Dic 7 2008, 10:42 di 0k0k0k0
Nov 3 2008, 19:51 di 0k0k0k0So it doesn’t subtract from the fact that I was somewhat seriously drunk by the time I composed this travesty of a journal. As such expect drastically fewer bomblinks and such though I probably will be adding many, many more by the time I get sober. After a few hours worth of rest and repose, I might add. COCKS
Q.Why do bands like The Angelic Process stir such dreadful recollections in me that I’d rather not remember in good company.
A.Because they’re supposed to be that way. If comparisons such as ‘weighing souls in sand is like being crushed to death at the bottom of a very beautiful part of the ocean’ (lolrateyourmusic) unsettles you you’re probably better off listening to remakes of remakes of Umbrella and suchlike. They’re NOT supposed to be something you should share with others that won’t probably share (much less care or even want to know about) your present temperament. Why turn a house party into a funeral wake. Nobody wants negativity when the mood’s all jubilant and celebratory. …
Set 6 2008, 1:44 di 0k0k0k0This is a tl;dr piece. Of rehashed ideas over and over again. You have been warned.
1. Visual appeal equals musical appeal.
Obvious cases of visual kei faggotry and metal posturing idiocy aside, it’s to say that artsy music videos and photoshoots do not mask the fact that the musicians are just terrible at rousing emotions other than righteous loathing back at them. And even then on the other end, mesmerizing soundscapes wafting from the stage, emanating from spaced-out statues with guitars or what have you. As dorky as they look, no different from the classroom nerd, unmoving but for the subtle flicks of the picks on their fingers, fact remains…. They’ll never get laid.
That, and the other lesson so implicitly overt.
2. If it sucks live, it sucks.
At its basest classification, only two types of music exist. Studio version and live version. One of those clearly plays with sounds difficult/impossible to replicate under real time circumstances…
Mag 11 2008, 11:22 di 0k0k0k0being the total failure in computer science that i am, i shall instead attempt to piece together a few words of thought regarding the evolution of software complexity in relation to storage size.
before the advent of multigigabyte (terabyte nowadays) end-user systems program design often took the utilitarian view, evidenced by lackluster UIs of olde and cumbersome circumlocutions when issuing commands. programmers then had to make do with working in cramped quarters, squeezing in everything of import (the primary functions for their specific tasks) while sacrificing others (all other code for human aesthetic tastes and conveniences - examples of which are status messages, prompt design, the various methods of depicting currently running processes, etc). all within 640-kilobyte machines and even less.
those were the only things computers then can store and operate.
a few decades later give or take a year or so as advances had been made in both hardware and software left, right and center programs…