New Mouse on Mars question
ventolin
Rumours say it's a sort of "greatest hits" compilation.
Can anybody confirm (or, un-confirm) this?
Sebastian Kloss
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Xoph
Pocks' and it's out on Too Pure in the UK next week.
ventolin <vent...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ev51c$giq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Confused Monkey
how do people on the ambient group rate Mouse on Mars?
im not fussed about them at all.
i have 3 of the albums and some other trax,but thers nothing here that makes
me want to pick one of their disks,and say "yeah,lets have it!"
MoM have a bit following on this ng.
who wants to persuade me there worth it???
c.
and what about boards of canada?????
shite or what?
philT
> shite or what?
Both are quite pleasant with occasional flashes of something more.
--
:philT:
Greg Gasiorowski
Confused Monkey wrote in message <5p2R4.373$U3.1...@newsr2.u-net.net>...
>i was wondering...
> how do people on the ambient group rate Mouse on Mars?
>i have 3 of the albums and some other trax,but thers nothing here that
makes
>me want to pick one of their disks,and say "yeah,lets have it!"
>MoM have a bit following on this ng.
>who wants to persuade me there worth it???
I like the records but who the fuck was that LAME rock band backing them on
the recent tour, wrecked the show + the record venders were pompous chi town
putz's who thought selling bratwurst for $3 was a neat German pun, yep a
waste of $15 at least dinner was fine...
Persi
>
>I heard that there's a new Mouse on Mars album coming out this month.
>Rumours say it's a sort of "greatest hits" compilation.
>Can anybody confirm (or, un-confirm) this?
It's called 'Post Rocks' and is a collection of b-sides/rarities, etc.
--
on my stereo: funkstorung - appetite for disctruction
Persi
>
>i was wondering...
> how do people on the ambient group rate Mouse on Mars?
>im not fussed about them at all.
>i have 3 of the albums and some other trax,but thers nothing here that makes
>me want to pick one of their disks,and say "yeah,lets have it!"
>MoM have a bit following on this ng.
>who wants to persuade me there worth it???
Can't say I can persuade you, but I love Mouse on Mars. They have this total
thing of their own going that's a bit off-center and quite German. If anything,
the best things they've done are the 'Instrumentals' and 'Glam' LPs.
>and what about boards of canada?????
>shite or what?
Excellent stuff. The debut album still gets alot of play from me. The new
Funkstorung is OK. I've never really thought of them too highly. A little too
derivative of Autechre and most of their stuff sounds exactly the same. I got a
copy of the Acid Planet 13 EP and it's the worst shite I've ever heard.
--
on my stereo: doldrum - acupuncture
-3MAN8-
average techno (but definitely still up there) to their present 'we can play
real instruments too' mode. went to see them live a couple of months ago and
they were ok. once they got onto a roll they were beginning interest the
crowd (needless to say the gig ended pretty soon after!)
-i can't get enough of boards of canada though. anything they've put
together in the last year does the trick for me. it may sound slightly dated
before it's time, and it may not have anything particularly original to
offer, but if you're looking for highly satisfying, accessible ambient music
(and this is ambient to the core) then you can't go far wrong. particularly
recommend the peel sessions.
-bought djfood's 'kaleidoscope' the other week - even if you're not into
that ninja sound, this is an album you should not miss.
-3MAN8-
"philT" <ptur...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3914F45B...@bigpond.com...
> > how do people on the ambient group rate Mouse on Mars?
> > and what about boards of canada?????
> > shite or what?
>
silent6212
>I like the records but who the fuck was that LAME rock band backing them on
>the recent tour, wrecked the show + the record venders were pompous chi
town
>putz's who thought selling bratwurst for $3 was a neat German pun, yep a
>waste of $15 at least dinner was fine...
>
TRANS AM?
hassan
haunting me day and night since I bought the CD 2 weeks ago - very very nice
Confused Monkey <c...@tadley.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:5p2R4.373$U3.1...@newsr2.u-net.net...
> i was wondering...
> how do people on the ambient group rate Mouse on Mars?
> im not fussed about them at all.
> i have 3 of the albums and some other trax,but thers nothing here that
makes
> me want to pick one of their disks,and say "yeah,lets have it!"
> MoM have a bit following on this ng.
> who wants to persuade me there worth it???
> c.
eman l. luf
>average techno (but definitely still up there) to their presen
mouse on mars, average techno. need to think about this for a moment.
while i'm doing that, could you please elaborate where the average
techno by mom can be heard?
eman l. luf
> how do people on the ambient group rate Mouse on Mars?
i love.
if you are into oval, you might also check out microstoria (popp
of oval & st.werner of mouse on mars).
>i have 3 of the albums and some other trax,but thers nothing here that makes
>me want to pick one of their disks,and say "yeah,lets have it!"
how much have you been listening to mom? listen to those
albums you have 10 times through in space of two weeks
and then we'll see whether you can say a bit more about them.
chagrin on vulvaland is a beauty, by the way. i can't say
which of their albums i like best, but i'm still disappointed
with niun niggung.
what i do think is that mouse on mars has something in
common with the painters wassily kandinsky and (especially)
paul klee, and that something might be the sublime playfulness.
np. tetsu inoue: ambiant otaku (finally...)
Confused Monkey
how very renaissance.
who was the 'millenium man' that mentioned wassilly kandinsky?
any comparison with the wholly average and lightweight techno-pop band that
goes by the handle MoM,and the very reverend,and masterfull scientist of
abstract application,frater wassilly,is completely stupid.
there is no way to compare these 2 entities.
next you'll be comparing marc bolan to phillip stark,or scooby do to aundrey
hepburn!
there in completely different solar systems!!!
please dont defile his name with such abbhorent 'sophisticated' abserdities
as aforementioned.
there is really no need.
i cannot for the life of me see this 'playfullness' anywhere in wassilly's
work.
i cant think offhand of a more serious operation than viewing a kandinsky
painting!
he was really involved in the science of art.
not playfull in the slightest.
perhaps you can point me to an example?
i think MoM suck,big time.
and BoC.
mind you,i can see the comparisons there between BoC and max ernst!
the way the eschew that thing that makes them unsimmilar to other things!
marvellous thing,rhetoric.
c
The wonderful thing about Salvador Dali is that no matter who
he thought about when he painted, the fish in his head always
tasted like roast chicken, even when he wanted them to taste
like hedgehog in a tartare sauce with a side salad of Oreos....
"eman l. luf" <em...@wonderful.address> wrote in message
news:8fhpn2$hmf$3...@tron.sci.fi...
eman l. luf
>goes by the handle MoM,and the very reverend,and masterfull scientist of
>abstract application,frater wassilly,is completely stupid.
>there is no way to compare these 2 entities.
thanks for letting me know the limits of comparison. also, i would like to
thank you for letting me know what is stupid.
honestly, i didn't say mouse on mars is as important to music as wassily
kandinsky is to modern art. are you religious? about this matter i mean?
even if i admittedly am fond of music by mouse on mars, i'm not saying it
is in the same class with debussy.
>please dont defile his name with such abbhorent 'sophisticated' abserdities
>as aforementioned. there is really no need.
whatever.
by 'sophisticated' you seem to be suggesting there is pretense in my
comparison, yes? please, read on, i'm not here to score points, just
exchanging opinions. i have no inkling to start an invisible competition
of 'sophisticated' absurdities, and i don't even think there is anything
absurd in my comparison. there really is no need to start pointing
fingers at people like you seem to be doing.
>i cannot for the life of me see this 'playfullness' anywhere in wassilly's
>work.
it surely is a shame if you can't ... and i did say _especially klee_ and
i said that exactly because kandinsky is more known to be very serious
as man and as artist. and i did say "that something might be the
_sublime_ playfulness". also, klee's sense of humour doesn't make him
a less serious artist than kandinsky & kandinsky's seriousness doesn't
make his art totally devoid of anything playful. playful can mean playing
with ideas, concepts or something else, not just acting goofy or playing
around like a 4-year old.
furthermore, it seems you have read kandinsky's essays. if he wanted
to fuse science and art (and anthroposophism) and make his method as
scientific as possible, does it imply there can't be any sublime playfulness
in the art itself? any playfulness between colors? is playfulness between
colors impossible because kandinsky was serious, because he was a
scientist? can you contemplate on a kandinsky painting without being so
overly entangled with his his method? do you think kandinsky's work is
poetic in some way? is the notion of singing colors a completely serious
one in the sense that the singing is not at all playful?
i don't see how kandinsky is not at all playful. playfulness creates some
needed tension in any art. it really doesn't have to be something that makes
you laugh, delicate playfulness is something that makes a poem (for
example) sparkle.
>i cant think offhand of a more serious operation than viewing a kandinsky
>painting! he was really involved in the science of art.
>not playfull in the slightest. perhaps you can point me to an example?
does the word 'playful' imply that anything that is playful is of no worth?
can't playfulness be serious? is it only the britney spears parody or the
teenager prank that is playful to you? can't playfulness be sublime? is it
only the seriousness that can be sublime?
examples are many. you only need to look at the singing colors. however
i am *not* suggesting kandinsky's work as _merely playful_. obviously
there is more to it than that. but to deny everything to do with playfulness
and making kandinsky look like a holy figure of some religion is really
not necessary.
>i think MoM suck,big time.
sure. what "rules" then?
>mind you,i can see the comparisons there between BoC and max ernst!
>the way the eschew that thing that makes them unsimmilar to other things!
if you missed my point, then so be it, but being a smart-ass hardly
makes your own arguments come good.
just maybe you take the whole thing _too_ seriously? maybe you thought
i didn't know anything about kandinsky? maybe you thought i didn't have
any knowledge of art other than seeing "cool stuff" (to use a convenient
expression) in books? maybe you might consider thinking next time
before you rashly push that reply button and start throwing insults at me.
-3MAN8-
-i apologise if my brevity offended you but you should really pull yourself
together and stop looking to blow holes in people who really don't give a
shit about what you think
-word to ya mom
-3MAN8-
"eman l. luf" <em...@wonderful.address> wrote in message
news:8fhp1v$hmf$2...@tron.sci.fi...
eman l. luf
>> while i'm doing that, could you please elaborate where the average
>> techno by mom can be heard?
>-i apologise if my brevity offended you but you should really pull yourself
>together and stop looking to blow holes in people who really don't give a
>shit about what you think
jesus effing christ, where do you people get your hostility from?! i was
asking you to tell me why you think what you think, not flaming you.
but i see you didn't tell me your reasons, you only replied to insult me.
and when it comes to your statement "who really don't give a shit
about what you think"... don't you think it tells quite a lot more about
you than me?
and moreover, if you think i'm the one looking to blow holes in people
(and not for example the confused monkey one who did nothing but
throw insults at me), then there is seriously something wrong.
but cheers for yet another nice and well-thought response!
-3MAN8-
attempt to make people think you were smart.
-if you've got something to say that goes beyond weak ng banter then by all
means go ahead - we're listening.
-until then, goodbye.
-3MAN8-
eman l. luf
>attempt to make people think you were smart.
i did? i'm sorry to disappoint you but i don't get kicks for acting
smart. i understand you say this about the kandinsky thing? to put
it all in perspective: i simply felt insulted with confused monkey's
reply and felt i needed to make my point about playfulness and
kandinsky and maybe make my comparison that way more
understandable.
of course, i could have left the insults alone and not even replied, but
that would have made my original comparison look pompous & ignorant
& all the other things mr. confused monkey suggested and that simply
isn't right. that is why i felt i needed to clear up the whole thing a bit. i
also don't see how that post could be read as pretentious smart-acting,
especially if you take into account the previous post by confused monkey.
if you read my reply through and objectively thought about the things i
wrote, then surely you can't be suggesting it as acting smart? or are you
perhaps prejudiced against all discussion about art?
but let's put some music on now. here goes 'flowerhead' by datacide.
Persi
>even if i admittedly am fond of music by mouse on mars, i'm not saying it
>is in the same class with debussy.
Mouse on Mars and Debussy exist on two totally and different planes of reality
(that is formed by our imaginations). To compare the two would be illogical, as
far as I'm concerned. Both are geniuses at their craft (seriously, have any of
you heard Glam or Instrumentals?).
>>i cannot for the life of me see this 'playfullness' anywhere in wassilly's
>>work.
What's wrong with playfullness? It's part of Richard D James' genius and
certainly Mozart, the manic-depressive madman. "all work and no play makes Jack
a dull boy"
>it surely is a shame if you can't ... and i did say _especially klee_ and
>i said that exactly because kandinsky is more known to be very serious
>as man and as artist. and i did say "that something might be the
>_sublime_ playfulness". also, klee's sense of humour doesn't make him
>a less serious artist than kandinsky & kandinsky's seriousness doesn't
>make his art totally devoid of anything playful. playful can mean playing
>with ideas, concepts or something else, not just acting goofy or playing
>around like a 4-year old.
What's all this got to do with Mouse on Mars?
>furthermore, it seems you have read kandinsky's essays. if he wanted
>to fuse science and art (and anthroposophism) and make his method as
>scientific as possible, does it imply there can't be any sublime playfulness
>in the art itself?
All this technical and who's-got-the-bigger-shaft hodgepodge is ridiculous.
Since no two people will ever have the exact same feelings or opinions on art,
there is really not a reason to rack your brains and play who's the better
pontificator here. It's quite belittling to the emotional value and soul of art
in the first place.
>>i cant think offhand of a more serious operation than viewing a kandinsky
>>painting!
Right now I can't seriously think of a more serious operation that watching the
director's cut of John Woo's "Bullet In The Head". One of the emotionally
crippling and bloody violent anti-war statements since the Killing Field (well,
story wise and emotional impact wise). I can also rave on joyously about the
wonders of reading Tom Robbins and Elmore Leonard and how much they mean to me,
but couldn't for the life of me pick out a kandinsky from a line-up. So it
wouldn't have the same emotional effect on me nor would I remotely begin to
perceive it as you two do. It doesn't make either of us better than the other,
nor does it make one artist better than the other. Art, like beauty, is in the
eye of the beholder.
>>i think MoM suck,big time.
Why, cause they don't have the same effect on you as a kandinsky? I think Mouse
on Mars is brilliant. In fact I think the whole current German electronic music
scene is brilliant. Notwist, Tarwater, MoM/Lithops, To Rococo Rot, etc. Kind of
hails back to the days when the Germans ruled the 70's. Amon Duul I/II, Guru
Guru, Kraftwerk, Can, Faust, Brainticket, etc, etc.
--
on my stereo: quant - quantastical quantasm (the single most accomplished and
gorgeous dance record of the new century).
film: Nightmare Before Christmas (DVD)
Persi
>i simply felt insulted with confused monkey's
>reply
What do you expect from a guy who calls himself confused monkey?*
The boy's obviously confused and he's a damn monkey!
*as confused and wacky as he is, he really is a nice chap
eman l. luf
>>it surely is a shame if you can't ... and i did say _especially klee_ and
>>i said that exactly because kandinsky is more known to be very serious
>>as man and as artist. and i did say "that something might be the
>>_sublime_ playfulness". also, klee's sense of humour doesn't make him
>>a less serious artist than kandinsky & kandinsky's seriousness doesn't
>>make his art totally devoid of anything playful. playful can mean playing
>>with ideas, concepts or something else, not just acting goofy or playing
>>around like a 4-year old.
>What's all this got to do with Mouse on Mars?
nothing. but it has to do with kandinsky and especially the
(un)limitations of playfulness. it's not pointless even if it is not
strictly on topic with this newsgroup.
>>furthermore, it seems you have read kandinsky's essays. if he wanted
>>to fuse science and art (and anthroposophism) and make his method as
>>scientific as possible, does it imply there can't be any sublime playfulness
>>in the art itself?
>All this technical and who's-got-the-bigger-shaft hodgepodge is ridiculous.
i understand why you are saying this, but i didn't mean it come out like
that. what that paragraph is about is "if kandinsky's method was aiming
to be scientific, it hardly makes the art itself automatically not at all
playful." also, anthroposophism could well be deemed as not scientific,
so that one is sort of an off-hand (and perhaps unnecessary and pointless)
dig at the reliabality of kandinsky's method in the first place.
>perceive it as you two do. It doesn't make either of us better than the other,
>nor does it make one artist better than the other. Art, like beauty, is in the
>eye of the beholder.
exactly! beauty will always remain in the eye of the beholder. one can
back opinions up with reason and even point out what is trash by placing
the inspected item in a wider context (i'm thinking of teen pop right now),
but in the end: it is the emotion that is all important in art.
i would think a piece of art has to be extremely ingenious (and understood
in the exactly right context) if it is apt to remain powerful through sheer
intellectual trickery, which in the end might turn out to be a particular
emotion; maybe something that the intellectual trickery lets free inside
the viewer/listener/whoever? it seems to me that too much of contemporary
art relies on intellectual tricks, but often turns out to be something
that can be appreciated once at best and after that it's just annoying.
as if many artists hid their emotions and talent behind irony and sarcasm
and therefore avoided being ridiculed for the work that carries their private
emotion. after all, practically all artists are ridiculed by someone. nowadays
it is almost difficult to be sure whether a piece of work is ironic or not.
i saw one painting in a museum last year, it was black with a lot of
scraped yellow emerging on the surface, the texture seemed somehow
rough (as opposed to smooth) -- i will not guarantee i remember this all
correctly -- maybe it was at first painted yellow and then painted over
with black and then the black layer was scraped off for the effect of
emerging yellow, i'm not sure and i don't remember it that well. but
i actually liked it, however, the title of it was 'orpheus'. that would imply
that either the idea is extremely far-fetched and pretentious, which i
couldn't really believe, or that the title was an ironic put down ("i'm not
really serious, it's just a joke"). i still don't know which of these two is
correct and i have to say i appreciated the painting much less because
of the title, which was obviously chosen to serve some purpose. maybe
i'm just paranoid?
but i agree with you: cherish all that is beautiful to you! that's what it's
all about.
>on Mars is brilliant. In fact I think the whole current German electronic music
>scene is brilliant. Notwist, Tarwater, MoM/Lithops, To Rococo Rot, etc. Kind of
yes! i picked up tarwater's silur and was amazed by how good it was.
i never ever expected as great an album as that! do you have any
specific recommendations for some other albums?
np. daddylonglegs: horse
this is howie b & jeremy shaw (of naked funk), it's not special or
extraordinary by any means but the sound is a bit samey as on
my favorite howie b album 'turn the dark off'. at first i thought this
disc was just dull, but now i have noticed there are a couple of
excellent chill-out tracks too.
Confused Monkey
and when people pop up and say something completely psuedo,i just love to
give a kick!
you claimed an association between kandinsky and playfullness,then give your
definition of 'playfullness' as being so abtrusley contrieved,as to cover
everything from sleep to athleticism!
so,yes,if thats the case,WK was 'playfull.
and Munch,and Geiger and Coil and Panacea........
yeah,twist it baby.
i hate to be blunt,but i am,and i think you were either talking complete
quasi-bollox,or your not comunicating very well.
either way,it was a waste of my time :¬)
im not trying to get one up either,i just like being a twat.
what rules???
at this moment,i'm completely enveloped by allina,by arvo part.esp track 4.
im not taking it to serious at all! can't you see the 'play' that i employ?
your the play spotter,how was it missed?
i can only surmise,you interpret-faculty is shagged.
i could well be wrong though....
c
"eman l. luf" <em...@wonderful.address> wrote in message
news:8fn4fr$p6q$1...@tron.sci.fi...
> >any comparison with the wholly average and lightweight techno-pop band
that
> >goes by the handle MoM,and the very reverend,and masterfull scientist of
> >abstract application,frater wassilly,is completely stupid.
> >there is no way to compare these 2 entities.
>
> thanks for letting me know the limits of comparison. also, i would like to
> thank you for letting me know what is stupid.
>
> honestly, i didn't say mouse on mars is as important to music as wassily
> kandinsky is to modern art. are you religious? about this matter i mean?
>
> even if i admittedly am fond of music by mouse on mars, i'm not saying it
> is in the same class with debussy.
>
> >please dont defile his name with such abbhorent 'sophisticated'
abserdities
> >as aforementioned. there is really no need.
>
> whatever.
>
> by 'sophisticated' you seem to be suggesting there is pretense in my
> comparison, yes? please, read on, i'm not here to score points, just
> exchanging opinions. i have no inkling to start an invisible competition
> of 'sophisticated' absurdities, and i don't even think there is anything
> absurd in my comparison. there really is no need to start pointing
> fingers at people like you seem to be doing.
>
> >i cannot for the life of me see this 'playfullness' anywhere in
wassilly's
> >work.
>
> it surely is a shame if you can't ... and i did say _especially klee_ and
> i said that exactly because kandinsky is more known to be very serious
> as man and as artist. and i did say "that something might be the
> _sublime_ playfulness". also, klee's sense of humour doesn't make him
> a less serious artist than kandinsky & kandinsky's seriousness doesn't
> make his art totally devoid of anything playful. playful can mean playing
> with ideas, concepts or something else, not just acting goofy or playing
> around like a 4-year old.
>
> furthermore, it seems you have read kandinsky's essays. if he wanted
> to fuse science and art (and anthroposophism) and make his method as
> scientific as possible, does it imply there can't be any sublime
playfulness
> in the art itself? any playfulness between colors? is playfulness between
> colors impossible because kandinsky was serious, because he was a
> scientist? can you contemplate on a kandinsky painting without being so
> overly entangled with his his method? do you think kandinsky's work is
> poetic in some way? is the notion of singing colors a completely serious
> one in the sense that the singing is not at all playful?
>
> i don't see how kandinsky is not at all playful. playfulness creates some
> needed tension in any art. it really doesn't have to be something that
makes
> you laugh, delicate playfulness is something that makes a poem (for
> example) sparkle.
>
> >i cant think offhand of a more serious operation than viewing a
kandinsky
> >painting! he was really involved in the science of art.
> >not playfull in the slightest. perhaps you can point me to an example?
>
> does the word 'playful' imply that anything that is playful is of no
worth?
> can't playfulness be serious? is it only the britney spears parody or the
> teenager prank that is playful to you? can't playfulness be sublime? is it
> only the seriousness that can be sublime?
>
> examples are many. you only need to look at the singing colors. however
> i am *not* suggesting kandinsky's work as _merely playful_. obviously
> there is more to it than that. but to deny everything to do with
playfulness
> and making kandinsky look like a holy figure of some religion is really
> not necessary.
>
> >i think MoM suck,big time.
>
Confused Monkey
your so levelling at times,sexy pers.
but im gonna come back to this subject in a few days time(as im away),as im
gonna make a point about something.
absolutism,actually.
but its quasi-relevant to ambient.
ill meditate on it for a wee while,then send it up.
if an artist is rated by an audience,and is only the equivalent of that sets
rating;why do they pay millions for a van goch,and not,say,a max ernst?
in music,why bryan adams,and not eno?
hmm
c
"Persi" <cow...@NOSPAN.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uk7U4.2923$uS2.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> >even if i admittedly am fond of music by mouse on mars, i'm not saying it
> >is in the same class with debussy.
>
> Mouse on Mars and Debussy exist on two totally and different planes of
reality
> (that is formed by our imaginations). To compare the two would be
illogical, as
> far as I'm concerned. Both are geniuses at their craft (seriously, have
any of
> you heard Glam or Instrumentals?).
>
> >>i cannot for the life of me see this 'playfullness' anywhere in
wassilly's
> >>work.
>
> What's wrong with playfullness? It's part of Richard D James' genius and
> certainly Mozart, the manic-depressive madman. "all work and no play makes
Jack
> a dull boy"
>
> >it surely is a shame if you can't ... and i did say _especially klee_ and
> >i said that exactly because kandinsky is more known to be very serious
> >as man and as artist. and i did say "that something might be the
> >_sublime_ playfulness". also, klee's sense of humour doesn't make him
> >a less serious artist than kandinsky & kandinsky's seriousness doesn't
> >make his art totally devoid of anything playful. playful can mean playing
> >with ideas, concepts or something else, not just acting goofy or playing
> >around like a 4-year old.
>
> What's all this got to do with Mouse on Mars?
>
> >furthermore, it seems you have read kandinsky's essays. if he wanted
> >to fuse science and art (and anthroposophism) and make his method as
> >scientific as possible, does it imply there can't be any sublime
playfulness
> >in the art itself?
>
> All this technical and who's-got-the-bigger-shaft hodgepodge is
ridiculous.
> Since no two people will ever have the exact same feelings or opinions on
art,
> there is really not a reason to rack your brains and play who's the better
> pontificator here. It's quite belittling to the emotional value and soul
of art
> in the first place.
>
> >>i cant think offhand of a more serious operation than viewing a
kandinsky
> >>painting!
>
> Right now I can't seriously think of a more serious operation that
watching the
> director's cut of John Woo's "Bullet In The Head". One of the emotionally
> crippling and bloody violent anti-war statements since the Killing Field
(well,
> story wise and emotional impact wise). I can also rave on joyously about
the
> wonders of reading Tom Robbins and Elmore Leonard and how much they mean
to me,
> but couldn't for the life of me pick out a kandinsky from a line-up. So it
> wouldn't have the same emotional effect on me nor would I remotely begin
to
> perceive it as you two do. It doesn't make either of us better than the
other,
> nor does it make one artist better than the other. Art, like beauty, is in
the
> eye of the beholder.
>
> >>i think MoM suck,big time.
>
> Why, cause they don't have the same effect on you as a kandinsky? I think
Mouse
> on Mars is brilliant. In fact I think the whole current German electronic
music
> scene is brilliant. Notwist, Tarwater, MoM/Lithops, To Rococo Rot, etc.
Kind of
> hails back to the days when the Germans ruled the 70's. Amon Duul I/II,
Guru
> Guru, Kraftwerk, Can, Faust, Brainticket, etc, etc.
>
> --
Confused Monkey
but dont take offence.
:¬)
c
(ooo, just playing!)
"eman l. luf" <em...@wonderful.address> wrote in message
news:8fpmg8$rd3$1...@tron.sci.fi...
Confused Monkey
all
> means go ahead - we're listening.
>
and whats wrong with pointless small talk????
some facinating things have happened somewhere as the result of drivell!
possibly.
c
Confused Monkey
dont believe a word of this devil childs nonsense!
im horrid to the bone.
i even nip my gran for kicks.
and hoover flies whenever i get he chance!.
yeah,satananarchydeathbloodmenacenastyripperslaughterkindathang.
were all confused monkeys!
c
(actually,i am really nice.)
eman l. luf
>you claimed an association between kandinsky and playfullness,then give your
>definition of 'playfullness' as being so abtrusley contrieved,as to cover
>everything from sleep to athleticism!
>so,yes,if thats the case,WK was 'playfull.
>and Munch,and Geiger and Coil and Panacea........
>yeah,twist it baby.
this is getting a bit tiring if you simply just refuse to see my point
about playfulness & kandinsky, you know. i'm not trying to make
you exchange your view with mine, just to invite you to have a
glance at my view and maybe ponder about it a bit, it shouldn't
make your world collapse, really.
but i'd like to ask you: why do you think kandinsky is not at
all playful? this is a very important question for this whole matter.
and if you think my definition is not worthy, then by all means,
go by your own but do share your thought process on the way.
isn't anything in kandinsky's art lighthearted for example?
how about kandinsky's own idea of "singing colors"? when
you look at his colors, do you think "yes, these colors are
singing the very serious tune of suffocation" or do you think
singing to be more playful in his case? to even mention
singing colours draws an image of something playful, surely
that connotation isn't exclusive of kandinsky? and even without
that remark (as it could well be an offhand one) it seems
apparent to me that his colours are not merely brooding in
stark seriousness, but that they are delicately playful after
all.
it would be quite hard to put limits on what i think is playful,
or to be more exact: describing the limits is what is so
difficult. it is no wonder there have been numerous thick
publications on rather simple aesthetical ideas. but most
paintings of edvard munch, who you ironically mentioned, are
hardly playful. the women in the paintings may sometimes
be mischievous and playing with munch's emotions, but the
whole of munch's choice of colours and the vigor of his style
in general and even the themes he is preoccupied with makes
the correspondence with different colors, different surfaces
and different ideas more of an angry confrontation than
anything playful. mind you, he did compose evil stories &
drawings of the people he felt were against him, but my
definition of playfulness contains lightness as one of the
ingredients, and anything that clearly attacks somebody
is heavy, not playful at all, just plain malice.
what do you think is the connection between munch, kandinsky
and giger as you so eagerly wanted to draw these three
together? giger i'm not very familiar with at all, but his
art oozes horror. the link between giger and munch could be in
their pessimism, but kandinsky even believed in anthroposophy,
so he hardly was a pessimist to the bone. even if you count out
everything that is external to the artwork itself (that means the
artists themselves as human beings) and place a pair of paintings
from each of these three on the same wall, don't you think it is
obvious kandinsky has little in common with the other two in
mood? so what is the connection?
if we could leave out the cheapshots and smart-ass comments,
this might become an interesting exchange of opinions & ideas
after all.
(arvo pärt is great.)
Greg Gasiorowski
eman l. luf wrote in message <8fre0r$heu$1...@tron.sci.fi>...
>yes! i picked up tarwater's silur and was amazed by how good it was.
>i never ever expected as great an album as that! do you have any
>specific recommendations for some other albums?
11/6 12/10 by Tarwater is pretty darn great.
Confused Monkey
> (arvo pärt is great.)
indeed.
so is kandinsky.
neither is playfull though.
c
eman l. luf
>> (arvo pärt is great.)
heheh.
what i have heard of arvo p though, i have to agree with you.
but when it comes to kandinsky & playfulness... *rubbing
hands together* yes, we'll certainly have to disagree on
that one.