m_thomp

No it does not. 2007 Miles has always been on the island (since 1974). So it doesn't affect anything because nothing has changed. Really for all intensive purposes the two Miles are different people. Even though baby Miles will leave the island, grow up and then join Widmore's crew come back to the island and get zapped back to the 70's. What we don't know yet is how 2007 Miles time line will end up.

Right, so, if I've got this right. Different people who follow exactly the same path. Baby Miles will grow up get bounced through time, and end up in exactly the same position as 2007 Miles: stuck on the island in 1974 staring at his infant self. And that Baby Miles will do exactly the same thing and so and so.

I guess this means this course of events, if you can bounce through time, were to some degree pre-ordained. Things are set in motion, not to be altered. In other words..... destiny?

Finally caught up with the Some Like It Hoth episode last night. One thing I thought about whilst watching: does the fact that Older Miles saw Younger Miles affect anything?

As stated before my only reference to time travel that I understand is Back to The Future. I understand that he hasn't fundamentally changed any course of events by crossing his own path, but wouldn't it mess things up, the same person occupying the same time-space?

Also, started thinking more about nature versus nurture. I think it's interesting that we've seen older Ben seemingly being an absolute c0ck (I say "seemingly" because as part of the bigger picture/grand scheme of things he might actually be helping), and we don't know whether he was born with those instincts, or whether he's picked these up through the course of events in his younger life - he's been shot, shepherded round between various factions, had an anus for a father - so self-preservation is going to be paramount.

But, the nature/nurture thing comes in because although we've seen Ben manipulate and hurt the Oceanic survivors, we're now seeing that they may actually have been the cause of that and his duplicitous behaviour in the first place. In other words they helped create the monster.

I hope the script writers follow that train of thought because it's interesting and kind of backward-engineers the 'reap what you sow' philosophy.

Big fan of the previous album, From Here We Go Sublime, which I thought was strikingly simple but devastatingly effective. Not heard anything off the new album (nor have I read the Pitchfork link), was kinda hoping this post was gonna be news of it's leak, but I do know the Stanier drummer dude from Battles is guesting on the new album.

Juan Maclean's new album is good too - quite Human League sounding.

There are few artists out there you should check out if you like The Field who have similar exploratory mindset, but not the same (Gui Boratto, James Holden, Lindstrom, Lindstrom & Prins Thomas).

I remember reading in the Kott book a story about Jeff's wife arranging a guitar lesson with Richard Lloyd as a present. My memory not being the greatest I run a quick Google search to check facts and, sure enough, it crops up on Richard Lloyd's website in the Q & A section. He doesn't shed too much light but at least he confirms it took place:

hello richard, this is adam. i read that you gave jeff tweedy a guitar lesson and was wondering about some of the things you talked about, seeing as how i love both his and your playing. hopefully you can shed some light on this. i plan on checking out some of the lessons on your site and appreciate them very much!

 

thanks, adam

 

 

Hello Adam,

Thank you for writing, and for your interest in Jeff Tweedy and myself. Unfortunately, private lessons are just that -- private. For that reason, I cannot answer your questions with respect to what might have taken place between us, but we are and have been friends for a rather longtime -- Wilco opened a number of shows for Matthew Sweet many years ago when I was on tour with Matthew. We all became warm friends then and remain so, even though Jeff lives in Chicago and I live in New York. His wife called me a couple of years ago because she wanted to get him a guitar lesson from me for his birthday. So I flew to Chicago and we spend the day together. And I just saw him a month or so ago in Brazil when we both played at the Tim Festival in Rio de Janeiro.

 

Best regards,

Richard Lloyd

As for Wilco, I always think that musically At Least That's What You Said is the perfect hybrid of Neil Young and Television playing Marquee Moon.

It's also my favourite Wilco song.

My nephew started out liking Jack Johnson and Amy MacDonald when he was 12 months.

At the age of two he progressed onto, and still likes, AC/DC - he could sing the all the words to Back In Black at that age.

He's now three, and his latest achievement, of which I champion, is to shout, "Turn that crazy music off, Grandad!!!" when said grandad is playing Battles.

My next mission is to get him singing Brothersport before he turns four. I have four months to achieve this.

One from my youth, and from my older brother's record collection.

I love the unswerving directness of the imagery - they're enjoying a drive, and he's looking for love (and cleaning products, his handiwork, her chesticles, etc.)...... ta dah, Love Drive.

yeah, i've listened up to cardiff in the sun so far. moped eyes, inaugural trams & cardiff in the sun are great - but i'm currently with you about proggy pub rock type thing, but at least it's different. i don't hate it, but i have to say it's not my favourite style of music that they play. also, i think the track listing with Mountain as track 2 is correct - that's how i've seen it listed on a number of cd sites, but maybe they've got it wrong.

I'm not going to judge an album I've only heard five tracks of, because two them were really good (Inaugral Trams and the one with the vocoderized vocals), but I get the distinct impression a lot of these tracks were born out of jams? Certainly the opener - the Naked Girls one - sounds ferocious and killer, but, if we're just being honest, it is just one monster riff.... and that's it. You're right, what they're doing is different, for them, but, given their impeccable track record of travelling on the paths less travelled, I was expected a wee bit more from them. It might come... it might come...

Damn it, i missed it! Was it any good? Is it still streaming somewhere? I'm downloading the album as I type.

I'm halfway through the album (the rest I've got for the second half of my journey later this afternoon). I have to admit that I'm slightly let down so far. There are some good moments but there's an awful lot of sludgy and proggy pub rock. I get the impression they're playing up to this as there's some great big drum fill crescendos and all in there.

Having said that, I think it might be because the track order on the version I'm listening to is screwed - I've got the Mountain Song coming in as the second track and I think it's supposed to be the Neil Diamond one. And that Mountain Song is the worst pub rock offender, even if it did make me burst out laughing with its opening lines through sheer surprise.

The Stone Roses did this a lot, not just guitar but the whole songs. Probably used to best effect, with guitar being the best element, on 'Don't Stop' which is a backwards version of 'Waterfall', albeit with new lead vocal and added cowbell.

Is the guitar solo on The Byrds' 'Change Is Now' in reverse? I always thought that was, what about 'Dolphin's Smile' too.

Okay, I watched most of this episode last night. I say most of it, as I was doing the dishes during some ad breaks and missed a few minutes of it.

Can anyone explain to me why the 1970s Sawyer and co. and the more modern incarnation are at all related to each other? If it was explained, then sorry, I missed it. I was thinking all along that these were merely alternate versions of the same people. As Daniel said, in one of the bits I did catch, the record is spinning again and they're just on the wrong track. So what you're seeing is Sawyer and co. experiencing life in two identical enivironments but differently ... parallel universes, etc. The characters are merely vessels going on different paths. It seemed to me as though the 70s versions were completely unaware of their mental past (but actual physical future) exploits, which led me to think that although the characters were shown in different time zones, they were actually unconnected, but we, as the audience, were again filling in the missing gaps in the backstory and assuming they were connected.

I might be barking up the wrong tree and it was all explained in one the sections I missed.

See avatar.

Nice action. It is Wales though, and given the cold climate, it might not be the most flattering environment for a man in a green lycra catsuit to be in.

That's one cocktail sausage safely smuggled.

Excellent, excellent, excellent news. My favourite festival of the last three years has just pulled out Jeff and co. as headliner. I'm so excited I haven't had chance to check any of the other names on the bill yet.

EDIT: Forgot crucial data of when it is ..... 21st-23rd August for those interested.

Here are the details:

2009 tickets on sale + first acts announced!!

03/03/09

Spring is in the air and Green Man is less than 6 months away! We

I believe the excitement comes from fans of the band that are really like seeing the band play together again. Your lack of excitement is likely related to the fact that you don't enjoy the band. What you are seeing here is what folks often refer to as a "difference of opinion".

 

Hope this helps.

Nope, but this does:

I think they should've called it quits after Get Behind Me Satan.

Can someone explain to me why the reappearance of the White Stripes is causing so much excitement? I thought Jack White had passed into the same 'still relevant' territory as Billy Corgan.

was Friend an album or an ep too?, i know it's got an album's worth of songs on it, so let's call it an album. also, i've never heard horn of plenty - is it worth checking out?

I think it was deemed an EP, but defintely has an album's worth of material on it.

HOP is good, I think you'd like it. Although it bears (ho ho) the Grizzly Bear name the bulk of it was written by Ed Droste. Was only on Yellow House that Daniel Rossen (dude from the excellent Dept. of Eagles) started chipping in on the song-writing front.

Like AC, I definitely see them as part of an exciting ongoing evolution, in that their musical choices and output always seem to be progressively better and different.

Grizzly Bear (and the latter is pretty ridiculous after one record).

Pretty sure they're about to release their third album (fourth if you include 'Sorry For The Delay')

IMO Animal Collective are the most idiosyncratic band today that does have followers and will have followers, also Grizzly Bear.

I would like to become best friends with giraffo.

These two bands are the most important to me. By 'important' I mean important to me only. Sorry folks, I couldn't give a hoot about the cultural, social impact of music, specifically when trying to change a nation's way of life. I think the idea that music these days is powerful enough to affect any of this is pretty redundant. To think that way in terms of music means you have to adopt a one-size-fits-all policy in that the songs have to speak to everyone, by default this makes them bland and ineffectual. The only bands who chase that sort of pipe dream these days are bands like U2 who try to please everyone all of the time, offering up scant hollow ideaology in their songs in the hope that people can attach some kind of significance to it.

Anyway, Grizzly Bear and Animal Collective offer up all that I look for in modern music: songs with an ear for good melody and songs that are constantly evolving, yet inventively refreshing, in their approach. Which is longhand for saying that they're both very good at concisely expressing lots of ideas.

She saw Jin for a very limited period in the 1980's. She had experienced severe traumas (having to kill crew and her husband, having a child kidnapped and surviving the island) and 17 years between her seeing Jin for 20 mnutes or so in 1987 and then seeing him again in 2003. Think it is fairly plausible that she didn't recall him.

Well he, unlike her, and save for parched lips and longer hair, would look exactly the same. And he appeared and disappeared via fairly unorthodox means - shipwrecked and vanishing in front of your very eyes.

Despite the traumas, I'm pretty sure I would remember the person who vanished a couple of feet away from me, and then recall them 30 years later. It would kinda stick with you, particularly after it came seconds after blowing away the (possibly not) father of your child.

I caught the episode last night and it was the first time I felt the makers have fallen into the trap that I have feared for a while: that they will contrive awkward narrative/plot devices to get themselves out of a muddle.

That episode there was way too many time jumps and it was all to hint at/partially explain bits of detail from earlier episodes. For example, one jump lasting all of about a minute, was used partially explained away "the sickness". And just when you start getting bored of all the time leaps (used for intents and purposes to get people off the island, to get Jin back on the island, to explain the sickness/smoke monster, to bump off a few characters) they simply say, "Oh y'know that wheel? Well, it was a bit broken, can you just give it a nudge and fix it!" What? That simple? And that really irked me, helped in no small part by how p*ss-poor made that wheel actually is: it's clearly made of polysterene, and not actually that difficult to move despite the hammy efforts of the actors, and the lights underneath it just make it look like a bunch of bad Christmas decorations.

A few other things that didn't square up in my head. Jin met Rosseau in her past, and he recognized her. How come then in earlier episodes the older Rosseau didn't recognise Jin from the encounter in her youth, or even make mention of him?

Regarding the nosebleeds, does anyone else think that they could be related to 'the sickness'?

It might just be me and my difficulty to retain information, and the fact that I've never watched an episode more than once, but 'the sickness' has never been explained, has it?

I also thought that the nosebleeds were explained in part at the start of this season. Remember the scene where Dharma were contructing something (one of the pods/stations?) and they were instructed not to drill too deeply into that wall (I think the wall had something to do with moving the island) as it might release something bad, the camera then panned round to a worker semi-collapsing with, ta-dah, a nosebleed. Well, perhaps, Charlotte, Miles and Juliet have all had too much exposure to whatever they feared the drilling could release, and that might have something to do with island moving/time-travel. If we agree that Charlotte, Miles and Juliet somehow originated from the island then they may, in their unrevealed past, have been exposed far more often than we know they have.

OR..... if Charlotte, Miles and Juliet did originate from the island, then their nosebleeds could be a symptom as a result of their current time-travelling messing up where they were supposed to be. In other words, their time travelling is f**king up the space-time continuum (sorry to get all Back to the Future), and what and where their past actions were plotted them to be was now different, resulting in the nosebleeds. Basically, they're changing history and the nosebleeds are a consequence of it (a bit like the McFly family disappearing in Marty's photo).

I haven't really though this through. I'm going for a lie down. Find a happy place....find a happy place.

Arthur Russell? Famous for his disco and cello work but developed an whole swathe of home recordings which started off decidedly more conventional (think Cat Stevens, James Taylor and Jackson Browne) and then got a little bit more upbeat. They were unreleased until last year with the compilation Love Is Overtaking Me. Have a listen to the samples over on Amazon here.

Also, you don't get much more damaged and shut-in than dead.

There are a number of different reasons. I think the main one is 'time', and allied to that people, and their tastes, change; there are albums that you once loved and still do, and then there are albums that perhaps can't stand nowadays.

On a pure instinctive level I think I can always determine whether something warrants more plays almost immediately (ie after one listen). I tend to find that gets a bit clouded though once the environment in which you listen becomes too strong a force. It took me a while to appreciate Vetiver's To Find Me Gone, but then I realized I was trying to listen to on lots of noisy motorway journeys - this never lends itself to hushed acoustic music. So it's only when I dedicate time to properly listening (ie without too many distractions), as opposed to albums being shoved on for background decoration, that I can determine pretty quickly whether to exercise a little patience, and that patience usually increases the love.

As for music that instantly destroys patience-braking point, that's a different matter. There are certain albums that I know, no matter how many plays after the initial listen, that I will never like, so I pass on the opportunity of torturing myself further. The last one of those was that Blitzen Trapper album.

So I guess, to me, 'clicking' means 'not dismissing'.

Pick up: Glassworks it is a great, minimal, mesmerizing set of pieces that showcases Glass' trademark arpeggiating style. I'd start with that.

 

While you're at it pick up: Steve Reich's Music For 18 Musicians and John Adams' Road Movies. If you like those get Terry Riley's In C as well.

 

That's a great introduction that will pretty much cover all the bases of minimalism in its glory. Enjoy!

I've got Music for 18 Musicians and also Riley's In C and A Rainbow In Curved Air, all of which I really like. Thanks for the other suggestions though, I will look to check these out.

I have also heard of his work on Bowie's Low and "Heroes". Which I'm presuming is his take on those albums' ambient passages as opposed to a Glass intepretation of Always Crashing The Same Car, Breaking Glass, Sound & Vision, etc?

Also, and me not knowing could be a sure sign of my thickness, does anyone know, or have a clue, as to what Ben was pulling out of the vent in the wall.

My initial thought was they were his collection of blood samples from the victims he'd been bumping off, but then I realized I'd been watching a bit too much Dexter recently.

It is interesting that Richard and his group did not become "unstuck in time" like the Losties. Is this because they are orginal inhabitants? Why are they special.

We just got the double ep in the UK last night. And following Daniel's analogy about the record becoming stuck and the shift in time, I got caught up with the feeling that Richard and the other inhabitants were stuck in loop. By that I mean they know when everything's going to happen and to who, despite the shifts in time, so they're basically going through Groundhog Day. Time changes and everything around them changes, but they, like the island, are constants and hence the reason Richard doesn't age, and knew that Locke was shot without being told.

Just a thought...