiber than it has. It tries to give itself more credibility as a subculture than just a fashion subculture which, undeniably, it and every single subsect of punk has become and will remain. It's not like fake ethos are making the followers of those groups any less superficial, I simply think they should embrace their reality more.

I've always been attracted to the look. In highschool and a few years following I definitely had the look. More suede than anything else, probably. I liked Oi for a long time but after a while I was trying to hold onto a taste that I had matured away from. My style still harkens back to that period in my life a lot. It's tasteful when done right.

Very much so, ive got a small but decent collection of Ska and reggae vinyl, and most of the Trojan boxsets and compilations, which arent too bad.

How are those box sets? I saw one once and really wanted it but didn't have the cash. I'm not too into the skinhead thing but a few of my friends have played some pretty great stuff for me that I'd like to get more into.

Spirit of 69 is by far the best compiled look at early skin culture through the late 70s, but you can't take it literally or as the end-all. Its funny how that book used to cost $20 when ST publishing was still around.

ST did do Boss Sounds, which is definitely worth its weight in gold as far as record history goes. Thankfully you can't write catalog numbers and artist names in a poor voice as you're right, most of the other stuff on the subject is written by an outside journal or someone lacking something upstairs.

You're right. In my opinion it seems to be a movement almost completely founded in fashion trend and that's the main draw -- but its followers are hell-bent on denying that. The problem is that, in american culture, machismo is incompatible with its (skinheads) very masculine aesthetic for fear of it evolving into an essentially homosexual subculture. It would be a lot cooler if it could adopt an openness about the fact that it's an movement based on aesthetic alone instead of looking for credibility in places it doesn't seem to be able to muster. It's homoerotic enough as it is, but as it matures and society matures maybe it can find a comfortable place in its own masculinity without having to shove these things in the closet for fear of it becoming another openly gay flamer subculture. Basically, society and the skin cult aren't ready or comfortable enough for a mostly heterosexual movement which is openly aware of and embraces masculine aesthetic as attractive. This is why you have stupid books looking for something that just isn't there. To me masculine aesthetic doesn't equal openly or repressively gay. A culture comfortable with the male form and masculine aesthetics will see those things irrelevant and that's when skinhead culture will evolve into something less braindead and in denial of its true appeal.

I don't give a fuck about any subculture that has roots with racism. I also do listen to my city's music and thats hip-hop, not tight jean music.

Hip hop? Ahahaha? Are we really talking about/like this?

Beating you up in tight pants at the McDonalds would be worth the bail money. Just remember to listen to whatever it is your city listens to on your ipod while I knee your face over and over and over and over.

How many fucking times do I have to say it, the Skinhead movement is not a racist movment. Yes there are racist Skinheads, but they are idiots who refuse to acknowledge the true origins of the movement. Just go and read it up on wiki for gods sake and stop assuming that everyone with a shaved head and boots is a hitler loving fuckwit.

Origins schmorigins. As an outgrowth of common British street culture and Jamaican culture, yes. The style appealed to the national front mostly because the style had a natural similarity between nazi garb to start with. Boots, cropped jeans, braces. Usually the trads dress a lot better, though. Still, I've seen some sharp looking hammers in my time.

Also, books about skinheads are awful. American Skin, spirit of 69 etc. Skinheads can barely read, so much as write.

Gramps.

65757 fjhgfcrey6ex