The Conan Performance..thoughts?

Look, I do not like what you are implying. I have not used probes of any sort in years. I much prefer small rodents.

Yeah, you and the Beastmaster...
beastmaster2.jpg
 
Yeah, but you see he's doing it all wrong. The creature won't find it's own way. You have to show it the tradesmans entrance!

Love finds a way...and so does life. At least, that is what Jeff Goldblum always says...and he should know.
 
I think it's possible to say that the song is average (or a touch above -- heard some new things in this rendition) and is certainly not a change in direction whatsoever for our Moz but still love this performance. It's one of his best TV appearances post-Quarry, I'd say. Morrissey is older but seems more youthful in this clip than in a lot of others from the past 7 years. He's having a good time and his voice is really, really strong. Look and listen to him again when he sings "The land the free, the home of the brave, exists Nowhere" -- fantastic.

Choosing the right producer will be key. Jesse is here to stay, so let's have a creative person leading the album who can give Jesse's sound an oil change, a shave, and contact lenses, still have contributions from outside writers (Alain or other talents) and we could have a great album.
 
I think it was a very good performance of a sub-par song. He rung just about every bit of goodness out of it and it was still just OK. I agree that Boz looked unenthused but I think Matt's drumming was among the more interesting parts of the performance. (What happened at about 1:53?...looked like Boz was swatting a fly that landed on his head.)
 
I wasn't insulting you. I was f***ing with you. There's a difference. I was simply saying you need to not be so sensitive if you are gonna participate in this. There are some right bastards 'round these parts. Unfortunately a lot of them are also the best posters, but that's another matter.

Anyway...

I like how you lob the term "oh well it's the internet" about as though this is some magical silly storybook and we're all just plasticine dolls on a child's dresser.

The fact that this forum is an internet forum doesn't make it any less real, or any less imbued with individual inputs from flesh and blood people with body parts and lives and feelings and thoughts and memories and all that good stuff.

It's a forum, a forum is a place where thoughts are expressed, thoughts come from people, people are real.

Don't let the glowing glass box in front of you fool you; this place is as "real" as you want it to be. Just because these individuals discussing things with you aren't literally in the same room, at the same table, doesn't make things any less tangible or valid. Anyone who says otherwise is over the age of 50.

Some of us are on opposite ends of the world from each other; twenty years ago this would have been impossible. But oh, science and oh, technology and oh, human perseverance...we have overcome distance and separation.

The illusion of disconnection is just that: an illusion. If you get hung up on the people here being too far away to consider real, well, that's your fantasy, not reality.

Listen to Allen Ginsberg! He can explain it much better than I can.



Firstly Allen doesn't explain himself very well and secondly i think his point is that the "viewer" or "listener" should not buy into the illusion that they are being spoken too directly by a "speaker" whlist they are watching TV. They are in reality separated in time and space and are in fact completely disconnected, which is almost the opposite of the point i think you are trying to make. Therefore if you go with Allen it would follow that to believe the internet is a "real forum" or "community" is to be fooled by an illusion created by some dots of light on a screen and that the discussions on these pages should actually be taken as less than "real" - then again maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is becoming hilarious.
 
Who the f*** cares, nobody gives a damn how much you want to caress Ginsberg's beard and balls, get a grip you psuedo intellectual twonk.
 
No, you're wrong. (I'm shocked...let me sit down.)

If you'd actually watched the clip, and listened (a daunting task at a whopping minute and twenty seconds, I know) you'd see that he is saying not to be fooled by the hardware, because the essence -two people communicating- is the tangible factor; not the medium connecting them.

Secondly, go to the Six Gallery in 1955, throw some coins in Jack's wine collection jar, then listen to Allen read Howl for the first time, watch a literary movement be born, and then come back qualified to tell me how Allen doesn't explain himself very well.

but the medium connecting us or the "hardware" (the one that we shouldn't be fooled into thinking is real) is in this case the internet - which means you just proved yourself wrong. Nobody was suggesting that you aren't a real person. Am puzzled by how you can think watching a youtube clip is a two way communication process by the way? How is that two people communicating? Try waving to Allen and see if he waves back, his point is that the screen (or the internet) is not reality - the reality is that he is (or was) looking into a camera and imagining the viewer. The connection is an illusion created by the technology. - he is warning against being fooled by the power of the medium into thinking the image is real. Yes you are real (i assume) but the internet is not a reality in itself and the image you project of yourself onto the internet isn't the real you. It should be taken as Peterb suggested with a pinch of salt

"take the film as an image with a grain of salt rather than as a final reality so that you don't get decieved" - ie he isn't there now as you watch the screen and he isn't communicating directly to you, it is imagined false communication.

I am qualified by the way because i am beat - I don't need to watch it to experience it - i breathe it

finally the reading of howl in 1955 was not the birth of the movement...........daddy o.
 
Last edited:
He looks great, he sounds fantastic, and he's chosen this opportunity to showcase his least interesting new song.

Morrissey's seemingly endless capacity for musical perversity continues to astonish.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a piss-poor cartoon; the bottle is still full, and he has webbed fingers. But hey, it's better than using actual words, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression I was allowed to debate a post expressed in my direction. Are you scared that some big words might be bandied about? You know how we "psuedo" intellectuals are...in addition to our knack for proper spelling.



I think you're convoluting things before you even get out of the door. How can "hardware" not be real?

Secondly, he was not referring to the hardware or the medium as "unreal"...he was referring to the concept of getting fixated on a transient medium as opposed to the act of interpersonal communication. But wait...



It's almost like you're intentionally swerving out of the way to avoid the point.

I wasn't under the impression anyone questioned anyone's reality of being.

A YouTube clip, or a phone call, or a Skype, or a news broadcast, or a text message is two-way communication. There is a sender and recipient (in the case of a YouTube clip, radio broadcast, etc) and if it is a phone call or a video chat or something, then both parties are senders/recipients. I wasn't saying that either the Ginsberg clip was an example of mutually reciprocal communication, or at least not the way a forum is, or even a phone call or a letter. I cited it simply to better explain my original point, which was that Peterb saying "oh well, it's the internet," i.e., "it doesn't matter, nothing is real here, so anything goes, it's la-la land" was not only a cop-out but a significant underestimation of this place, or any forum. But you can take it out of this spectrum and translate it to chatrooms, YouTube, Skype, whatever....

Back in 1968 or whenever the hell Ginsberg filmed that, there was obviously no internet. He was making a film or a broadcast, or whatever. But his point is still applicable...that in his communicating to the viewer, the viewer should not get disillusioned by the medium, but focus on the message and the act of communication.



You're right and you're wrong; moreso the latter. He was saying the screen was not the final reality. In other words, he was imploring the recipient not to get fixated on the form of communication, but the communication itself, as an act of valid human expression. He was using the term "imagine" in the sense of "picture things, understand things in your mind and see how they are" rather than "imagine" the way a novelist imagines a character or a little child makes up an action-figure battle.



Yes, it is. Only a fool would say that a forum is the same thing as a debate class, or a gathering of friends at the bar or something, but that doesn't make the internet any less of a reality than those things are.

When you play a Morrissey record, do you really think Morrissey is in the room singing to you? No...(unless you're Crystal Geezer.) The literal reality is that you are listening to a technologically manipulated sound recording of a moment (or series of moments, actually, glued together) that happened once and which you are taking advantage of being able to reproduce at will because of a piece of plastic you own, or not even, maybe just a digital series of numbered data that a computer translates into musical sound. But does that make it any less meaningful to you? Does that diminish the art? Of course not....because the message, the expression, the communication is what matters. The medium is always secondary to the message.



That's an arbitrary assessment. Sure, people can create facades online, but they can do that in real life, too. And they often do, sometimes much more profoundly than they do online. So the point becomes moot when applied here.

At least online, as opposed to in person, there's an element of anonymity. A great tool of control, so a person can meter out the personality displayed. And what happens then, ironically, when you provide a mask? You get the real person. Obviously there are exceptions, but think about that.



No. You're wrong. It's "take the film as an image with a grain of salt rather than as a final reality so that you don't get deceived" i.e. "take the medium as an unimportant vehicle conveying the real point. It is an imagined finality, but it is a temporarily necessary reality used to traffic the cargo of eternal human communication."



There is no "qualification"...going out of your way to justify yourself only betrays your underlying sense of indecisiveness regarding your stance. I am happy you are into Beat culture, but that doesn't make your opinion on this subject any more or less valid in my eyes.

And obviously that night wasn't really the "birth of the movement"; that was sarcastic hyperbole. There was no movement. There was no "movement"...that's a retroactive media creation to sell books. I think it was Gregory Corso who said, "the Beat Generation was basically three people...and a generation isn't three people."

And the daddy-o thing...that's a joke. That's a lot of Hollywood bullshit. Those assholes that talked that way and wore the fag berets and played bongos and all that...I mean, that's just afterbirth. That was cultural dysentery, as far as I'm concerned. The media trying to comedicize something it didn't understand and didn't want to acknowledge.

That's what the media does when it's afraid of you...it tries to turn you into a cartoon.

"he was not referring to the hardware or the medium as "unreal"...he was referring to the concept of getting fixated on a transient medium" - which in this case is the internet - the message is don't get fixated by it, take it with a pinch of salt - again you defeat yourself

He is warning against the power of tv - thats why he mentions the newscaster and how we should not be fooled into thinking the commincation is direct - anyway nevermind people can judge for themselves - its become a pretty boring discussion

communication where there is only a "sender and recipient" is not two way - its one way, even though there is two people involved only one is communicating the other is just listening - not sure why you can't understand that, a youtube clip or any clip of film is only one way, you must realise this, you just don't want to admit it for some reason. I understand what you are saying though but i think you have completely misunderstood the clip. I can't keep explaining it

can i suggest instead of re-reading howl you step outside and let one go at the moon like an unhappy pig, you might learn something about yourself and the universe.

listen i managed to derail this horrid little thread completely and so at least i achieved something here.

you are turning yourself into a cartoon by the way, you don't seem to need any help from the medium, whats with all this camp spite? - can't you just be nice?
 
He looks great, he sounds fantastic, and he's chosen this opportunity to showcase his least interesting new song.

Morrissey's seemingly endless capacity for musical perversity continues to astonish.

+1 Nice...
 
If Morrissey's new songs were half as boring as the tedium that is reading one of your posts you might have a point Skylarker.
 
I wasn't insulting you. I was f***ing with you. There's a difference. I was simply saying you need to not be so sensitive if you are gonna participate in this. There are some right bastards 'round these parts. Unfortunately a lot of them are also the best posters, but that's another matter.

Anyway...

I like how you lob the term "oh well it's the internet" about as though this is some magical silly storybook and we're all just plasticine dolls on a child's dresser.

The fact that this forum is an internet forum doesn't make it any less real, or any less imbued with individual inputs from flesh and blood people with body parts and lives and feelings and thoughts and memories and all that good stuff.

It's a forum, a forum is a place where thoughts are expressed, thoughts come from people, people are real.

Don't let the glowing glass box in front of you fool you; this place is as "real" as you want it to be. Just because these individuals discussing things with you aren't literally in the same room, at the same table, doesn't make things any less tangible or valid. Anyone who says otherwise is over the age of 50.

Some of us are on opposite ends of the world from each other; twenty years ago this would have been impossible. But oh, science and oh, technology and oh, human perseverance...we have overcome distance and separation.

The illusion of disconnection is just that: an illusion. If you get hung up on the people here being too far away to consider real, well, that's your fantasy, not reality.

Listen to Allen Ginsberg! He can explain it much better than I can.


Hey Skylarker, the debate between yourself and Smiler is an interesting one and in a sense the very fact that you are at loggerheads illustrates a point. Whilst I believe you are correct to say that despite the limitations of the medium, the ideas and sentiments exchanged are real, I think you are not taking onboard the importance of those limitations. For example, you say you were not insulting me (and I believe you) but all I had was your words to read, any further subtleties I am unable to grasp. This is what I meant when I said that about the internet, because the form of communication is so stilted, you cannot expect the exchange of ideas to be the same as talking to someone in the same room and often we all get into a confused fog of words which can descend into a slanging match. You and Smiler would reach accord if you met over a coffee I'm sure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom