deathtokoalas
i find the early stuff is just not well put together. noise is great, but i demand a level of composition in the chaos that isn't there. i've been over this so many times that i've stopped expecting most people to be able to tell the difference between a composition being written about a piano falling down the stairs and a literal recording of a piano falling down the stairs - because i know that it's impossible without a background in actually writing in the style. you'll hear jazz profs talk about how you can't get jazz unless you understand the theory. i want to reject the academic basis of that - you can feel good jazz without really understanding it - but there's a kernel of truth in it. how do you expect a casual listener to tell the difference between an improvisation in a developed tone row and just a bunch of random notes? you really can't.

the point i'm getting at is that i don't hear any kind of thematic development in their early work, it's a lot of randomness and kind of aimless improv. as somebody coming from a real punk ethic, i'm going to reject a lot of it for the same reason that i'm going to reject elp. it's more the pretension of art than the actualization of it.

they hit a good middle point around feels, though, when they started getting a little poppier. the synthesis they came up with for that short while was legitimately novel and legitimately interesting.

then? well, later animal collective is really honestly more or less what u2 should have been doing in the period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfpIAu7Fymg

the first one (whatever name it was released under) is not terrible, but the stuff in between it and feels kinda is.

(deleted post)

deathtokoalas
you say that like i haven't...

(deleted post)

deathtokoalas
it happens - and animal collective are one of those bands that people connect to experiences and consequently overrate the value of the actual music relative to those experiences.

(deleted post)

deathtokoalas
i'll give you tame impala. absolute retro, but they're good at it, and unique enough to make it worthwhile. innerspeaker is a legit classic. primus.....would be better instrumental. good musicians, though. i'll leave it at that. porcupine tree, i don't get the appeal to at all....

The Void's Screen
I'd honestly argue that their first album is actually their most compositionally complicated one, I also think it's their most beautiful record.

deathtokoalas
ffs. if you're merely going to uphold the myth, just don't post a response. i'm not giving air time to it. it's in enough places (*cough* pitchfork *cough*).

the point is that their early work isn't difficult, isn't complicated and isn't the kind of thing that requires multiple listens to "understand". there's nothing to understand. they were just simply some clueless kids fucking around in their basement. they had no idea what they were doing. well, the piano guy had some idea, but the rest of them really didn't. what's important about that observation is that it's obvious and that it results in a wave of pretentious garbage that any douchebag could barf out.

i've had friends into this kind of stuff and have tried to make music with them and it's just painful. they really think all you need to do is set up a loop pedal and play some random notes and you've produced a work of brilliant art. worse, people listen to it and agree with them. it's depressing.

now, if they had something to say it wouldn't be as much of an annoyance. i'm a big punk rock fan. i don't argue that you need a phd in music theory to make something interesting. a couple of chords and a bad attitude can keep my attention, if it's rooted to some kind of worthwhile messaging.

but, that's not what this band was about. you can't apply the diy ethics of punk rock to avant garde music and think you can create something that is seriously worthwhile. you can maybe convince some kids to buy it, but in the end the illusion is inevitably going to be exposed. and this band was really simply pure pretension.

i'm not going to blame them for having fun. and, i wouldn't be opposed to hanging out in a basement while somebody fucks around with some electronics for an hour. but it's just disappointing and irritating that so many people fell for it on this other level of supposed artistic brilliance. because it's not...

cutso92
There you are ! I was looking for your comment. I find myself agreeing fully with you, just today i got to Animal Collective, i'm a fan of Youth Lagoon latest album Wondrouse Bughouse, so i'm trying to find similar music/artist, and if you could help me i'd be really grateful.

deathtokoalas
i've only heard bits and pieces of youth lagoon and wasn't really excited by it. however, it's rather obvious that wayne coyne is a dominant influence. you might want to try late 90s flaming lips. flaming lips are important, so it's kind of a bottleneck.

i'm not going to be of much more help on this question, as it's outside of my area of interest.

cutso92
Well, Clouds Taste Metallic is a nice album though, so you got that right.

Youth Lagoon first album (The Year Of Hibernation) it gets kinda boring for me atleast, but his second album (Wondrous Bughouse) in the other hand i liked it quite a bit, so i was kinda looking for similars.

Dwayne
so many dumb brainwashed and americanised people in comments detected.

we attack and invade everything! and we drink vodka every day ! so we can have more land for bears to ride their unicycles! And we all wear those funny looking hats, and if we dont... we get shot!! Also it snows 24/7 , and the temperature is -1000 degrees!!

And america and EU are peacemakers! And they want to help the world and make it a happy place!!

thats what all of you dumb fuckheads probably think.

It makes me angry how fuckin retarded most of you people are

deathtokoalas
i think you're confused.

that's actually what americans think about canada.

Dwayne 
well at least ive learned that americans can think. Maybe sooner or later they will be able to read and write

deathtokoalas
my sarcastic comment aside, i don't think there's much use in trying to determine a right and wrong, here. we're heavily conditioned in the west to think of every conflict as good v. evil, coming out of world war two - which russia and america ended up on the same side of, in a conflict of lesser evil v. much greater evil. colonialism is nasty, but even the genocide of native americans (and it's russian equivalent of siberian colonization) is hard to compare to the systemic extermination of multiple groups that was the holocaust, whether it had anything to do with british and american involvement in wwII or not.

the point is that since then every american conflict is put through this prism of american exceptionalism saving the world from itself, and as bullshit as it is through conflict after conflict, it is very difficult to shake. it's deeply embedded within the american psyche. if america is involved in a conflict, the enemy immediately becomes evil by default. they don't even need the propaganda anymore. it's just implicit.

the reality here in ukraine is that this is a part of a very complicated geopolitical struggle that is partially about resources but reduces at the end to america seeking to stamp out a competitor before it's able to reassert itself. you have to put it in the context of the missile shield that's coming up around russia, and the conflict in syria, and the asian pivot. america is being extraordinarily aggressive in containing russia - not because it's a threat to american security, but because it is competing with america for influence in several complex theatres, including syria, iran and china.

russia is rightly defending itself, but self-defense is not necessarily a pure motive. if the tables were turned, putin would be no less aggressive.

so, the key to getting a grasp on the situation is to understand that it is the sum of colonial powers competing against each other, and not some dualist struggle of good over evil. otherwise, you're just playing into the propaganda from one side or the other.

Max
look, i see what you mean, but invading other country (even with an execuse of defending it's people) is not a self-defence. And so is setting up rebel movements (obviously they're pro-russian, heavily armed, etc)

deathtokoalas
i want to be clear that this war is already lost. russia has no ability to defend itself from far superior western technology. when the missile shield is complete, russia will be swiftly invaded by nato, the government will be dismantled, and the country will be broken into several states and split between europe and china.

you don't realize this is the end game of a centuries old conflict between london and moscow (indeed, between rome and constantinople) that is on the brink of a final resolution.

so, the strategic objectives in the region have to do with the defense shields and naval bases, which extends the possible theatre in which russia can act in self-defense to a very wide area, including the baltics. russia cannot invade poland due to article V, but it's only chance is to take over the polish government somehow. this is not truly realistic...

in reality, the rather spineless actions russia has taken in ukraine are pretty lame in terms of defense arrangements. stalin would have leveled the country. jfk would have threatened nuclear war.

the truth is that putin is a wimp who history will remember as responsible for the final and irreversible decline of russian civilization.

Dwayne
"russia will be swiftly invaded by nato, the government will be dismantled, and the country will be broken into several states and split between europe and china."  hahahahahahaaa yeah right

deathtokoalas
you think they're surrounding them with missiles pointed at their major cities for no reason? there's a lot written about this, from the brzezinski text to the pnac. the long war - which started at the end of the napoleonic wars, not the end of the second world war - is entering it's final stages.

Max
you're right, but to my mind the only reason, why Russia is acting such a way is need of money.

Let me explain myself : not long before Crimea became russian, Shell made a contract with Ukrainian government, obliging itself to search for oil, you what happened next.

Haven't you thought why Sloviansk & Kramatorsk were the main point where the firefight occured ? Not Lugansk or Donetsk. You see, Shell was there too, and even managed to get some shale gas.

Russia (as I think) is just trying to cut off Ukraine's ability to be energy dependent.

deathtokoalas
the amount of gas you can pull from shale is not enough for independence from russia, who has enormous energy reserves. this idea that fracking is going to keep america energy independent is likewise just a silly fantasy; the desperate attempt to squeeze the last bit of hydrocarbons out of america will be dry by roughly 2020. ukraine could get a few years out of it...

there's no doubt that energy is a huge aspect of this, but this doesn't have anything to do with ukraine, the ukrainian people or the resources that exist in ukraine. it's a geostrategic conflict over control of base placements.

this is really stage three of the post-iraq (and post-afghanistan) cleanup of russian influence from the energy triangle. stage one was ejecting russia from it's naval bases in libya, which was swift and successful. stage two was about kicking them out of syria, which looks like it failed. stage three is ukraine, but it's intricately tied into stage two. i'm sure you've noticed that the mess in ukraine has happened at the same time as an escalation of saudi mercenary movement in syria and iraq. russia has been forced to quiet down a little while it focuses on it's own backyard, giving the saudis and americans more room to maneuvre.

crimea is of course home to the southern part of the russian fleet. is it a coincidence that there were american warships moving to dock there after the coup? it's not.

now, imagine if that had happened, if the ukrainians had invited american naval troops into sevastopol. again, this isn't new, though. it just pulls the conflict back from the stalemate it was in through the 20th century to the offensive western position that existed in the 19th. and, there's not a militant germany in the middle anymore to keep both sides on their toes.

so, of course the russians seized crimea. it's one of their most important military bases, and the americans were on the cusp of taking it over. they couldn't let that happen.

but, the fact that it almost did is indicative of the relative weakness of russia in relation to america's continued dominance. this would have been inconceivable even ten years ago. but, all putin has done is twiddle his fingers while nato has slowly surrounded the country.

the eastern part of ukraine is of importance to russia primarily because it is an industrial area that (previously, the contracts are now cancelled) produced military equipment for russia. however, it is also an economically depressed area that russia does not want to pay the bills for. there was never a plan to annex the region, only a plan to set up a buffer state.

i was initially suggesting that all russia could accomplish in the region was to drain itself of resources, which is what nato was hoping for - that russia was foolishly taking the bait, when it should have been focusing on trying to engineer political movements in the more strategic regions of poland and the baltics. but, it seems that poroshenko has overplayed his hand by flat out destroying the area. the region is of no importance to russia if the factories are destroyed. should the russians rebuild their capacity, it would make more sense to do so elsewhere.

and, there is now no future left for the region but pointless conflict leading to abandoned ruins. neither moscow nor kiev will put the funds down to rebuild, and there is no economy there for the people to rebuild themselves.

francezka
im catholic and in the bible it says that being gay is a sin. i do NOT believe that. it says that god made man and female so they could be together. but god made humans. he planted the concept of being gay in our human minds

Alejandrina
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1:9-11 NIV)

deathtokoalas
that's a wonky translation - the idea of "homosexuality" did not exist at the time of paul's writings.

http://www.inherit-the-kingdom.org/bible/arsenokoites.html

francezka
i said i DONT believe that being gay is a sin. i dont believe you get to choose it either. God created you how you are. if he didnt like who you are why would he create you? youre created for a reason.

deathtokoalas
the calvinists (and offshoots) are a little weird on this point, but most christians would argue that god creates you with free will and you have the choice to follow him or not. why would he create gay people and then taunt them? i dunno. seems kind of sadistic. then again, so is flooding the world, isn't it?

this idea of free will is largely what underlies the idea that homosexuality is a choice (i don't accept the genetic arguments, but i think it's oversimplifying it to suggest it's as simple as choosing to be or not to be gay).

i'm just pointing out that it's a weird argument from a christian perspective, or much of any kind of religious perspective. i'm not really aware of a religion that assigns creation with that much actual design inherent in it. the german indigenous religions had an idea of fate assigned to them, but they were not so tied to it so as to have it determine sexual preference.

most religions begin with a set of rules and give adherents the choice to follow them or not - so long as they're aware of the consequences (ie eternal damnation, or getting stuck in the wheel, or whatever).

i think this is more leaning towards like parmenides or something.

i don't think your view is obscure in our society, though, and it maybe says something about the world we live in.

past cultures and civilizations looked to the unknown to understand why there is catastrophe in the world, because catastrophe was their daily reality. we look to the unknown to explain why there is harmony - because it is what we know, with our absurd wealth firewalled behind three oceans and an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

it's a better vision, i'll grant you that.

Alejandrina
Yeah Ik we are called to love them. I never said we should disown them and it obviously was in the time of Paul otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bible!

francezka
well i am truly 100% catholic. but if being gay was a sin, why would god create the concept of it? that would be so pointless. EVERYTHING has a point to it. why would it happen if there was no point to it??

deathtokoalas
again: have you considered that the point is to punish it?

'cause that's what catholics actually think.

i'd really suggest looking into calvinism, i think it's closer to what you're thinking.

to clarify...

catholics think it's a sin. if you're taking a different approach, you're breaking with catholicism right there. so, from a catholic perspective, "why does homosexuality exist?" is the same question as "why does sin exist?".

catholicism would not provide a one-sentence response for that, but it reduces to the whole original sin thing with the fallen nature and the temptation of evil. again, this goes back to free will and choice. but, why does god give us the choice in the first place? there's story after story about this in the bible, and it comes down to a series of tests. god puts all kind of roadblocks in front of you on your way to eternal salvation, to make sure you make the right choice. gay? wrong choice, hell..

that's not me talking, that's what catholicism says: homosexuals are people that make a choice to be sinful.

calvinism takes a different approach altogether in assigning you salvation or damnation from the point you're conceived. while catholicism would not argue god made you gay, calvinism would argue god makes you gay - and then condemns you for it. so, the answer in calvinism is that god made you gay so that you can go to hell, and there's nothing you can do about it. that's not a gay-specific thing, it's general across all the different types of sin. it's very weird in terms of christianity, because it rejects the idea of forgiveness.

neither are really what you want to hear, though, which is "god made you gay, so god must approve it". if that's what you want to hear, you need to look at a different religion than christianity. unfortunately, i don't have any suggestions - i don't think one exists.

Gabrielle
Our God would never plant this kind of evil in our head. Our God is perfect and we humans always expect a flaw in everything, plus satan does everything the opposite as God does so when God says to multiply satan wants death. I am trying to not attack but when i see God's children say such things like "being gay is okay" is is very painful for me to watch.

deathtokoalas
is it so painful that it makes you want to just end it all, gabrielle?

Bethany
and God loves everybody and God made everything happen for a reason

deathtokoalas
again: false. x. fail.

unless you're a calvinist, in which case it's half true: god doesn't love everybody, but god does make everything happen for a reason.

Caoimhe
If being gay was  choice the no one would want to be tortured or bullied because they were gay plus it ll depends on who you love

deathtokoalas
so, being an atheist must not be a choice either, then.

Caoimhe
what atheists aren't bullied... But if they were not as bad as gays HOWEVER that is you religion what you WANT to believe in that IS a choice. For example: (I'll use beverages as my example) you can have 2 choices of drinks you can choose juice or water (as in religion) but you need to have water in your life and you cannot replace it with anything else (like your sexuality which you are stuck with) which some people like/enjoy their sexuality

deathtokoalas
religionists have killed millions of atheists over many centuries, often by giving them the simple choice of repent or be burned.

so, if your argument is that nobody would choose persecution over maintaining a belief system, i think you need to look at history a little more closely.

Caoimhe
don't tell me to look at history more closely I know my history but I wasn't talking about atheists get killed I was talking about gays, YOU brought up the subject. Atheists are grown people they choose their lifestyle and religions you cannot be born a religion and cannot change it it's what you believe so the people that died chose to believe that way which caused their deaths

deathtokoalas
wow. we've got a real smart one here.

i know a waste of time when i see it. if you'd like to explain to me that you understand my response, we can continue the discussion.

Caoimhe
WOAH what was with the insult?

deathtokoalas
you're having a lot of difficulty following a simple discussion. now, can you explain to me what i said, or not?

Caoimhe
we are talking about homosexuals here not mainly on religion (and I know from the video that the guy was talking about had been biased by religion)

deathtokoalas
remember: the point of contention is whether homosexuality is a choice or not.

Caoimhe
dude/chick (I don't know what you are) you don't even know me how can you say I'm having difficulty understanding what you said, I'm just giving my opinions on what you said, you don't have to be a cyber jerk because I'm just participating in the argument/conversation

yes that is what I said we are talking about homosexuals

deathtokoalas
right. so, you stated (in a jumbled syntax) that homosexuality can't be a choice because nobody would choose to be persecuted. are you honestly that clueless, or do you realize that it's an absurd argument?

Caoimhe
you have no idea what homosexuals go through you cannot call me clueless unless you are one and you understand your lifestyle and know that you cannot change it.

deathtokoalas
ok. so the question is if you can change it or not. can you tell me that you understand that this is the point of debate and not an established truth?

Caoimhe
I completely understand that you are all debating whether homosexuality is a characteristic of whether you can change or not and I have stated that you CANNOT change it, if I made you confused by my statements, then I apologise but you cannot change your sexuality no matter what it's just how we work with love

deathtokoalas
you haven't explained why you think this, and your statement is consequently invalid.

Caoimhe
I HAVE!!! MY FIRST COMMENT SAYS HOW I THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE OR NOT AND THEN YOU BROUGHT FRICKIN ATHEISTS INTO THE SUBJECT

deathtokoalas
the reason presented in your first comment was demonstrated to be idiotic.

Caoimhe
how was it idiotic?

Explain to me how it was idiotic you complete cyber stranger, tell me how it was idiotic because obviously you seem to know me so well, so tell me SPECIFICALLY how my comment was idiotic wise one instead of swaying to a different topic like religion, tell me wise one how it was stupid

deathtokoalas
i already explained this, and you weren't able to follow it.

you're going to have to learn to back up your opinions at some point. but an individual on the internet can only do so much to correct a broken school system. you have to take that initiative yourself.

---

John Paul
ACTUALLY science has proven to being gay is a birth thing see when a women is pregnant we all start as a female egg its it when the DNA wants to decide to make it a male or keep as a female (thats usually why in rare case a man/woman is born with a vagina or both)  anyways during that process of turning the baby a male sometimes the immune system doesn't recognize what the foreign object is so wight blood cells attack the fetus and if that happens the hormones go all whack feminizing the fetus and its a boy who feels like a girl i don't to much detail cause this is already really long and your probably tired of reading this 

NG Sync
wtf?

Mercedes Dawn
Accutaly we start as sperm.

John Paul
lol ya that to but the egg is always a female until the DNA wants to change it

Aaliyah J
Scienceness

Pretty Little Liars
That's not necessarily what I've seen. The only experiments that I know about show that it could be about the amount of testosterone (I think) the baby is exposed to, or something along those lines. I'm sure it'll be a while before we know for sure the science behind it.

deathtokoalas
right, but if you think about that for a second it doesn't make any sense as a general marker for orientation. what the studies suggest (and i should be clear that they only refer to men, i was being a little liberal in my interpretation, previously) is that there may be a genetic marker for "queenie" type queer dudes that may have something to do with testosterone/estrogen levels. men have estrogen, and women have testosterone. the suggestion is that the homosexuality may be the result of an imbalance there, and that may be driven genetically.

but you've surely met gay men that are not "queenie" and that you'd basically have no idea are gay unless they've told you. further, i know quite a few dudes that have the "queenie" personality (and probably have the genes) but are not attracted to men. so, maybe they found the genetic marker for the "queenie" personality, but that's not the same thing as finding the gay gene.

again: the right way to read these studies is probably that the hormonal imbalance produces the "queenie" personality which, in the presence of various social indicators (perhaps including greater social identification with "girl things"), might induce the homosexual preference.

Mackenzie Jay
I do agree with you on the science. However, the science does not have any effect on our emotions. Psychology? Maybe. But not emotions.

deathtokoalas
your emotions are chemical reactions...

Rachelle Kwon
I'm pretty sure men have testosterones? I don't know I could be wrong

deathtokoalas
that's right. the meaning of the sentence is that both genders have both sex hormones, in differing quantities. estrogen production in men is essential, but is going to vary by individual (as insulin or any other hormone - indeed, testosterone - does).

Sarah Elizabeth
Those are all valid scientific points, but that has to do with gender identity, not sexual orientation. They are two completely different categories not to be confused.

deathtokoalas
i think you're right, but the research, itself, has made this error - and the idea of the "gay gene" relies on this error.