|
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:45 am 
Cendrillon wrote: He looks kind of like a creeper in that picture. I don't really know who he is, so whatever. ohhh i know. but. that was when he was on drugs, so yeahhhh. hah. you dont... know tom delonge..?  http://cache.umusic.com/images/local/500/1e1ef48c-d577-4f89-bb7b-5d2e1 7bedcae.jpg
one on far left. blink-182 box car racer angels and airwaves if you havent noticed he is my god. |
|
|
Joined: 25 Aug 2007 | Posts: 127 | Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
|
   |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:50 am
This is about Eisley tattoos. Once more. 
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 | Posts: 20735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:50 am
patrock wrote: This is about Eisley tattoos. Once more. but they said they dont know tom so i had to show them 
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Aug 2007 | Posts: 127 | Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:52 am
patrock wrote: This is about Eisley tattoos. Once more. it's not like theres never been a topic on the eisley part of the forum that went way off track. _________________ I used to be Snow White but I drifted -Mae West |
|
|
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 | Posts: 666 | Location: Maryland
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:06 am
kathymunster wrote: patrock wrote: This is about Eisley tattoos. Once more. it's not like theres never been a topic on the eisley part of the forum that went way off track. Yeah, but Tom Dewhatever is gross. 
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 | Posts: 20735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:56 pm
patrock wrote: kathymunster wrote: patrock wrote: This is about Eisley tattoos. Once more. it's not like theres never been a topic on the eisley part of the forum that went way off track. Yeah, but Tom Dewhatever is gross. he's not gross D: i'd do him forreal. there is no other guy i'd have sex with only tom NO JOKE. 
^ not gross at all to stay on topic because you care so much.. if i was going to get an eisley tattoo, it would have to be the rabbit someone already posted, i have that shirt. and yes i would keep sherri's signature in it.. i actually named it white rabbit, after the song
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Aug 2007 | Posts: 127 | Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:02 pm
mybrotherisadino wrote: i actually named it white rabbit, after the song Eisley and Jefferson Airplane...that's an odd combination, but it works (if kept literal). |
|
|
Joined: 28 Jun 2005 | Posts: 2574 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:51 pm
oliez wrote: mybrotherisadino wrote: i actually named it white rabbit, after the song Eisley and Jefferson Airplane...that's an odd combination, but it works (if kept literal). yes. it works. 
cool psychedelic music from two generations |
|
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 | Posts: 70 | Location: Flagstaff, AZ
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:57 am
gilbert wrote: oliez wrote: mybrotherisadino wrote: i actually named it white rabbit, after the song Eisley and Jefferson Airplane...that's an odd combination, but it works (if kept literal). yes. it works.
cool psychedelic music from two generations i... wouldn't call eisley psychedelic. |
|
|
Joined: 25 Aug 2007 | Posts: 127 | Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:25 am
mybrotherisadino wrote: gilbert wrote: oliez wrote: mybrotherisadino wrote: i actually named it white rabbit, after the song Eisley and Jefferson Airplane...that's an odd combination, but it works (if kept literal). yes. it works.
cool psychedelic music from two generations i... wouldn't call eisley psychedelic. some songs i wonder... idk tho point of view 
|
|
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 | Posts: 70 | Location: Flagstaff, AZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:28 am
gilbert wrote: mybrotherisadino wrote: i... wouldn't call eisley psychedelic. some songs i wonder...idk tho point of view Some songs? Like the ones they wrote when they were children? |
|
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 | Posts: 20735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:51 pm
patrock wrote: gilbert wrote: mybrotherisadino wrote: i... wouldn't call eisley psychedelic. some songs i wonder...idk tho point of view Some songs? Like the ones they wrote when they were children? Eisley may not be strictly psychedelic... you know the drugs part. But they do have psychedelic tendencies. Certain production techniques et cetera. I'll say this, some Eisley songs and drugs go together like peas and carrots.  _________________ Power is only pain It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in. "Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?" -memo from 1952 Project ARTICHOKE 
|
|
|
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 | Posts: 10565 | Location: Somewhere in the middle of nowhere
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:18 pm
Pantheon4 wrote: patrock wrote: gilbert wrote: mybrotherisadino wrote: i... wouldn't call eisley psychedelic. some songs i wonder...idk tho point of view Some songs? Like the ones they wrote when they were children? Eisley may not be strictly psychedelic... you know the drugs part. But they do have psychedelic tendencies. Certain production techniques et cetera. I'll say this, some Eisley songs and drugs go together like peas and carrots. I'm personally not a big peas person i separate mine and eat the carrots. All though i do agree to a minor degree when they use effects, very minor. _________________ I've gotten so good at lying to myself. When I fly solo, I fly so high. |
|
|
Joined: 05 Dec 2007 | Posts: 554 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:47 am
singsoftly wrote: Pantheon4 wrote: patrock wrote: gilbert wrote: mybrotherisadino wrote: i... wouldn't call eisley psychedelic. some songs i wonder...idk tho point of view Some songs? Like the ones they wrote when they were children? Eisley may not be strictly psychedelic... you know the drugs part. But they do have psychedelic tendencies. Certain production techniques et cetera. I'll say this, some Eisley songs and drugs go together like peas and carrots. I'm personally not a big peas person i separate mine and eat the carrots. All though i do agree to a minor degree when they use effects, very minor. I don't think most people 'get' a lot of studio effects unless they're high. Listening to them without drugs is like watching a 3D movie without the glasses. When I'm high my favorite thing to do is to listen to music, because the experience seems more profound. Normally, music is like a tunnel. Yeah I'm going from one end to the other... I might see some interesting graffiti on the wall... It's fun et cetera et cetera. But when I'm high music seems like a door filled hallway. And I can go into any or all of these rooms and experience the song there. Yeah a good song is a good song. BUT have you ever listened to a good song curled into a ball and from the bottom right of its 'basement'? Have you ever stood on a song and looked down from its edge? If you haven't, shut the $#@! up! FYI: I don't get high that often, but it's so fun when I do. NO hard drugs though. _________________ Power is only pain It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in. "Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?" -memo from 1952 Project ARTICHOKE
|
|
|
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 | Posts: 10565 | Location: Somewhere in the middle of nowhere
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:34 am
Well, I'm not crazy about huge, ever expanding quote blocks, and I don't have time to unravel who said what, so forgive me: someone wrote: i... wouldn't call eisley psychedelic. someone else wrote: some songs i wonder...idk tho point of view Really? I think the only reason you ever heard anything about the fairy-unicorn fantasy -kiddie music nonsense was because lazy disingenuous music journalists latched onto the backstory without thinking clearly about the music. Warner trying to pedal them as some teenie girl-band novelty act didn't help. What was taken for childishness would have been, in any other context, interpreted as esoteric/neo-psychodellic/allegorical/etc. someone else wrote: Some songs? Like the ones they wrote when they were children? Well, I think they did have some songs that were more identifiably "young" i.e. trolleywood, maybe sea king, a couple of other of their poppier ones, and later the regrettable brightly wound (apologies to those who love it), but not the ones that got the attention for being "kiddie fantasy music" for their (very proggy) neo-psy tendencies- that stuff doesn't sound immature at all. They mastered the classic (moss)Eisley"sinister-ecstatic dialectic" device too well and too early for most of that stuff to sound at all immature-regardless of lyrical themes- with those rays of sunshine cutting through the dark undercurrents - those crunching, authoritative guitars over that slightly mad, nervous edgyness in the Stacy's piano lines. They were so bloody good; and too confident. To peg that stuff as in some way childish or immature? Well, someone wasn't listening to the music. The other of the early stuff of their's I've heard that sounds a bit less mature (but impressive for their age at the time) is the more identifiably- maybe even self consciously genre-typical gothic (and therefore perhaps a bit less interesting) stuff that they really didn't do much else with later (sleepyhead, dream for me, etc- It would be nice to see them do smthng with Cobolt though)- and thats probably as much the sound of early, still maturing Eisley/Mosseisley as anything. Its not that I don't like that sound- I very much like the vein of that aesthetic that carries through to their more complex, original, and interesting stuff, and that they have it in them. When I first saw Eisley, they looked young (I didn't realize how young they actually were), but they f-ing rocked. It was hooky and melodic with those delicately intense ethereal vocals, but drenched in driving distortion, feedback and effects; As in- "goes well with dark indie clubs in Deep Ellum and one too many Shiners". Absent the backstory, or if they had been older they would have been triangulated squarely into the shoegaze/art-rock/noise/dreampop/melodic goth/neo-psy space, all of which tends towards the esoteric, both sonically and lyrically, and no-one would have given their lyrics a second thought. They could just as easily have sprung from Liverpool or Manchester Circa mid-eighties (and no-one ever called Echo and the Bunnymen "my little pony rock" for references to dancing horses). All of that, of course, was totally obscured by the production values on their Warner studio material, so its not surprising that it isn't clear to most of the folks whose first intro to Eisley was through that material. When I read reviews citing Sixpence/sundays/etc comparisons, my thought was, "either Eisley's changed unrecognizably, or whoever wrote that has never seen Eisley." Frankly, I assumed they had a deadline, guessed based on appearances, and struck out. Personally, when I first heard them, I thought they sounded like a mash-up between JAMC or MBV and the Cocteau Twins (but with two or three Elizabeth Fraziers), with some haunting overtones of folksy/gospelly americana for uniqueness' sake. Look at early interviews with Stacy- her influences weren't "my little pony", they were Floyd and the Beatles. That would make them, almost by definition, at least partly neo-psy. someone else wrote: Eisley may not be strictly psychedelic... you know the drugs part. But they do have psychedelic tendencies. Certain production techniques et cetera. I'll say this, some Eisley songs and drugs go together like peas and carrots. I wouldn't know, My days of "peas and carrots" are (gratefully) far, far in the distant past (not vegetables I recommend, frankly). But yes, I imagine they probably would. They also go VERY well without. same person- aka forum resident sharpie wrote: I don't think most people 'get' a lot of studio effects unless they're high. Listening to them without drugs is like watching a 3D movie without the glasses. ... If you haven't, shut the $#@! up! FYI: I don't get high that often, but it's so fun when I do. NO hard drugs though. Well, I disagree. Some peoples brains are wired such that they can intrinsically appreciate certain aesthetics to a high degree of sensation naturally; others aren't. Maybe its that some people are a little closer to crazy than others . If I needed that kind of help to appreciate an aesthetic, I'ld find another aesthetic. Lest you assume I don't know what I'm missing, well, so much for assuming- and thats all we'll say about that.
Personally, the effects, for instance that are used heavily on the lead-ins/breaks on certain live versions of memories/mr. pine etc. send shivers up and down my spine just fine as is. I could very well be wrong, but given that I assume the girls don't have a heck of a lot of experience with hallucinogens, One could take their very effective employment of devices common throughout many kinds of explicitly psychedelic music as additional evidence that appreciation of those kinds of effects doesn't demand "help" for everyone. Yeah Yeah, I know, long post. dont like it? don't read it. Oh yeah-- the rabbit is a great tatoo- There, see? not totally O/T 
P.P.S. mybrotherisadino wrote: if you havent noticed he is my god. please get help |
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 | Posts: 1759 | Location: Dallas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> eisleyBlog -> Tattoo
Page 4 of 9 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
