This album is much softer than I expected. There's a lot of acoustic guitar picking, lots of breathy backup vocals, and of course, Bemis continues to sing like a sweeter, more refined James Hetfield – Hetfield and Bemis are both strangely prone to letting out little moans after their words. I don't know what's up with that.
And the whole album is probably – what – 20? 20 BPMS lower than …Is a Real Boy.
So it ain't what I was expecting. I'll give them that. And it works well with the title; fast anarchy music is so cliché, no? But about five minutes into the last track you'll find a short burst of 'punk'.
I always expect Bemis' lyrics to improve on the next album. He's got the word-choice down, he's got the topics down – he needs to work on the “show, don't tell” rule, though. He tries to have it both ways - overstatement and understatement. When he chooses one to go with it works amazingly well, but too often he tries to mix them together. there is a jarring disconnect between the flowering and purple language and the overtness of the topic he is tackling.
But Bemis still writes better than most.
Anarchy, My Dear kept my attention. More than that, it kept me interested – which is saying a lot. But there are some flaws. They should review Frietag's pyramid, figure out exactly what it was they did on ...Is a Real Boy, and try again in the morning.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
David Comes to Life
That David Comes To Life got Spin's album of the year is pretty crazy, I have to admit. But that could very well be a comment on the music of 2011, and not be so much about Fucked Up.
But Spin also wrote “could be the most epic punk album ever“ about David Comes to Life, which means, of course, that the album stands alongside Nevermind the Bullocks, Somewhere in the Between, The Monitor, Wild Gift, etc.
And that idea is just absurd.
For the most part I find this album bland. What isn't bland is vamping (up to nothing, really). I really don't like the way this guy sings. It is entirely too forced, and too up in the mix (more on the mixing in a minute). My favorite parts are when the girl starts singing. She reminds me of Claudia Gonson. It is the only thing on this album that has any dimension or life or even catchiness.
They've muddled up the guitars to the point of no definition. Strumming is nearly unheard. Instead, we get slight increases in the volume of the fuzz. That's alright; you can do that; you can pull that off. But Fucked Up does not.
So it isn't musically epic. I will give admit a certain literary epicness. It's a rather complex undertaking, one that I will not try to explicate here. So good job on that. I can't figure out if I think the differences between what he actually says and what's in the lyric booklet are important to the puzzle. I suspect that they are, but I can't quite tell you why. That, too, is very interesting.
Yea, so. There's a lot of interesting stuff in the lyrics: unreliable narrators, metafictive elements. All that good stuff. But the delivery is subpar.
A far cry from album of the year, and I can't imagine the kind of stretch you would have to make to think that this album was among the most epic punk albums ever. Hell, I'm not even sure David Comes To Life is punk. Feels more like The Who tried to play a set on the Strokes' gear. And their lead singer sounds like the love child of William Shatner and the guy from The Dropkick Murphys.
But Spin also wrote “could be the most epic punk album ever“ about David Comes to Life, which means, of course, that the album stands alongside Nevermind the Bullocks, Somewhere in the Between, The Monitor, Wild Gift, etc.
And that idea is just absurd.
For the most part I find this album bland. What isn't bland is vamping (up to nothing, really). I really don't like the way this guy sings. It is entirely too forced, and too up in the mix (more on the mixing in a minute). My favorite parts are when the girl starts singing. She reminds me of Claudia Gonson. It is the only thing on this album that has any dimension or life or even catchiness.
They've muddled up the guitars to the point of no definition. Strumming is nearly unheard. Instead, we get slight increases in the volume of the fuzz. That's alright; you can do that; you can pull that off. But Fucked Up does not.
So it isn't musically epic. I will give admit a certain literary epicness. It's a rather complex undertaking, one that I will not try to explicate here. So good job on that. I can't figure out if I think the differences between what he actually says and what's in the lyric booklet are important to the puzzle. I suspect that they are, but I can't quite tell you why. That, too, is very interesting.
Yea, so. There's a lot of interesting stuff in the lyrics: unreliable narrators, metafictive elements. All that good stuff. But the delivery is subpar.
A far cry from album of the year, and I can't imagine the kind of stretch you would have to make to think that this album was among the most epic punk albums ever. Hell, I'm not even sure David Comes To Life is punk. Feels more like The Who tried to play a set on the Strokes' gear. And their lead singer sounds like the love child of William Shatner and the guy from The Dropkick Murphys.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
On SOPA - Daniel Mattox
This is a guest-post from my room-mate, Daniel "LaToya" Mattox. He's a theorist/philosopher.
(edited by Jacob Kincaid)
The disappointment and rage I feel at the U.S. government at this time is unimaginable. I am not a politician or a free speech activist. I do not go to all the political rallys and protests that I should. I do not speak out against equally grievous injustices despite their frequency and my awareness. However, as a philosopher there is little I can do not to speak out against something that begins to dissolve the international marketplace of ideas.
There is nothing so precious in life as information.
The interconnected web of ideas and retorts which has become the internet stands as a light upon a hill to all of humanity. It is the key which will release us from our bonds and offer us to turn away from our shadows and echoes. The internet is not accessible to all people, but for those who do have access the internet offers a place where all ideas are met equally and each must be separately discerned. Credentials can be faked and no identity is so secure as to be trusted. All people stand anonymous and equal on the internet. The passing and enforcement of SOPA threatens to destroy this marketplace of ideas. It threatens to redistribute knowledge as it is crafted by the few and the powerful. As it is now, the internet is the only means of individual resistance. The diffusion of power throughout the structures of the postmodern world threatens to oppress, repress, and recreate knowledge as we know it.
Where knowledge is power it is also true that power is knowledge. If those with sufficient power begin to regulate and control the internet they will also begin to alter the public discourse. They will essentially break apart the global process that has occurred for years and culminated into websites such as Wikipedia and Google. If ever there were one thing that were needed in a republic, a rational society, or a world of free and rational agents it is the freedom of discourse.
Discourse may not always be equal but an anonymous outlet for the exchange of ideas and beliefs is close to an ideal. I will end here for the purpose of brevity, however, it should be known that there is no dollar public or private worth the sacrifice of free speech and the marketplace of ideas.
(edited by Jacob Kincaid)
The disappointment and rage I feel at the U.S. government at this time is unimaginable. I am not a politician or a free speech activist. I do not go to all the political rallys and protests that I should. I do not speak out against equally grievous injustices despite their frequency and my awareness. However, as a philosopher there is little I can do not to speak out against something that begins to dissolve the international marketplace of ideas.
There is nothing so precious in life as information.
The interconnected web of ideas and retorts which has become the internet stands as a light upon a hill to all of humanity. It is the key which will release us from our bonds and offer us to turn away from our shadows and echoes. The internet is not accessible to all people, but for those who do have access the internet offers a place where all ideas are met equally and each must be separately discerned. Credentials can be faked and no identity is so secure as to be trusted. All people stand anonymous and equal on the internet. The passing and enforcement of SOPA threatens to destroy this marketplace of ideas. It threatens to redistribute knowledge as it is crafted by the few and the powerful. As it is now, the internet is the only means of individual resistance. The diffusion of power throughout the structures of the postmodern world threatens to oppress, repress, and recreate knowledge as we know it.
Where knowledge is power it is also true that power is knowledge. If those with sufficient power begin to regulate and control the internet they will also begin to alter the public discourse. They will essentially break apart the global process that has occurred for years and culminated into websites such as Wikipedia and Google. If ever there were one thing that were needed in a republic, a rational society, or a world of free and rational agents it is the freedom of discourse.
Discourse may not always be equal but an anonymous outlet for the exchange of ideas and beliefs is close to an ideal. I will end here for the purpose of brevity, however, it should be known that there is no dollar public or private worth the sacrifice of free speech and the marketplace of ideas.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Review – That is All – John Hodgman
I got this one for Christmas, too. I admit I started reading it before then, here in Morehead, at the bookstore and coffeeshop (mostly trinkets).
Hodgman's segments on the Daily Show, The Areas of My Expertise, his general demeanor – all tickle me in a certain way. Hodgman holds a place in my mind similar to that of Emo Phillips or Mark Twain or (young) Johnny Rotten.
Obviously I don't know the man John Hodgman, only a sort of exaggerated persona, or possibly a character. As I do with Phillips, Twain and Rotten. It takes a certain sort of genius to create something so strong and new and strangely sublime, so my hat is off to Hodgman.
The persona adapted is that of the bookish lecturer and snob, an extremely fallible intellectual. It deals directly with academia, the idea of “expertise,” and epistemology itself, all under a comedic, overstated guise.
But do I like the actual book?
Yes. I very much do.
A part of me wants to criticize Hodgman for using the same format three times in a row, but I'm so glad he didn't stop after the first one. That is All could very well stand on it's own. And there isn't a format that lends itself to this sort of material like the almanac.
There are a few occasions in which Hodgman backs away from absurdity and shows us what he can do. The voice remains the same – aritulate, deliberate, stuffy, aware – but the tone shifts slightly to accommodate this different inner exploration. These brief snaps back into reality make every word of what he's written worth it. Even if the rest weren't amazingly amusing, I would still applaud him for dropping these bombs after presenting himself as nothing more than a jester.
His first book was tied together by hobos, his second by molemen, and the last by ancient and unspeakable gods -a perfect material for the sci-fi nerd and exaggerator. The book is kept consistent by relating every bit of information it contains to Ragnarok, or the Apocalypse, or whatever you want to call it. The second book seemed to be shoddily put together, but this third one is a perfect ending, complete with the big bow and the cherry on top.
Concept – 10/10
Execution – 10/10
Hodgman's segments on the Daily Show, The Areas of My Expertise, his general demeanor – all tickle me in a certain way. Hodgman holds a place in my mind similar to that of Emo Phillips or Mark Twain or (young) Johnny Rotten.
Obviously I don't know the man John Hodgman, only a sort of exaggerated persona, or possibly a character. As I do with Phillips, Twain and Rotten. It takes a certain sort of genius to create something so strong and new and strangely sublime, so my hat is off to Hodgman.
The persona adapted is that of the bookish lecturer and snob, an extremely fallible intellectual. It deals directly with academia, the idea of “expertise,” and epistemology itself, all under a comedic, overstated guise.
But do I like the actual book?
Yes. I very much do.
A part of me wants to criticize Hodgman for using the same format three times in a row, but I'm so glad he didn't stop after the first one. That is All could very well stand on it's own. And there isn't a format that lends itself to this sort of material like the almanac.
There are a few occasions in which Hodgman backs away from absurdity and shows us what he can do. The voice remains the same – aritulate, deliberate, stuffy, aware – but the tone shifts slightly to accommodate this different inner exploration. These brief snaps back into reality make every word of what he's written worth it. Even if the rest weren't amazingly amusing, I would still applaud him for dropping these bombs after presenting himself as nothing more than a jester.
His first book was tied together by hobos, his second by molemen, and the last by ancient and unspeakable gods -a perfect material for the sci-fi nerd and exaggerator. The book is kept consistent by relating every bit of information it contains to Ragnarok, or the Apocalypse, or whatever you want to call it. The second book seemed to be shoddily put together, but this third one is a perfect ending, complete with the big bow and the cherry on top.
Concept – 10/10
Execution – 10/10
Monday, January 9, 2012
Review - The Witcher 2
I got The Witcher 2 for Christmas, and I'd heard a lot of high praise for it, out here in the internets. So I had my expectations pretty high.
But at the same time I had my expectations pretty low. I'd just finished playing the first in the series. I finished it, even though the game was far from over; I quit only a few hours in due to clunky combat, overuse of cut-scenes and just plain terrible dialogue. I player much longer than I feel like I should have, but the ambition of the project kept pulling me in. I could tell that they'd put a lot of effort into the product, and it all had a lot of potential.
And I think The Witcher 2 is the result of them figuring out a lot of different things and honing their craft and style. The combat is smooth and intricate, with a number of subtle nuances. The dialogue is leagues better, as is the story's structure. In Witcher 3 I think they'll finally close the gap.
The plot is left largely up to Geralt and the player. In the prologue you get to choose which part of the frame story to do first, second and last. Does this choice change anything? No, not really. But it does set up how the story is going work. The player is going to get some choice. This one isn't too important, it's skin deep, but it is classy. Unless this was designed by sheer chance, it seems evident the designers knew what they were doing.
While I absolutely love how much of the story and Geralt's character is put into the hands of the player, I think the execution is slightly flawed. Cut-scene overload. There are only one or two choices of major import that aren't made during or around cutscenes.
There are just too many cutscenes in general, and I wish that they'd spread out the conversation over some of the crazy-long walks. For instance, when Geralt and Iorveth going to the last city in the game, why not have them walk and talk? Instead of a long conversation and a long walk, put them into one thing. It would be great if the game would go slow-mo in the same way it does when you are choosing sword, sign, etc. Learn from House.
I think some of this is just a resources problem, that they couldn't get everything into the game that they wanted. I understand that, but I think some of their desires were misplaced: I never used any oils or bombs, yet I found them everywhere. I rarely used potions, and when I did it nearly never mattered. And while their skill tree is an elegant one, I actually wish it had been smaller and that less levels were given over the course of the game. Geralt is supposed to be world-renowned at the beginning of the game, so how can he improve that much? If they'd made more subtle the equipment, the crafting, the levels and skills, completely removed bombs, traps, potions, trophies, then I think they
would be much closer to creating the game I think they wold have liked to make.
And I wish that Geralt had been a little less static. You can argue that because Geralt has to be flexible to account for the player's choices, but Iorveth, Roche, Saskia- they all seem to be pretty complex characters. I think part of the problem is that Geralt's voice-actor – or maybe just that voice – doesn't really work well with many emotions other than brooding or skulking. I do have to say, however, that they didn't make the mistake of confusion “brooding anti-hero” with “complete asshole.”
But again, I have to stress this: The Witcher 2 is not a bad game. The world, the characters, the politics, all of that stuff is really awesome, as is the combat. It's just that so much of the content in the game seems to be without cause, other than as fluff, at the sacrifice of the real meat of the game.
Concept (and the ambition behind it): 10/10
Execution: 6/10
But at the same time I had my expectations pretty low. I'd just finished playing the first in the series. I finished it, even though the game was far from over; I quit only a few hours in due to clunky combat, overuse of cut-scenes and just plain terrible dialogue. I player much longer than I feel like I should have, but the ambition of the project kept pulling me in. I could tell that they'd put a lot of effort into the product, and it all had a lot of potential.
And I think The Witcher 2 is the result of them figuring out a lot of different things and honing their craft and style. The combat is smooth and intricate, with a number of subtle nuances. The dialogue is leagues better, as is the story's structure. In Witcher 3 I think they'll finally close the gap.
The plot is left largely up to Geralt and the player. In the prologue you get to choose which part of the frame story to do first, second and last. Does this choice change anything? No, not really. But it does set up how the story is going work. The player is going to get some choice. This one isn't too important, it's skin deep, but it is classy. Unless this was designed by sheer chance, it seems evident the designers knew what they were doing.
While I absolutely love how much of the story and Geralt's character is put into the hands of the player, I think the execution is slightly flawed. Cut-scene overload. There are only one or two choices of major import that aren't made during or around cutscenes.
There are just too many cutscenes in general, and I wish that they'd spread out the conversation over some of the crazy-long walks. For instance, when Geralt and Iorveth going to the last city in the game, why not have them walk and talk? Instead of a long conversation and a long walk, put them into one thing. It would be great if the game would go slow-mo in the same way it does when you are choosing sword, sign, etc. Learn from House.
I think some of this is just a resources problem, that they couldn't get everything into the game that they wanted. I understand that, but I think some of their desires were misplaced: I never used any oils or bombs, yet I found them everywhere. I rarely used potions, and when I did it nearly never mattered. And while their skill tree is an elegant one, I actually wish it had been smaller and that less levels were given over the course of the game. Geralt is supposed to be world-renowned at the beginning of the game, so how can he improve that much? If they'd made more subtle the equipment, the crafting, the levels and skills, completely removed bombs, traps, potions, trophies, then I think they
would be much closer to creating the game I think they wold have liked to make.
And I wish that Geralt had been a little less static. You can argue that because Geralt has to be flexible to account for the player's choices, but Iorveth, Roche, Saskia- they all seem to be pretty complex characters. I think part of the problem is that Geralt's voice-actor – or maybe just that voice – doesn't really work well with many emotions other than brooding or skulking. I do have to say, however, that they didn't make the mistake of confusion “brooding anti-hero” with “complete asshole.”
But again, I have to stress this: The Witcher 2 is not a bad game. The world, the characters, the politics, all of that stuff is really awesome, as is the combat. It's just that so much of the content in the game seems to be without cause, other than as fluff, at the sacrifice of the real meat of the game.
Concept (and the ambition behind it): 10/10
Execution: 6/10
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Short Reviews: Theory of Fun, Game Design Workshop, The Art of Game Design
Theory of Fun Ralph Kosterman
Read this on Johnathon Blow's recommendation. I like J. Blow, but I don't like this book and I don't know why he recommended it. Half of the content were poorly drawn doodles, which were never really that humorous. And the margins were just absolutely huge. Lots of filler, even in the writing. Could have been ¼ the size that it actually is, no kidding.
As far as what he actually says, there's some interesting things in there, sure. His definition of game also includes things like war. Not like War, the card game, but like World War I and World War II. He's also among the camp that argues games will never tell great stories, and unlike some people I could name, he doesn't even give good justifications.
I'm loathe to give a numerical value, but:
1/whatever large number you happen to think of.
Game Design Workshop -Tracy Fullerton
Not bad, but this book also feels like it's artificially inflated. It also seems like a good third of it is about how to market and sell a video game, which isn't really what I'm interested in quite yet, so I admit I skipped a big chunk of it.
3/5
The Art of Game Design – Jesse Schell
Schell fills this up with real examples from his work and that makes everything immensely more enjoyable. It isn't just unconnected theory, it's real evidence on what works and what doesn't.
He opens up with a chapter on the definition of “game” and takes a shot or two at “Fun,” and he makes a list of things a game needs to have to be a game, which I find accurate. Then things get really good, talking purely about game design: mechanics, controls, story, all of that kind of thing.
After those he gives chapter-long crash courses in anthropology, psychology, art, architecture, narrative, economics and business, probably some things I'm forgetting, and how they all relate to games. Throughout the entire thing he'll provide the designer with specific “lenses,” which I think are handy, even though also kind of obvious.
Then towards the end he starts to talk about how to sell games.
5/5
Read this on Johnathon Blow's recommendation. I like J. Blow, but I don't like this book and I don't know why he recommended it. Half of the content were poorly drawn doodles, which were never really that humorous. And the margins were just absolutely huge. Lots of filler, even in the writing. Could have been ¼ the size that it actually is, no kidding.
As far as what he actually says, there's some interesting things in there, sure. His definition of game also includes things like war. Not like War, the card game, but like World War I and World War II. He's also among the camp that argues games will never tell great stories, and unlike some people I could name, he doesn't even give good justifications.
I'm loathe to give a numerical value, but:
1/whatever large number you happen to think of.
Game Design Workshop -Tracy Fullerton
Not bad, but this book also feels like it's artificially inflated. It also seems like a good third of it is about how to market and sell a video game, which isn't really what I'm interested in quite yet, so I admit I skipped a big chunk of it.
3/5
The Art of Game Design – Jesse Schell
Schell fills this up with real examples from his work and that makes everything immensely more enjoyable. It isn't just unconnected theory, it's real evidence on what works and what doesn't.
He opens up with a chapter on the definition of “game” and takes a shot or two at “Fun,” and he makes a list of things a game needs to have to be a game, which I find accurate. Then things get really good, talking purely about game design: mechanics, controls, story, all of that kind of thing.
After those he gives chapter-long crash courses in anthropology, psychology, art, architecture, narrative, economics and business, probably some things I'm forgetting, and how they all relate to games. Throughout the entire thing he'll provide the designer with specific “lenses,” which I think are handy, even though also kind of obvious.
Then towards the end he starts to talk about how to sell games.
5/5
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Poem - Synthetic Seraph
I'm some kinda post-modern malady
a man-made miracle
an unnatural synthesis of flesh and metal
heart = furnace
intestines = pipes
lungs = billows
brain = circuitry
I can translate songs from dead languages in a matter of seconds, but a “song” is nothing more than a contrived series of frequencies.
I see every step in my own thought patterns; this puppet can see the strings.
I'm an artificial angel, a synthetic seraph,
I am a divine messenger and my message is the future and the future is now and now is about me and I
am
not
at all
like you.
a man-made miracle
an unnatural synthesis of flesh and metal
heart = furnace
intestines = pipes
lungs = billows
brain = circuitry
I can translate songs from dead languages in a matter of seconds, but a “song” is nothing more than a contrived series of frequencies.
I see every step in my own thought patterns; this puppet can see the strings.
I'm an artificial angel, a synthetic seraph,
I am a divine messenger and my message is the future and the future is now and now is about me and I
am
not
at all
like you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)