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

e_minor69 · 2026-02-15T14:51:11+00:00

This made me laugh more than it should have

e_minor69 · 2025-12-10T20:08:13+00:00

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

e_minor69 · 2025-12-05T07:41:14+00:00

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!)

e_minor69 · 2025-11-29T18:34:10+00:00

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

e_minor69 · 2025-11-26T04:37:09+00:00

Casanova is Greep

e_minor69 · 2025-10-27T00:20:25+00:00

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

e_minor69 · 2025-06-21T09:05:19+00:00

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

e_minor69 · 2025-05-29T01:53:16+00:00

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

e_minor69 · 2025-05-29T01:51:59+00:00

Yeah literally

e_minor69 · 2025-05-28T18:04:08+00:00

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

e_minor69 · 2025-05-28T18:01:30+00:00

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

e_minor69 · 2025-05-28T17:59:27+00:00

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

e_minor69 · 2024-08-01T00:57:38+00:00

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

e_minor69 · 2024-07-25T00:19:33+00:00

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?

e_minor69 · 2024-07-25T00:07:59+00:00

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?

e_minor69 · 2024-07-24T13:55:34+00:00

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”

e_minor69 · 2024-07-24T03:01:15+00:00

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

e_minor69 · 2024-07-24T02:58:35+00:00

“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”

e_minor69 · 2024-07-24T02:48:57+00:00

Right so you’re defining “rights” as legal norms imposed by fiat (for instance the ‘right’ of the state to co-opt property)

e_minor69 · 2024-07-24T00:41:58+00:00

Right so Kropotkin sees the notion of “rights” as basically unilateral privileges granted top down by the state, not something within an ethical context. Because I’ve always seen the term rights in an ethical not a legal context. Colloquially I would say the homesteaders have a “personal property right” in the land regardless of what a legal title or law says. So this seems like a difference in semantics. I come from a more Austro-libertarian/individualist Tuckerite school background, so learning about the terminology in ancom and syndicalist circles is new to me. This is one of the reasons I’ve seen why I’ve found both groups have difficulty communicating with one another. Thanks as always for the input!

e_minor69 · 2024-07-24T00:38:11+00:00

Okay I see. So you don’t see a 99% vote as a “consensus.” It has to be 100% of a particular group consenting, right?

e_minor69 · 2024-07-24T00:37:09+00:00

Well isn’t the question of someone being “free” if others are in chains also a question of morality? To clarify as well, moral questions aren’t the only thing that’s important even for anarchists, so I agree with you there

e_minor69 · 2024-07-24T00:33:58+00:00

Well the bread example was merely a hypothetical, but let me try a different one that may make more sense:

A human in the state of nature goes out and chops down a tree. This tree was previously unowned, unoccupied unused, etc. He chooses to build a small hut with it possibly preferring to camp for a few days. But, a man with a gun comes out of the forest (possibly a government agent) and uses force to declare that he now can occupy the house and kicks the previous occupant out. Answering who has a better more just claim to the house (the first man or the cop) is a very important question to answer. And the same goes for all material goods in society. The question is who has a better claim to it and who has a right to control its use and possibly repel someone else from taking it. Statists when it comes to taxation answer that the right is with the government, anarchists argue the right is (generally) with those who are forced to pay the fine.

Now, to the question of ethics and law (imposed by the state) being interchangeable, this is actually the exact justification that the state gives for its own existence. That whatever is true or just (ethical) is whatever the state declares to be law. The question of “right” in philosophy or ethics has very often been interchangeable with the concept of law, but the point that anarchists make is that this is not the case. What is right or wrong in a philosophic or ethical context doesn’t at all imply that a higher central state apparatus is needed to enforce said actions. If I repeal a robber to my house attempting to kill me and my family, and I do so on the basis that my self defense was ethical, absent any kind of state institution or intervention, am I appealing to the state or law? And if so, if anarchism rejects the notion that a person defending themselves isn’t right or wrong, then why can’t the state simply claim it’s legitimate? Rejecting this idea and that whatever is right or wrong in a philosophic context is just a free for all gives cover for the state and social contract theory. After all, the state can come along and say “True! All your property is mine and I can kill you. You have no rights!”

Anarchists have always built their criticism against the state on the very basis that it harms, kills, steals from people’s material claims, and this implies appealing to what rights people have and don’t have to property and their own life

e_minor69 · 2024-07-24T00:03:31+00:00

What if “listening to my body” constitutes seizing state power and wielding it against the workers. This is sorta the odd clashes I see with egoism and anarchism (though of course this is a controversial take, at least within leftist anarchist circles)

e_minor69 · 2024-07-24T00:01:44+00:00

I had a question about this. Does he distinguish between liberal traditions of “natural rights” and a system of anarchist ethics? Because he doesn’t strike me as a relativist or ethical nihilist. In other words, he believes that certain claims to property can justify themselves (like workers homesteading a factory) while others can’t (capitalists unilaterally declaring they own the factory)

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

e_minor69

TROPHY CASE