I saw you at the subway the other day
You were drinking hot chocolate
I thought about asking you for a sip
But on second thought I didn't want to burn my tongue
DON'T GO TO SUBWAY GO TO SWEDEN, SWEDISH HOT CHOCOLATE DOESN'T BURN YOUR TONGUE.
You should be in Sweden my friend
Yeah, you should be in Sweden
Get yourself to Sweden
DUDE HAS A POINT, THINK OF THE TUNN BREAD.
And we'll do lunch, I'm sure
DUHH THAT'S WHAT SWEDEN IS ALL ABOUT, LAND OF THE LUNCHES.
What are you doing here?
You should be in Sweden
You can ski when you're there there
That you should be in Sweden my friend
Yeah, get yourself Sweden
I don't care how you do it
Just go to Sweden, go to Sweden
I'll tell you what we can do
This is without a doubt my favorite song ever and according to iTunes, I’ve listened to it 362 times to date. This song has the amazing ability to lock away memories for me and upon listening to it, make me remember them all over again. I could waffle on about how much I love this song for days, but for fear of boring you to death, I’ll end it here.
day 01 - your favorite song day 02 - your least favorite song day 03 - a song that makes you happy day 04 - a song that makes you sad day 05 - a song that reminds you of someone day 06 - a song that reminds you of somewhere day 07 - a song that reminds you of a certain event day 08 - a song…
Your dad is an expert on Finnegan’s Wake right? … Would you be able to ask what the line “When a part so ptee does duty for the holos we soon grow to use of an allforabit” means? It’s to do with the The King of Limbs Part 2
So obviously I was…
The guy that posted that quote was a boarder on AtEase that people suspect is Thom Yorke (or another member of the band) as he posted artwork from the album that had never been seen before and has been posting cryptic messages since then too
The aspect one cannot argue is nutrition: Incredibly, the McDonald’s product contains more sugar than a Snickers bar and only 10 fewer calories than a McDonald’s cheeseburger or Egg McMuffin. (Even without the brown sugar it has more calories than a McDonald’s hamburger.)
The bottom-line question is, “Why?” Why would McDonald’s, which appears every now and then to try to persuade us that it is adding “healthier” foods to its menu, take a venerable ingredient like oatmeal and turn it into expensive junk food? Why create a hideous concoction of 21 ingredients, many of them chemical and/or unnecessary? Why not try, for once, to keep it honest?
As many of you already know, today, Radiohead released their 8th LP The King Of Limbs. The album is really good and, in true Radiohead fashion, they’ve reinvented their sound again. The first think that struck me upon listening to it was the apparent absence of Jonny. The album feels very much like a Thom Yorke solo album but with a lot of contribution from Colin and Phil. Ed’s role is perhaps more subtle than before, playing only some of his spooky, ambient, effects in the background, while, Colin and Phil’s roles have changed a lot; Colin’s bass lines are groovier and more prominent than in earlier albums. Phil seems to have to have opted to use drum machines and other forms of percussion instead of his drum kit. Jonny, on the other hand, seems have disappeared almost entirely; the only evidence of his presence in this record (and I’m guessing here) is the string sections appearing on few tracks, but other than that I can’t seem to figure out where Jonny fits in on this album.
Moving on to talk about the actual music, The King of Limbs is probably Radiohead’s most experimental album since Kid A. Tracks like Bloom, a spiraling commotion of disjointed rhythms, and Feral, the album’s most frantic track with an African percussive sound to it, give the first half of the album an electronica feel. Morning Mr Magpie, is probably my least favorite track on the album, the song doesn’t develop too much away from the main riff and possess a sort of claustrophobic aspect to it which I’m sure may appeal to other Radiohead diehards, it just isn’t for me. However, the follow-up track is great, it’s an odd but wonderful combination of free-form jazz and country music.
In the second half, the album takes a subtle turn steering away from the electronic sound of the first half and sounding much more accessible. The first single of the album, Lotus Flower opens this half and in some ways sums up the sound of the album. It is a far funkier sound than previous tracks Radiohead and this track really exemplifies this with its groovy bass line and the swing in it’s rhythm. The chorus is also absolutely sublime, the synth just creates the most perfect hook as it is subtly added while Thom switches to falsetto. In Codex, which seems to be a favorite for many people, the song begins by teasing the listener with a few seconds the same earlier experimental sound before suddenly removing its guise and revealing a ghostly, beautiful piano melody. You can really hear Jonny’s influence in this song, particularly towards the end when a string section begin playing, sounding similar to what I’ve heard of the soundtrack to There Will Be Blood. This is followed by Give Up The Ghost, the oldest song of this album. It’s changed quite a bit since we first heard it played, most notably, the loop of “Don’t mind me, Don’t hurt me” is much harsher and with the added bass line, this song has a much more campfire feel to it than before.
Interestingly, the album finishes with a track titled “Seperator”. In the last verse of this song, Thom sings “If you think this over then wrong” 3 or 4 times. What this suggests to me is that perhaps we haven’t heard all the album yet. It’s possible that this could be another Kid A/Amnesiac style release and we’ve only heard the first batch of song. We already know that several tracks didn’t it on to the album such as The Present Tense, The Daily Mail and Burn The Witch, so I think we’re already able to speculate over some of the tracks featuring on LP 9. In fact, the only gripe I have with this album is its length, an extra 2 or 3 tracks really would have done it for me. I feel like Radiohead have really tightened up their groove on this album, with House of Cards being the link between it and In Rainbows, so if your not a fan of that song, this album isn’t for you, but I think everyone should give it a listen. I am really enjoying it.
I was translating some Animal Collective Lyrics in to Spanish as I was walking home as “study”. Fuck yeah Mis Chicas! ♫ “No quiero parecer como me importa los cosas materiales como mis estadísticas sociales” ♫
So, I’ve just arrived home from having dinner out with my family and the evening has left me rather angry and annoyed to say the least, requiring to unleash all of my grumpyness on you. Myself, my sister and my mum erupted in to a ‘heated discussion’, towards the end of the meal, over one of your typical dinner table topics: The existence of Love, Morality and Emotion, which needless to say is the kind of argument that never ends happily for anyone. Now, I should probably warn you, what I am about to express is not my “opinion”, nor my “beliefs” or “thoughts on the subject”, it is what I have decided is right, based on looking at things entirely factually. Not because I’m the opinionated or close-minded, stubborn, mule that you’ve probably already decided I am. This is because at various, different, moments in my life, people have challenged my opinions and forced me to really consider what I’ve chosen to believe in, without letting any preconceived ideas interfere. The biggest problem I have when I get involved in these kind of arguments is that I am always called closed-minded and usually hear the phrase “it’s ok to be wrong sometimes” thrown in a few times too. What makes this infuriating is that I see myself as quite open-minded and it was no easier for me to accept any of this than it was for anyone else, which is what people don’t seem to understand. I find this feeling of being totally misunderstood very wearing, even if that does sound ridiculously pretentious.
Anyway, what we first began arguing over was Time. My mum began telling about a guy who supposedly predict “The economic fall of Europe and the rise of Islam in the world”, which, naturally, I thought was all a something the guy had made up and began imagining all the things he’s probably predicted over the years, but I said nothing. She then went on to explain how she believes that the Past, Present and Future are all happening at the same time but sometimes “overlap” which someone catches a glimpse of and thus can use to predict the future. This is when we started arguing. My question about this is: Why would parts of time just overlap? Time doesn’t behave in this erratic and unstable manner in which people imagine in it. Yes, we have no idea how to perceive it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s all over the place. If were to somehow look at everything in the universe, the thing that would probably strike you the most is just how damn perfect everything is. Everything in the universe is the way it is for a reason and there are surprisingly few things left that we don’t understand. And of course, the reason for this is because there are universal laws that are followed by absolutely everything and regardless of whether you believe whatever crazy hypothesis you came up with in your head to explain time, if it doesn’t obey these laws then it’s wrong, even if we can’t prove it be. The argument “you can’t prove it’s not true, so therefore, it is true” does not apply within the constraints of our world because things don’t happen by magic here, no matter how much people like to think they do. To say that perhaps time is all happening at the same time is a perfectly acceptable, however to claim that is overlapping itself is not as that’s just not the way things work. Time is not a physical thing that can just get stuck ever now and then and materialize in front of us (nor in front of just one person!). This a rationality that I and others who work with computers in particular, see all time as it is the exact same rationality people apply when using a computer.
At this stage, I’ve calmed down a lot, which is probably a good thing as now I’m going to talk about how everything we do is selfish. The thing that makes this argument very difficult is the fact that people always use themselves as examples of people who do not act selfishly, which means you basically have to insult them directly. This is probably one of the most complicated and largest discussions you can have as it effects everything we do. However, I’m going to focus on probably the most common argument which is empathy. The idea is that acts based on empathy such as donating to charity or even just feeling upset from watching someone else suffer can’t be selfish. But the truth is they are. If stealing gave you a good feeling inside because you believed it was morally right (hypothetically), then you would do it as often as you could, obviously. Now, apply that logic to charity. We don’t do it for because we’re feeling empathy, we do it because it gives us a warm feeling inside, that we like. If it benefited us in no way, we simply wouldn’t do it. However, in the case of feeling upset from witnessing someone else suffering, things are a little different but actually less complicated I think. The reason we feel upset is because society tells us to. All that happens when we seem someone suffering is our brains process the images in front of us and create a learnt emotional response to it. Again, if suffering was seen as a good thing, then, logically, we would feel happy when we see someone suffering and since we were born, we have been told that other people suffering is a bad thing, we must always try and help others and be kind to other etc. So when we see this happening we feel whatever we have learnt to feel in that situation. Moreover, when we witness people suffering in films, we don’t empathize with them because are mind is telling is that is not actually real so there is no need to empathize, while if it happens to be realistic and well-acted, we feel some empathy because the scene is starting to look more like what we’ve been told to empathize with.
This brings me on to what we argued about next: Nature vs. Nurture. My mum’s argument against the above paragraph is that empathy is something we are born with like all of our personality. This is true in some regards and false in others, but not in the case of empathy as being empathic isn’t really part of your personality in the same way that being sporty isn’t. You aren’t born liking sport as you don’t know what sport is then. The reason you like it is because you’re taught it’s a good a thing. Psychology then takes over to explain how the child decides whether they enjoy it, based on talent, pressure and various other things which is very different. So how can someone be born empathetic if they don’t know what morality is? Morality, after all, is a human creation and as I described above, influences whether or not we feel empathy. This is something me and my mum were actually able to agree on; no supreme or divine being has ever defined what is right and what is wrong and therefore it is possible to raise a child teaching them that right is wrong and wrong is right.
The argument blew up in to flames shortly after talking about that so I think it’s appropriate to end this post here too. But please let me know in the comments if you disagree or agree with anything I’ve said, I’ve unfortunately left out a lot of points that were made in the hope that this post would actually be a reasonable length and I’m sure this horribly opinionated and over the top but I’m far too tired to read over it. Anyway, let me know, what are your opinions?