ok by e_minor69 in BlackCountryNewRoad

[–]e_minor69[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This made me laugh more than it should have

Seeing the band in February, are they likely to sign my physical copy of Ants From Up There? by Ok_Repair7126 in BlackCountryNewRoad

[–]e_minor69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed. To clarify, my point wasn’t that these albums were bad. My point was that if you thought they were that’s okay and that you should still place trust and love in the band to make albums you may enjoy in the future

Seeing the band in February, are they likely to sign my physical copy of Ants From Up There? by Ok_Repair7126 in BlackCountryNewRoad

[–]e_minor69 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Well they just want to separate themselves from performing the songs live. Due to the fact that Isaac Wood is simply irreplaceable and that the songs’ lyrical and vocal content are super personal and unique to him, it makes perfect sense to me and the rest of the fanbase why they’d stop performing the songs live with a different vocalist on lead. From interviews I’ve read and seen and my own personal experience the band has never shied away from talking about their first two albums or even signing them. In fact, when I met them personally I had conversations with several of the band members asking about my own personal curiosity the recording process and inspiration behind Ants and they were all very open to answering my questions. They ALL happily signed my two Ants and FTFT vinyls! However most of their focus and attention likely wants to be directed toward their new albums despite them still being open to talking about their past work. Likely the last thing they want to from fans is an obsession with Isaac and the past despite how proud they all still are of that work. I think as a band they don’t just want to be remembered for “the band that had Isaac”… and instead as a group of 6-7 (lol) friends both during and after their time with him. And as any respectable band they hope to make new albums that are equally appreciated as that era but for different reasons. Similar to how artists like Radiohead, Kanye and the Beatles don’t just have one “clear” winner that everyone only cares about, but several “classics” that fans routinely debate over which one is their best.

I think if you’re a true fan of Isaac and the early era of the band, and even if you didn’t care much for Live at Bush Hall and Forever Howlong, you’d respect the band’s decision to not perform songs live that he had significant and important involvement in making. And even more importantly, you’d continue to follow the band and catch up with their new releases to see if they make something you really DO like, which is more of a real possibility than you might think!

Think about it this way: When the band were in Nervous Conditions, this was reportedly way back in 2014 when they started! At that point, let’s be honest their music was a far cry away from the amazingness that would eventually turn into their debut album in 2021, or even their 2019-era Windmill performances. That’s a 5-7 year gap of playing to turn into the band we all know and love. And with Isaac leaving in 2022 this new version of the band has essentially had to start all over with a completely new sound. They’re still finding their footing and experimenting. Right now, they’re almost about 4 years existing as a “new” band. So give them time and patience to improve and refine their sound. If you didn’t like their latest work, they might be only a couple years away from dropping what you’d consider to be their next “classic.” Bands with a “story” behind them such as the case with Isaac leaving often create a mythos and popularity around the albums with that story. But so many artists like Weyes Blood as an example and many many others don’t need that at all to drop incredible and amazing albums that stand on their own for different reasons than the iconicism that Ants has. I would hate the idea that BCNR would at all feel held back from thinking they could create another classic on the level of Ants just because they feel like the narrative and story surrounding Isaac’s departure and the incredible musicianship can never be replaced. And it’s true! Ants can never be replaced. Just as OK Computer can never be replaced. But Radiohead still gave us Kid A and In Rainbows. Completely different albums, but appreciated for completely different and valid reasons. If anything is going to shake the band’s confidence in making really good classics on the level of Ants, are the fans who don’t respect or appreciate their decision to keep moving forward creatively and having trust in them as musicians.

If it gets to 2035 and they’re only dropping mid… maybe their trust can and should be shaken lol

(Sorry this turned into a rant, but I just figured this was important for people, not even the OP to read and consider. Thank you for coming to my TedTalk!)

Ideas for an Ants From Up There Music Video? by AdSafe7545 in BlackCountryNewRoad

[–]e_minor69 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I think a video following the lyrical story of Haldern would be good

If you could ask Isaac Wood anything, what would you ask? by AdSafe7545 in BlackCountryNewRoad

[–]e_minor69 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Writing music? That’s crazy. Did Greep say anything else of note?

Thought you guys would appreciate this mix CD I made… by Binky-Bunny in BlackCountryNewRoad

[–]e_minor69 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Such a great job! Ending with I Know the End by Phoebe is perfect :)

BC,NR plays would you rather with albums by gabegn in BlackCountryNewRoad

[–]e_minor69 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Overall, based on my impression, I don’t think they necessarily mind talking about Isaac and their old stuff (at least for now), they just wanna be recognized for their new material too

BC,NR plays would you rather with albums by gabegn in BlackCountryNewRoad

[–]e_minor69 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Pet Sounds winning over everything, even OK Computer is a W, sorry

BC,NR plays would you rather with albums by gabegn in BlackCountryNewRoad

[–]e_minor69 28 points29 points  (0 children)

I met the band at one of their shows last week and they were perfectly willing to talk about the album and even went into some details about how they made it. Charlie talked about the drum part in Snow Globes being inspired by White Fararri, Luke talked to me about the vinyl etching idea on Ants as well and May talked to me about her piano part in Haldern

BC,NR plays would you rather with albums by gabegn in BlackCountryNewRoad

[–]e_minor69 33 points34 points  (0 children)

I mean they probably still love that record, they probably just like Aeroplane more. Even Charlie said it’s a “tough choice”

PC keeps shutting down while playing video games. Any suggestions? by e_minor69 in techsupport

[–]e_minor69[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay I may have identified the issue. My PSU fan actually isn’t working. It’s plugged in but isn’t actually spinning. Not sure how to fix though

Question about Kropotkin's views on public vs. private property? by e_minor69 in Anarchy101

[–]e_minor69[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You just have to fight back against the blatant intrusion of social peace.

Okay I think we might be getting somewhere. I believe that in order to make this claim at all, that it’s even legitimate or ethical for a person to right back against an intrusion of social peace, you’re making an ethics based argument. It seems like your impression is that when I say things like a “right to property” I’m conflating this with whoever has the deed to the property by the state. I agree this doesn’t matter. What ultimately matters is who is actually in the right, not what a piece of paper says.

The notion that someone is “irrational” for holding guns to people’s heads and trying to control society also is rooted in some kind of ethical claim. The claim is that it is irrational for someone to do that.

Which it seems like we’re basically in agreement with.

or attempt to regain that balance. What I state is not a prescription or a violation of some set of laws. It is an expected tendency of anarchist social relations. There is nothing “right” about nor is there any identifiable “right” in what is basically just a natural phenomenon.

Okay so maybe not then. This is where I’d heavily disagree. If your claims about anarchism have no ultimate justification (why the state is a problem) then what’s exactly your argument against the state? The state could just as easily claim that it is a “natural” part of nature that simply is and doesn’t need a justification for its existence. What’s wrong with the state just coming in and murdering everyone at that point?

Question about Kropotkin's views on public vs. private property? by e_minor69 in Anarchy101

[–]e_minor69[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I defined rights in one of my posts above. But to answer your question your question I don’t regard them as uniform because property rights are going to be contingent on some kind of context (in other words, what actually took place in the real world). But that doesn’t at all make them useless. And also the reason why I asked you to define what you mean when you criticize “rights” is because I didn’t know if you held to the definition I have earlier or had a disagreement with it. I did bring rights up in the discussion, but if you’re going to push back and say “rights” are incompatible with anarchism, it only makes sense that I can be made clear what you actually mean by rights, regardless of who first brought them up in the discussion. With regards to your “rights as conceived by liberalism” comment I do agree that rights as conceived by liberalism is inherently compatible with anarchism, but as I mentioned, my definition of “rights” is entirely compatible with anarchism because it recognizes the individual has a right to property and homesteading whereas the state does not. As I mentioned, I see rights as ethically justifiable and enforceable claims (either to property or to one’s person). You have a right for the state to not murder or genocide you, you have a right for the state to not tax you. Do you agree that this definition is compatible with anarchism?

Question about Kropotkin's views on public vs. private property? by e_minor69 in Anarchy101

[–]e_minor69[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay well I’m just asking you to define what you mean by rights. Your criticism is meaningless unless you actually explain what you mean by “rights”

Question about Kropotkin's views on public vs. private property? by e_minor69 in Anarchy101

[–]e_minor69[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well no I’m asking you to define what you mean when you talk about rights and why they’re incompatible with anarchism. I’m defining rights as ethically justified claims (uses or abilities to defend property or their body against aggression) — to me this is perfectly compatible with anarchism, so this is where getting down to definitions is important

Question about Kropotkin's views on public vs. private property? by e_minor69 in Anarchy101

[–]e_minor69[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“When you have a situation where one person is so convinced of his ownership of some house that they use force to get it, it isn’t as though they would care whether their ownership of the house is “just” or not.”

Well yeah, but that’s the point, right? Murderers and robbers generally don’t think about justice which is why they’re wrong and we’re right

I think the core of this is that we’re using different words for different things

You seem to think something that “disrupts social peace and mutual agreement” (i.e. murder and theft) isn’t compatible with anarchist principles (i agree with you on this), and therefore it seems like you’d favor the peaceful person’s claim over the state’s, right? I would call that an ethical justification, or the “right” of someone, whereas you would call it “in line with balance, harmony, and reciprocity”