> I know their image is more than alittle contrived :-) .. but the music's not bad is it
Right. The image is what I was referring to. You know, the whole "Hey hey, we're the Monkees" thing. On the other hand, tunes like that Porpoise Song are pretty far out.
Incidentally, I Googled "band photos" and this came up: the 20 worst band photos (starts at no. 20).
Hahaha. Good one, jet.
Yeah, you're right. If you try to "do something" and get it wrong, you can look a bit... well, like the Monkees. But still, you'd think the person taking the pics would have an idea about what works and what doesn't, wouldn't you?
Those photos you've posted are quite good: not twee but not the ubiquitous "I'm too cool to bother with any of you losers" pose.
Is there a reason that every rawk band in the known universe uses publicity shots that show them in denims and black, hands in pockets (or other, similarly staunch pose), staring expressionless at the camera?
On-stage photos I can understand: you're busy playing your music at the time (or at least you should be). But what about those "band photos"? I mean, do you really think you're going to lose your mojo if you have a photo that shows you... I dunno, ummm... smiling or actually doing something instead of just standing there?
Every last band in the world claims to blend their influences into a unique sound, so why the hell can't they take a photo that doesn't render them indistinguishable from everyone else?
Just because a band's publicity shots don't show them scowling sullenly at the camera, that doesn't make them the Monkees.
Hmm, I think Limegreen brings up an interesting point when he says:
It seems a fairly screaming indictment that there is no mention of Beautiful Machine. Once upon a time this site would have been abuzz with a new shihad album...
I thought this thread was just about how quiet it's been in the forums section of this site. But is it something bigger? Is NZ music in the doldrums?
I'd just like to preface this thread with (1) An apology if this is all no-brainer, obvious stuff and (2) a note that this is not a "modern music sucks" rant; I listen to and like new stuff as well as old (although I'm more selective nowadays). Anyway, here goes...
A couple of months ago I was thinking how weird it was that I could instantly recall, tell you the name of, recite the lyrics of, and sing snippets of just about every popular song from my youth, and yet I struggle to recognise songs and artists these days after hearing just a bar or two.
I know that the music of one's halcyon days has a longer-lasting effect because it is the soundtrack to some of the most enjoyable times of your life, but even so, I thought this situation went beyond that: I mean, I can remember the lyrics and melodies of even the stuff I didn't like in my youth, but have to fish out the liner notes every time I listen to something these days--even stuff I like.
Anyway, when I thought about the major differences in the music environment, it struck me that I listened to a lot of radio when I was young, but hardly ever do so nowadays. The radio was always on at home in the morning and afternoon up until dinner time (unless someone turned it off to play a record or cassette), as well as in the car. So I conducted a little experiment: I downloaded some various-artist compilations and listened to them regularly as one might hear top-40 stuff on the radio.
I'm aware that top-40 radio stations play their heavy-rotation songs several times a day, but when you factor in times spent listening to other forms of music, or time when the radio wasn't on, I guessed you'd hear the same songs around once (twice at most) a day. So I endeavoured to listen to my playlist once a day for a month.
In the end, I didn't manage to maintain the once-a-day routine; each song was played 20 times over a month and a bit--approximately once every two days on average.
How did it turn out? Well, I can now sing along with pretty much all the songs. A number of them have become favourites, and I've bought the artists'/bands' albums; even the one's I didn't care for so much have stuck in my mind, and I can croon along with a chorus or two without having to look up the words--just like when I used to listen to the radio regularly.
So, I have to conclude that the fact I listened regularly to the radio, which played a limited batch of songs repeatedly, and the fact that I don't listen to radio so much are the reasons that I have instant recall of the music of yesteryear but struggle to recognise music from 2008.
It was all about the radio.
I hope it's just a coincidence that this place started depopulatng when Jesus Crux left.
Interesting vid. I don't know why, but I found it funny how the stool moved progressively sideways early on.
Stop-frame photo-films are always fun. I especially like the ones of houses and other structures being built. Even better if there are people running around and its set to Benny Hill-type sped-up comedy music.
Yeah, I have accounts with eBay and local auction giant Yahoo! Auctions*. It's just that there were two specific items on TradeMe that I wanted.
But that aside...
It's not like they need the money
... You realise that's Fairfax you're talking about, right?
∗Digression: eBay set up a local site here in Japan a few years ago in competition with Yahoo, but Yahoo thrashed the pants off eBay, who packed up and went home after a couple of years. Recently there's been talk of the two entering into a tie-up, which will allow eBay customers easier access to Yahoo! Auctions in Japan and vice-versa. If you can't beat 'em...
//organization who bought out trademe a while back...
That's precisely who I was thinking about when I wrote "I would imagine TradeMe has the budget to make that effort". TradeMe's not exactly small potatoes anymore.
Although, I wonder if the new corporate owners would benefit by restricting TradeMe to NZ and Australia.
//FWIW, it is crappy, and I can sympathise. I'm just playing devil's advocate because of the "how DARE trademe not sell to me!" sentiment. ;)
Sure thing. I think this is a good discussion (especialy now I'm over the initial rant!)
//Also, can I just ask - does trademe screen you by your IP address, or do they just require you supply a NZ-based address & phone number?
I'm fairly certain they checked my IP address. There's one detail (which will remain unmentioned here) that throws a small shadow of doubt on it, but I'm pretty sure.
//I could imagine someone merrily trading away on the back of a friend's / their mum's contact details & out of their old university bank account without too much hassle. Is that feasible? That's what I'd do.
That's what I did. Everything except for the gmail address was NZ-specific.
// //but the point is that it's a personal decision,
//- Actually, it's not. I can choose who I buy from, but I don't have much control over who wins my auctions.
Hang on. Are we talking about the same thing? (I'm confused now). Just to clarify: I meant to say that if you were able to choose in advance whether or not you would accept overseas buyers (like with eBay or Yahoo! Auctions and their "click the box if you're willing to send the item overseas, otherwise it's just domestic" policy), and you chose not to, that would be a personal decision and not something foisted on you by the auction site (like with TradeMe and their "we don't allow members outside NZ and Australia" policy).
Next question (although this is moving slightly away from the original topic): If we assume that there is some money to be made in opening TradeMe up to the rest of the world, but that...
//it's probably a matter of scale. I don't know what kind of resources trademe would have/need to expand into a worldwide market. And if they're just catering to a handful of expats [snip] it's not a big enough market to justify the cost of a world of internet pranksters & 419ers... the cold fact is that the overseas market proved not nearly lucrative enough to justify the extra costs of "focussing on bogus users" or perhaps "addressing the complaints of local traders dealing with people overseas"
...does that mean TradeMe is, in effect, in the business of protecting/preventing (I s'pose it depends on your point of view) its members from doing business overseas? If so, is that valid? By which I mean, should the members be allowed to make that choice themselves or is TradeMe doing the right thing?
Good post by Heather.
I think your point is valid. I agree that stolen credit cards and the like are probably TradeMe's reasons for shutting out the rest of the world (although we'll not know unless more details are made available--all I got told was that "in order to make TradeMe safer, we don't allow accounts from overseas"... now what kind of connotations does that message send?)
But doesn't it seem small-minded? Doesn't "let's reject the whole world because there are fraudsters out there" seem defeatist? Wouldn't it be more constructive to focus on the actual bogus users instead (I would imagine TradeMe has the budget to make that effort)?
Yahoo Auctions here in Japan and E-bay in other countries seem to do OK. I'd say they have more problems with fraudsters than TradeMe does, but they appear to be handling it alright, and they leave it up to individual sellers to decide whether they will send overseas or not (you just click the box when posting each item for sale). I reckon that's OK, because it's a personal decision. Same as your...
I wouldn't consider buying from an overseas trader, nor would I be particularly happy about selling to one.
... I take the opposite approach, but the point is that it's a personal decision, whereas TradeMe's policy of telling the world to bugger off seems like an institutionalised village mentality; an us-kiwis-against-the-world-eh sort of thing.
I would dearly love to be wrong, but that's how it looks.
Yes, do pardon my rant. I was rather incredulous at the stupidity of it all. Anyone would think Trade Me are scared of having to deal with the big, bad world.
I guess my point was that there is a whole planet of people out here and, if Trade Me would acknowledge us, we'd be happy to give them our money.
Now then, no internet rant is complete without a sweeping and derogatory generalisation, so I suppose I'd better make one, too. Umm, how about: "Geez, no wonder NZ's still a backwater: one of the country's biggest internet-based companies can't even grasp the basic tenet of the World Wide Web."
What the #%$*&? is up with those #%$*&? people and their no-one outside of NZ or Australia are good enough to join crap?! #%$*&? imbeciles. Y'know, there are a few of us who choose not to live in NZers who aren't fraudsters!
If you're going to ban the rest of the world, you might as well just go back to the Trade & Exchange, you #%$*&? dolts.
Hello all.
Hey, is the percussion line in Liam Finn's Second Chance a sample of Dave Dobbyn's Language? They're very similar--most noticeable at the very start of the intro.
Haha! They wouldn't even have let him run.
Sigh... If wishing made it so...
Speaking purely about style rather than policies and stuff, I really like Obama's oratory style. His intonation and rhythm are well geared towards inspirational speech.
Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, can sound nasal and whiny (I don't mean that to reflect badly on her; it's just her natural voice). I suppose that can be good in some situations, but it doesn't help when you want to be moving or uplifting.
Anyway, if it were a speech contest, Obama would win hands down.
FWIW, I don't like it.
I was brought up to believe that there is a time and a place for swearing. Public, free-to-air, terrestrial television is not it.
Haha! Bend your knees!
Wasn't there another public service announcement for marriage counselling or something? The couple would bicker and row about something and suddenly the picture would freeze and the voice-over said, "Let's try that again." Take two, and the couple was in the same setting and situation, but suddenly the aggression and sarcasm and animosity were nowhere to be seen, and the couple was all lovey-dovey.
> Hey things change but it won't change them...
Ha! Good one. 8-)
Yeah, it's strange... When I lived in NZ, drink-driving was endemic; apartments and other high(er)-density living was extremely rare and people were horrified - horrified, I tell you - at the thught that apartments might become a more common feature in the future; drivers paid a toll to cross the harbour bridge until it was all paid for; and there were lots of other things that would be considered inappropriate these days. So, NZers attitudes have changed, but maybe they haven't noticed... I dunno.
Anyway, it seems strange that NZ and NZers are evolving and modernising, but the mere mention of motorway tolls sends them into conniptions.
Well, if that's true, it's ironic. NZ has changed so much and so rapidly that I can hardly recognise it when I visit.
... paying motorway tolls?
I keep reading in the news about how motorway projects are delayed or scrapped or whatever because when they open it up to public consultation, the public tells the powers-that-be to shove it up their toll booths.
If there are free roads leading to the same destination, what's wrong with paying for the speed and convenience of the motorway (assuming that motorways become fast-flowing and convenient when tolls are introduced and traffic is reduced)?
PS: This is not a criticism; I'm genunely interested to know.
Ah, good to see someone with his head screwed on right. The man is a beacon of rational thinking in a country that is rapidly being overrun by people who aren't white, heterosexual, Christian baby-boomers. We should bring back flogging for these youngsters who feel the need to daub their indecipherable rubbish on the picket fences of white, heterosexual, Christian baby-boomers' dwellings. A taste of the lash would set them straight.
Love,
Girth Gorge
I found it weird because there were no f-words in the first series.
Anyway, I'd just like to say that "homeslice" is one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. Hilarious!
Sorry, I just had to get this and this off my chest.
Good gawd!