Welcome to my blog.
I feel like I was goaded into starting this but that’s not true.
I want this blog, I want all the benefits of having this blog, and my trepidation about possibly lapsing on blogging or blogging something stupid or revealing that I’m not very smart because of the way I blog is an internal resistance that, up to now, I’ve seen as noble.
"No one would want to hear what I have to say."
"People who blog sure think highly of their opinions."
It’s boring and redundant and cowardly to say, “the world doesn’t need another blog.”
Fascists say that. Idiots with big rusty knives say that. A true gentleman starts a blog. A gentleman writes what he thinks about indie music and indie movies and indie literature. A gentleman sometimes writes what he thinks about mainstream music and movies and literature too because he’s not a fascist idiot with a big rusty knife and he happens upon mainstream art just like everyone else. But in a gentlemanly, genius way.
in a cool ass way.
the gentleman with the blog.
I don’t mean to get tautological it’s just it is what’s it’s is.
So I’m going to review some stuff and publish it here whenever I feel like there is sufficient stuff to publish.
My first review is of a book I finished January 2, 2023. Here’s that review.
On killing: the psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
I bought this book at Lot 49 (a south philadelphia bookstore (great place check it out)) back in maybe April. I’d probably started writing about guns at that point and was interested in various insights into violence / aggression / killing. My choice in buying this book felt specifically research based. The subtitle of the book made me believe there might be some information about ptsd or cia training. Maybe something hidden and underground. I wanted to read something dark and conspiratorial.
There wasn’t any of that.
Mainly this book sucked and I should have given up on it sooner but I’d find some quote I liked so I’d stick with it for another chapter.
I wanted to hear grossman out. I wanted to believe grossman wasn’t trying to get one over on me.
on killing is about ways the United States military has overcome the human disdain for murder. Most soldiers don’t want to kill but their army would be a shitty one if they didn’t at least try to kill a little bit. Grossman talks about the ways, since the United States civil war, military training changed to increase soldier actions.
Apparently only 25 percent of soldiers in world war 2 fired at the enemy. Others fired into the sky or pretended to fire or just aided the 25 percent who did fire. By the vietnam war 95 percent of soldiers were firing due to operant conditioning and Pavlovian shit during boot camp. after reviewing the studies that said 75 percent of soldiers weren't killing, They made firing more of a knee jerk response to stimuli in battle rather than an ideological imperative of war. Soldiers shot before they thought to shoot.
I don’t know if it's true about the 25 vs 95. It’s interesting but I looked up the guy who first reported that statistic (SLA Marshall) and people say he fudged those numbers. And that his numbers are only based on interviews / self reporting. Though i don’t know why a soldier would lie and say they didn’t fire but did feel a huge shame for not firing. The people who own the original notes marshall used to write the study (a military institute) reported that he was mostly accurate between his notes and his book but sometimes changed numbers up to 50%.
So no big deal.
Finding that out makes me hate grossman so much more. He has no backbone. He is a liar and a feeble minded rhetorician.
I was hoping to pick this book up and, whether I agreed with what was being said or not, find confident prose about the nature of killing. The necessity of a soldier’s duty. Something psychotic and intimidating. I read ted kaczynski’s industrial society and it’s future for the same reason. Confident deranged sentences. Psychotic but linguistically muscular. Turns out ted’s a better writer than dave grossman.
There were a few sentences I did like in the book. I’ll put them below. But mostly I didn’t care enough about them to get past my negative feelings.
The main negative, I’ll explain more below the quotes but I just want to get it out here first, was the thesis of the book. Grossman said the reason violence had increased by such a huge margin in the 80s and 90s was because of tv shows and movies and video games.
A loser nerd take.
Here are some quotes:
“From a distance, I can deny your humanity; and from a distance, I cannot hear your screams.”
I like this sentence. It's psychotic and somewhat confident. I don’t understand the use of commas or semicolon. I don’t think grossman knows what he’s doing. I think the semicolon and comma are to make this aggressive and boiled-down-to-instinct-level thought seem more structured and safe. He’s hiding behind what he thinks is correct grammar.
Cowardly and morally bankrupt. Be insane or don’t write about killing people dude. West Point professor ass jerk off.
“To reach out and penetrate the enemy’s flesh and thrust a portion of ourselves into his vitals is deeply akin to the sexual act, yet deadly, and is therefore strongly repulsive to us.”
Good connection of images. Uniquely psychotic. Remarkably insane. But “Akin… yet… therefore” all dumb bullshit to sound smart.
Flipping through the book I’m finding a lot of quotes I underlined. I don't need to list more. I'm not trying to convince anyone to read this book. It's not worth it.
Grossman is thorough, though. That's one thing he's good at. He doesn't just talk about soldiers who kill. he talks about terrorists and sociopaths. He talks about artillery men and fighter pilots and snipers. He read probably 10 books about each type of killer in each of the last 5 U.S. wars.
It’s sad because I think he’s a good researcher. He just has no business writing.
He also talked a lot about israel. which made me laugh and also second guess how i was engaging with the book. i didn't really know how to handle my reaction to the information about soldiers and training and war in israeli.
I felt very obvious pangs of disgust about United States wars and soldiers almost like a practiced knee jerk response. I don’t think grossman did that on purpose. He served in the United States marine Corps so it makes sense why he would write about it. the ease with which i read those parts of the book were because i was used to a certain kind of rhetoric about the military.
"some wars need to be fought."
"soldiers are brave and must do the hardest thing of any human."
it was a standard type of discussion of US wars. But it was funny to read so much about the IDF without any extra context about how to read the information. Like grossman quotes from IDF combat handbooks and this one israeli psychologist (i don't remember his name, the book is under stairs, whatever) in this matter of fact tone that took me by surprise.
i think it surprised me because no one i know who says things like, "some wars need to be fought" believe that for other countries besides the US. those slogans only apply to the people on your side.
and grossman mostly sticks to that. he doesn't really mention any other military, besides the opposing sides of US fought wars, to support his claims. "we know the German's experienced [x] because Americans reported [y]." that type of shit.
I’m not even critiquing him on being pro Israel or a Zionist (idk the difference really. I guess one has more of an agenda). I went into the book knowing I wasn’t going to agree with the author. That isn’t the kind of thing I want to point out as a negative for the book. i would be dumb to read this book and say, "it's not good because the ex military psychologist who created a field of study called 'killology' doesn't have my exact same beliefs re: palestine."
Maybe I’m just shocked at my ability to tune out United States patriotism but not other types of patriotism. Or, maybe I can articulate it better, the mention of Israeli combat research as being tantamount to United States combat research made his thesis (again, I’ll get to that below), which was about a specifically American problem, seem even more shoddy. Why go outside the US to build support for a thesis that he makes a point to say is uniquely American? Is it just a way to show he supports Israel? Idk.
getting back to the thesis. Grossman says video games and movies are making people more violent. Kids grow up without dads and then watch Friday the 13th and want to emulate Jason. They go to an arcade and are trained on shoot ‘em ups the same way the cia trains police to be better heroes. But children who go to arcades are no heroes. They don’t have any authorities telling them when to shoot and when to run from Charlie. They’re fatherless and they’re all in gangs and they bought a gun from the local drug dealer at the wetzels pretzel.
He doesn’t say that verbatim but pretty close. He describes violent movies and violent video games and never analyzes one example. He spends 300+ pages going over the psychological makeup of every kind of person who does or does not take a life in a situation when taking a life is a viable and legal option option but can’t say, “menace 2 society and doom are making kids kill each other.”
Also the gang thing is probably racist. He says gang members want their dad to be the gang leader or “the hero” of horror movies. The horror movies he names are slashers from the 70s. It just seems unrelated to any reality. I don’t think it’s as racist as it could be because he doesn’t mention rap music or some shit. like He doesn’t talk about music videos or name drop specific celebrities of color who have have been accused of inspiring violence in the past. again, not defending him or his argument, just trying to best articulate what didn't work.
It felt like grossman want to be finished with the book as much as I did. I would be less mad at him if he was parroting right wing urban flight type rhetoric. At least I’d understand where he was coming from. at least i could see the structure of his argument. at least it would be built off of something. part of me thinks he didn't mention those things because he didn't want to seem racist or reactionary. even though he's making a similar argument.
to be fair he is saying, "the kids aren't dangerous, the media is."
he doesn't believe there is something inherently violent with about the younger generations. except that they are programs by violent media to murder without regard like manchurian candidates anytime they hear the street fighter "perfect."
It’s lazy shit. It’s bad writing too but also bad logic and clearly he doesn’t value his reader because otherwise he wouldn’t pedal that bullshit. He would respect a reader who’d hung out with him through that slog of a fucking book to go a little deeper with the wrap up.
Also, crazy enough, his call to action is for harsher gun laws. He wants to get rid of guns. He says people shouldn’t have access to them in the same way you’d take a soldier out of the field when they’ve seen too much shit. You separate them from the trauma so no one gets hurt.
i don't know if i agree with that either. it's not really important if i do or not. i think him writing about people who aren't soldiers, who aren't in war, who aren't training to kill actual people, is besides the point of the information in the book at large. and i think gun access to civilians is also besides the point of the information in the book at large. i've probably leaned on the word too much anyway but COWARDLY. trying to appeal too much to people when you don't need to have a solution for something unrelated to your topic.
it's okay to say, "i don't know."
Once upon a time in Hollywood (2019)
I don’t plan to review every movie I see and I don’t even really plan to review these with equal weight or attention. I just think these could be a way to round out this first entry. They're some of the movies I watched over the last few days. I also watched white noise and the menu, both 2022 films a lot of people have been talking about but i don't have big thoughts about those yet. i have small thoughts, i guess, i could put here:
white noise was definitely an adaptation of a pomo type novel. i've never read that novel but the stilted dialogue and the paranoia and the plot structure all felt like a book. the book is probably better. i have only read one don delilo book and it wasn't one of his good ones. i like adam driver and greta gerwig as actors. both of them were believable in the very strange roles they were playing.
the menu. i think there is a style of movie that is becoming popular or will begin to become more popular in the next few years. Prestige pulp. good casts, strange/ creepy/ artsy-leaning choices (i'm thinking specifically in horror but maybe it's genre specific im sure). seemingly in the line of Films With Substance like shit on A24 or the like. Weird scary or weird thrilling or weird drama etc. there is a certain language of those movies that makes people immediately think, "this must be a GOOD movie." but i think the hypothetical movie might not be good in that way. the prestige pulp could be good or bad depending on how aware the creators of it are that it's prestige pulp.
the menu is a satire of rich foodie type people and haute cuisine type restaurants and tortured artists and maybe even femme fatales in general. at first i felt adverse to the rich foodie assholes in the hawthorn (the restaurant in the menu). then i felt adverse to the tortured psychotic executive chef. as the movie went on it felt really unimportant what the people did to deserve the chef's ire. he was just being a whiny asshole who didn't get what he wanted.
i wanted to understand what was being said. was the thesis of this movie, "eat the rich?" was it good that julian slowik killed a room full of rich people just because they were picky, dishonest, adulterers first, and had access to his talents through their wealth second? did i miss key points in the plot because i was writing earlier sections in this blog post?
it doesn't really matter because i don't think there is a bigger point to the movie. it's caricatures without substance leaning toward metaphor without putting their foot too strongly in one camp. it's pulp. it's easy to watch. it feels smart. but it isn't art in it's message. it's art in the images. the aesthetics.
anya taylor-joy's bite of a burger. is that not the return to status quo? isn't the cheeseburger saying, "wanting anything else but this is laughable?"
is that fascism?
am i calling the movie fascism because earlier i didn't say grossman "deserves the guilotine" because he likes israel and might be a little racist? i don't know?
hahaha are restaurants fascist or communist? wasn't that a conversation on twitter like 5 months ago? i guess that's the answer. if restaurants are fascist then the menu is good. if restaurants are communist then the menu is bad.
honestly it was fine though. it feels better to think of the movie as not doing too much except high concept horror. it's still horror. the kills and the final girl are all that matter.
I thought I’d watched once upon a time in Hollywood around the time it was available to watch on tv. I was pretty sure I’d seen it. I’d heard about it. Knew the plot more or less. Knew scenes from it. But I think people had just talked about it a lot and I listened to maybe 3-4 podcasts who really enjoyed it because all 3-4 were based in Los Angeles and they all talked a lot about how cool it was to see their town in the movie. The restaurants people ate at. The movie theatres people went to. The streets and neighborhoods and all that shit.
Turns out I hadn’t seen the movie. I found out when kaitlin told me she hadn’t seen the movie and I thought, “when did I watch that without her?”
Then I started to imagine the scenarios I’d have had to been in to watch a near 3 hour movie by myself without her around and / or without her knowing and getting mad that I watched it without her. It is a movie she would like to watch. She likes Quentin Tarantino.
It made no sense. I wouldn’t have watched it by myself. So I figured I also had not seen it. And I was right. I hadn’t seen it. At all.
Small world huh. Strange the people you see twice in one lifetime.
Whatever though. It’s a good movie.
Having recently rewatched all 6 seasons of girls it was cool seeing Lena Dunham as one of the Manson girls. And, having recently seen Sydney sweeney’s naked and voluptuous breasts in season 2 of euphoria it was really cool seeing Sydney Sweeney as one of the manson girls. I guess I’d also seen Lena Dunham naked a good bit but that’s not what I thought about when I saw her. I thought, “yea hannah horvath would be the manipulative mama hen that piece of shit.”
Seeing Syndey sweeney topless in the 3rd episode of season 2 of euphoria was a really intimate and intense moment. i don't want to seem like a scum bag by that being the first and maybe only thing i talk about in relation to a near three hour movie, but it was my first and maybe only emotional tie to the movie. i have seen her in other tv shows and movies since the scene in euphoria. i've seen photos of her on the internet. all of them are more reserved, more demure, more professional (the photos at least, i don't mean to say her acting topless is unprofessional (i guess what i mean to say is she isn't topless in the other media i've seen)) and each time i feel like there is some special bond between us. Like when her eye catches the camera she’s really looking at me and only me and we have a moment of acknowledgment that feels similar to what it's like hooking up with a friend once or twice and then seeing them years later in a completely different stage in life. both aware of the moment. both trying not to think of it. both still a little unsure whether it was a good or bad decision.
there’s something about the fickleness of the moment that makes it more powerful.
and this isn't because she is partially nude in the scene. it's because it's a scene where she's excited, then flustered, then scared, then panicked. it's a scene where her emotions flood the entire room. she's a really good actor and has really great tits. i'm not going to say the emotions in that scene make me forget she's topless. i'm know myself enough to know that isn't true. i know i'm still being kind of a creep when i see syndey sweeney in a tv show or movie other than euphoria and feel excited to watch her on screen. I know i'm thinking, "hell yea dude she's great at acting... and like that one scene in the bathroom right dude?"
i don't think that with every actor who does nude scenes though. obviously.
Like, for example. Chloe cherry. she's also an actor in season 2 of euphoria and she's been in adult films. like Pornography stuff. Like intense junk. Anal and group stuff. sibling role play. But Whenever I watch Chloe cherry get fucked by 4 men who claim to be her brothers (i know they aren't, like i said, i understand acting) and she looks in the camera and says, “family reunion in my ass” I don’t feel the same connection. I don’t think about faye helping fezco evade wiring tap entrapment. i don't know why.
duh. That’s unfair. i'm being a jerk. it’s obvious why those two examples are very different and it's obviously the nature of the type of art they're creating. Sydney isn't more wholesome than Chloe. actors have different goals based on the type of film they're in. the narrative purpose of eroticism / sex is different between a 23 minute video from Brazzers and a hour long episode in an HBO series. adult films are meant to make moments feel erotic in their openness. As if all options are possible for everyone watching. The viewer is voyeur and director and brain creating the combination of phrases that brought to life the scene in front of them. A part of the scene by watching it. Creating the moment by desiring it. Etc.
Maybe all art is like that. I don't know.
I do believe all horniness is evil. So what I said about Sydney and Chloe is fucked up. and i apologize and please forgive me.
I enjoyed recognizing the Manson girls/ family in once upon a time in hollywood from other movies/ tv shows. That seemed to tie in with Al pacino’s speech at the beginning of the movie. How the audience will see an actor over time based on the roles they take. I saw these women as a part of manson’s family and, based on their past roles, thought, “oh no not her she’s so innocent” or “yea hannah horvath would be the manipulative mama hen that piece of shit.”
And, my final thought about the near 3 hour long quentin tarantino magnum opus:
I enjoyed seeing those fuckwad hippies get mutilated by Brandy the dog and rick’s flamethrower.
good ending.
Stranger than paradise (1984)
I don’t really like jim jarmusch. I couldn’t make it through dead man and thought only maybe ⅓ of night on earth was worth watching. Paterson is good but that could be a bias because it’s about some working class poet in New Jersey.
John lurie rules tho. richard edson too. I love dudes with drastic intense kinda monsterous faces. Like people talk about willem dafoe having a crazy face but he doesn’t look like the same kind of monster. John lurie and Richard edson in the 80s were like maybe going to rob and kill you type faces / heads.
Their heads reminds me of a friend who I haven’t talked to in a few years because the last time I talked to him he told me he’d “figured it out” and that I “wasn’t seeing the big picture” and that I “had never been a real person, just an empty shell.”
That last one hurt a lot because I thought we were near if not best friends for a while. But also the last thing I heard about that friend before he said all that stuff to me was he was living in his car getting high on meth all day and jacking off. In his car. possibly near a school but i don't think that was intentional. just a victim of circumstance and mindset (living in a car and being high on meth). So maybe his perception of things was off and I don’t need to change at all.
And that’s not to say my friends’ head shape had anything to do with his problems or the proclivities that led him to those problems. I just thought of him while watching the movie and felt sad I couldn’t reach out and ask how he was doing. Though If I could have, rest assured, I wouldn’t have mentioned how an actor’s large craggy head reminded me of him. I probably wouldn’t have mentioned the movie at all. That would be rude.
Lovely bones (2009)
Kaitlin saw a tik tok of the scene where Stanley tucci first shows lovely bones (i don’t remember the character’s name and I don’t want to look up how to spell the actor’s name) into his kill hole.
She said we should watch the movie since I hadn’t seen it.
It wasn’t good. It felt like probably a movie that couldn’t really do the book justice. I’m sure the book is whatever. But just a voice / narrator / conceit that only works on the page. A better director would have said, “how can I do something similar with visual media?”
I haven’t read the book and don’t know much about film language. But voice in a book is maybe the same as directorial style? Design? Cinematography?
Books made into movies often are ass because they have a voice over tell the audience what is happening. You have to find a way to let the dead girl narrate without just having her narrate.
Lovely bones should have been a small community theatre production by lovely bones premiering in norristown, pa that reveals to mark wahlburg and Susan Sarandon and Rachel weisz how Stanley tucci killed lovely bones.
Something like that.
Gold cobra by limp bizkit
I wanted to end this first blog post with a review of an album for a few reasons. I think it would add some artistic balance. Already talked about movies and books. Where’s the music? Here it is. And also because early driving forces in starting a blog (that became this blog) were gg Roland and nathanial duggan responding to tweets where I gave my opinions / tastes in music asking / joking / poking fun about starting a blog to provide more detail about my opinions / tastes.
I felt at first particularly goofy about those interactions but have settled on, while writing this, feeling supported in a community and warmed by their playful banter that would only come from a place of kindness and general interest. Though I did at first believe they were mocking me for posting album covers of bands I’d listened to in the last week. I assumed they thought this was uncool or, because I hadn’t included any more information than the album covers, try hard and needlessly mysterious for the sake of mystery. I then thought gg and Nate (I haven’t talked to nathaniel too much but I don’t really want to type out his full name right now. I don’t know if he ever goes by nate but I assume he definitely doesn’t go by Nathan (I had a friend in middle school who I called wallace but his real name was nathan. eventually I stopped calling him wallace and never called him nathan, settling on nate. My stepdad called him nathaniel tho for probably the same reason I called him wallace: it was funny because it was wrong)) might have some kind of group chat where they relate about, among other things, having poor eyesight and do not like the weekly / monthly album cover style of sharing music tastes/ habits. In that same group chat I assumed they also talked about how they would sabotage my life by forcing me to start a blog and have me reveal some up-to-that-point hidden truth about myself (that i am unsure what a fascist is?) that would turn the world (~10-25 people who respond to my tweets on occasion) against me.
My gut assumption to gg and nate telling me to start a blog was that they wanted to kill me or facilitate a faster death for me in some way. That’s my gut response to most things. I realize that’s rarely the case in life that someone says, “hey man id love to hear more of your thoughts on that” to mean, “I’m your enemy you giant jerk.”
Most people don’t want that. Most people are saying what they mean. More or less. Especially people I’ve never had negative interactions with before and who seem to have similar tastes and interests to me otherwise.
Nothing is for certain though. Getting a guy you kinda know on the internet to start a blog might be tantamount to slowly introducing poison into your spouse's food.
Gg and nate are basically my unsatisfied wife 6 months after she convinces me to get life insurance. Feeding my ego by assuring me the world needs one more blog and it can only be mine. Kissing me on the balding liver spotted pate as I shovel content into my face and react to it with unique charisma and off kilter wit. making love to me with their bodies, minds somewhere far away to stifle their disgust. finding the nugget of eroticism in the moment and finally orgasming to the thought of my corpse being lowered into the ground.
We’ll see.
Anyway. This review of gold cobra by limp bizkit is dedicated to gg Roland and nathanial duggan. Two writers who are extremely talented and funny and both geniuses in their own way. I’m glad to know them both and lucky to be alive when they are.
I polled some friends and followers on Twitter and they all voted for this album. it was troy james weaver's suggestion. I don’t listen to limp bizkit at all and haven’t listened to them since age 9-11 maybe.
I remember watching the music videos for their songs “nookie” and “break stuff” on TRL / MTV. My friend Ryan was one of the first people I knew to download Napster and he burned me a copy of chocolate starfish and the hotdog flavored water. I think we listened to it once while his mom drove us to discovery place in charlotte, a science museum for kids.
Fred durst was born in florida but grew up in Gastonia, nc. Which isn’t far from charlotte. I don’t think I knew that until 2015-2016 when someone mentioned it offhanded in a way that meant, “hey they're not so bad.”
That Fred durst spent some of his life in North Carolina does make me like him better. But it doesn’t necessarily make me go out of my way to listen to his music more. It’s just something to say when people trash limp bizkit to mean, “hey they’re not so bad.”
It’s a meme to say limp bizkit is bad. Maybe not exactly the same as nickelback but similar. That makes me want to like them or at least defend them because it feels lazy to gesture to them for the purposes of relating to others over music taste and coolness or whatever. Like a type of gif reacting to life. Cowardly and weak conversation skills.
I should try to pay attention the album that's playing instead of writing about how people don't like limp bizkit for insincere reasons.
This is a good line from “shark attack”:
You heard of Freddy Kruger?
I'm kinda like that with a red cap and a Ruger
“Get a life,” the song after “shark attack,” is the best so far in the first half of the album.
The first 2 lines of the chorus go so hard:
Get a life, get a motherfuckin' life!
You don't wanna see what I can do with a knife
There is also some great lines about NC:
North Carolina is my homeland
I'm homegrown, just a cackalacky mofo
A redneck who never had a dollar
Now I'm makin' people all around the world holla
Not as sonically exciting as the chorus. But cool to see.
I think limp bizkit has a pretty formulaic way of making a song. Simple, hopefully, catchy chorus then talking / cascading type rap verses. They suffer a lot because it doesn’t seem like they do much editing. Very first thought best thought. "Get a life get a motherfuckin life" is such a catchy chorus but “shotgun,” the next song on the album, doesn’t get there for me:
Everybody jumps from the sound of the shotgun
In my neighborhood everybody got one
Doesn’t convey the same simplistic anger as “get a life.” Leans toward an image I can’t easily grasp. And kinda is about the same simplistic anger so it’s a bit redundant.
Gold cobra came out january 1, 2011. 12 years ago last Saturday. It’s also an hour long. Not into that. That’s a very long album. Knowing it’s an hour long makes me wish I could have chosen a shorter album to review.
The track “walking away” is ballady. Similar to their cover of “behind blue eyes” and probably one or two other originals that I can’t remember now. But has screamo type vocals in the last minute or so that surprised me. I enjoyed that.
When there is a cool / exciting section in one of these songs it makes me want to go back and listen to their other music to see if there is some of that in a more pure form. Which means I don’t think gold cobra is their best album. It’s a post peak type album. that’s not fair tho. This feels more experimental than anything I’ve listened to before from them. Both “get a life” and “walking away” have emo/ hardcore influence rather than being nu-metal or whatever their earlier music would be classified as. those moments feel very now. Show me the body death grips jpegmafia type shit.
But then “autotunage” is such a garbage song it makes me lose a lot of hope for the rest of the album. Lame conceit. Bandwagon type bullying about a style of music that they could relate to more. Rap rock nu metal definitely got bad press at first. Maybe they could see themselves in everyone trashing autotune/ t-pain. Bums me out to think limp didn’t see the underdog cum innovator cum pariah story arch as one to denounce.
“Why try” also a high water mark for the album. Heavy guitar. Hardcore type aggressive lyrics. Fun to listen to.
Parts of “Back porch” sounds like a whitmer Thomas song hahah. The way he says “porch” like “poach” is the same voice as “big baby.” Feel like this album could have been a way for whitmer to find that musician character in some of his songs. Like this is some secret he’d drop in an interview. Like hearing that mike myers’ dr. Evil is a riff on lorne Michaels. Or that Seth green’s chris griffin is a riff on buffalo bill.
“Angels” also sounds like a whitmer Thomas song. Hahah. Really funny last thought to have while this album ends. All this time I was like “yea whit’s doing a Conor oberst thing.”
Nah. No way.
Late career limp bizkit.
More proof fred is a true southerner.
Comments
Post a Comment