Paramore, a band that have received much news recently because of their massive break up. Yes, the Farro brothers are gone. Do I think it will affect their music much? Yes. Do I think it's necessarily a negative affect? No. But that's beside the point of this article.
Paramore debuted with 'All We Know Is Falling' an album filled with both incredible vibrant punk and cool rock. Their next hit album, 'Riot', was a big step up, all their songs were action-filled, with every instrument playing at peak. They were so alive, so punky. Their most recent album, 'Brand New Eyes', was both a horrific step backwards and a great step forward. They lost much of their liveliness, instead maturing. However, they don't seem to be totally aware of this, and try to play new songs as the band they once were, with mixed results. Songs like Careful and Where The Lines Overlap are stunning, but compared to the band they don't really deliver the full potential.
'Hallelujah' is just beautiful. Stunning guitar, complimentary drums, and poignant lyrics make songs like this beautiful. Likewise, the "Only Exception"'s cool simplicity and stunning complexity make it equally as good. But it's with singles like 'Turn It Off' , 'Brighter', 'All We Know' and 'Ignorance' that I feel the band really shines brightest. The electric feel of creativity, the sheer brilliance of all the parts add up to a hell of a great song, again and again and again.
Apparently, Haley Williams is a horrible, controlling and demanding person who forced her own opinion on the band and that the others were forced to "ride the curtails of her dream". This was said by one of the Farro brothers as they left the band, so I'm not quite sure how objective they are.
Sound:9/10
Friday, 15 July 2011
Music Review-Rise Against
Rise against are a hardcore melodic punk band. They have a wide variety of music, ranging from screaming full blast to surprisingly sweet and gentle. No song of theirs is simply a love song, they all carry meanings, from contentment with a less-than-perfect life, homelessness, refuges and war. They have a very unique sound, and are worth a listen.
One of the things that draws me to this band is their great writing. You could really use their lyrics in stories. For example:
Simply because you can breath,
Doesn't mean your alive,
Or than you truly live.
There. The beginning of a rousing speech, no?
Another thing that drew me to them was, as I mentioned, their sheer variety. Each time I hear a song of theirs, it's my favourite until I hear the next one. Their are no "filler" songs, every song is crafted with care to spread a message, and create an awesome sound. They have such a variety that it is hard to find a person who hates all of their music.
The band themselves are morally admirable. They are all Vegans, and all but the drummer have rejected alcohol from their lives. They are, in essence, good, both in how they sing, how they act, and how they play. Their well written and intelligent songs mesmerise their fans to this day.
Sound-8/10
One of the things that draws me to this band is their great writing. You could really use their lyrics in stories. For example:
Simply because you can breath,
Doesn't mean your alive,
Or than you truly live.
There. The beginning of a rousing speech, no?
Another thing that drew me to them was, as I mentioned, their sheer variety. Each time I hear a song of theirs, it's my favourite until I hear the next one. Their are no "filler" songs, every song is crafted with care to spread a message, and create an awesome sound. They have such a variety that it is hard to find a person who hates all of their music.
The band themselves are morally admirable. They are all Vegans, and all but the drummer have rejected alcohol from their lives. They are, in essence, good, both in how they sing, how they act, and how they play. Their well written and intelligent songs mesmerise their fans to this day.
Sound-8/10
Musicovery!
This site is God.
Musicovery. So many songs, so many great ideas. From the mood player, to the music map, it is amazing! You really must try it. I can honestly say it's better than Last FM, and free, too, so you have nothing to lose by simply trying. Of all the music sites out there, Musicovery is my top dog. I simply cannot endorse this enough. Use it, and be amazed!
Musicovery. So many songs, so many great ideas. From the mood player, to the music map, it is amazing! You really must try it. I can honestly say it's better than Last FM, and free, too, so you have nothing to lose by simply trying. Of all the music sites out there, Musicovery is my top dog. I simply cannot endorse this enough. Use it, and be amazed!
Ten Creationist Arguments Disproved.
Thanks to the wonderful RationalWiki for arguments 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9.
"1: You can't get cider from pears, you can't get men from monkeys, and that's that"
Bulmers pear cider, and evolution. Need I say more?
"2: Evolution is just a theory"
Sometimes the phrase "evolution is only a theory" will be heard. This phrase rests on the common assumption that a theory is something that is possible but not proven. Science, however, defines theory as a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or observation. This sets it at a significantly higher level of reasoning than "wild and unproven guess", which is what is implied when this argument is mentioned. Note that creationists don't say that gravity is "only a theory." And if anyone says you can't directly observe evolution, send them to professor Lenski.
"3: You can't falsify evolution, therefore it's not science"
This would be correct, if it weren't untrue. For any theory to be accepted as scientific it must be falsifiable. In other words it must be capable of making statements which could theoretically be disproved. Evolution's opponents claim that the theory of Evolution does not have this property, although this claim can be easily rejected. Theoretically, evolution could be falsified if scientists discovered an organism so complex and unique, with absolutely no explainable path as to how it could have evolved. Such an organism has not been found. Likewise, if it could be proven that mutations do not exist, or that, if mutation exists, it is not passed on, or, that if it is passed on, it doesn't affect the way it acts, these would all falsify evolution. However-it still hasn't been falsified.
"4: The eye! How could something as complex as an eye build up in small steps?"
Frequently, believers in creationism cite the eye as an example of something too complex to have evolved. The argument is frequently presented with a question of the type, "What use is half an eye?". However if the question is recast as "Given a choice, would you prefer to be completely blind or have 50% of your present vision?", then it becomes clear that the question is badly formed, especially when keeping in mind that many species manage to survive with significantly less advanced eyes. Examples include the polychaete worms, which can distinguish between light and dark;[5] the simple eye-cup of the flatworms, for finding the direction of a light source; jellyfish and scallops, with simple eyes for detecting movement;[6]the famous compound eyes of the insects, which can make out simple shapes, and ultimately the sophisticated single-lens eyes of the molluscs and vertebrates.
"5: If Natural Selection means that creatures evolve because of random helpful mutations, then explain the Peacock!"
As yes, the peacock. At first glance, it's bright, attention-grabbing feathers seem to defy evolution, for shouldn't such plumage attract predators and doom this mutant, therefore deleting it's genes from the genepool and making the bird a logical puzzle. However, a test was instigated. Male peacocks were introduced to females, some with tail feathers in tact, others with tail feathers clipped. The ones with clipped feathers got little to know mating, whilst the lucky feathered birds mated and thus produced offspring. You see, females instinctively seek males with vibrant tail feathers, as they have the stronger genes. So, evolution wins again.
"6: Evolution states the world is over 6000 years old. However, our good book states otherwise, so evolution is untrue"
This has been paraphrased to me over and over again. Each and every time I hear it, I say "So, it disagrees with your beliefs, and therefore it's wrong. Huh. I'm done talking with you". If someone lists this in a debate, than they're not worth debating with.
"7: God is outside the laws of nature"
So? If that were the case, then we could see God' unnatural affects on the world. No such evidence of any such processes have been documented. Therefore, God has not acted and is unimportant to any argument of science.
"8: Godditit"
Creationists can claim anything by saying Godditit. But for this argument to work at all, they have to prove the existence of God. Good luck, kids. Get back to me on that.
"9: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
"1: You can't get cider from pears, you can't get men from monkeys, and that's that"
Bulmers pear cider, and evolution. Need I say more?
"2: Evolution is just a theory"
Sometimes the phrase "evolution is only a theory" will be heard. This phrase rests on the common assumption that a theory is something that is possible but not proven. Science, however, defines theory as a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or observation. This sets it at a significantly higher level of reasoning than "wild and unproven guess", which is what is implied when this argument is mentioned. Note that creationists don't say that gravity is "only a theory." And if anyone says you can't directly observe evolution, send them to professor Lenski.
"3: You can't falsify evolution, therefore it's not science"
This would be correct, if it weren't untrue. For any theory to be accepted as scientific it must be falsifiable. In other words it must be capable of making statements which could theoretically be disproved. Evolution's opponents claim that the theory of Evolution does not have this property, although this claim can be easily rejected. Theoretically, evolution could be falsified if scientists discovered an organism so complex and unique, with absolutely no explainable path as to how it could have evolved. Such an organism has not been found. Likewise, if it could be proven that mutations do not exist, or that, if mutation exists, it is not passed on, or, that if it is passed on, it doesn't affect the way it acts, these would all falsify evolution. However-it still hasn't been falsified.
"4: The eye! How could something as complex as an eye build up in small steps?"
Frequently, believers in creationism cite the eye as an example of something too complex to have evolved. The argument is frequently presented with a question of the type, "What use is half an eye?". However if the question is recast as "Given a choice, would you prefer to be completely blind or have 50% of your present vision?", then it becomes clear that the question is badly formed, especially when keeping in mind that many species manage to survive with significantly less advanced eyes. Examples include the polychaete worms, which can distinguish between light and dark;[5] the simple eye-cup of the flatworms, for finding the direction of a light source; jellyfish and scallops, with simple eyes for detecting movement;[6]the famous compound eyes of the insects, which can make out simple shapes, and ultimately the sophisticated single-lens eyes of the molluscs and vertebrates.
"5: If Natural Selection means that creatures evolve because of random helpful mutations, then explain the Peacock!"
As yes, the peacock. At first glance, it's bright, attention-grabbing feathers seem to defy evolution, for shouldn't such plumage attract predators and doom this mutant, therefore deleting it's genes from the genepool and making the bird a logical puzzle. However, a test was instigated. Male peacocks were introduced to females, some with tail feathers in tact, others with tail feathers clipped. The ones with clipped feathers got little to know mating, whilst the lucky feathered birds mated and thus produced offspring. You see, females instinctively seek males with vibrant tail feathers, as they have the stronger genes. So, evolution wins again.
"6: Evolution states the world is over 6000 years old. However, our good book states otherwise, so evolution is untrue"
This has been paraphrased to me over and over again. Each and every time I hear it, I say "So, it disagrees with your beliefs, and therefore it's wrong. Huh. I'm done talking with you". If someone lists this in a debate, than they're not worth debating with.
"7: God is outside the laws of nature"
So? If that were the case, then we could see God' unnatural affects on the world. No such evidence of any such processes have been documented. Therefore, God has not acted and is unimportant to any argument of science.
"8: Godditit"
Creationists can claim anything by saying Godditit. But for this argument to work at all, they have to prove the existence of God. Good luck, kids. Get back to me on that.
"9: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
This is usually considered to be argument from ignorance, summed up by the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Of course, it will be always impossible to disprove a supernatural explanation; the supernatural by definition hides in our lack of knowledge about the world. Originally, the gods made the plants grow until we noticed that plants came from seeds, then they pulled chariots across the sky in the form of the moon and the sun until we noticed that they moved of their own accord. Now, supernatural entities exist only where believers in them put them; "outside" the realms of reality, and when those are disproved, the boundaries will be pushed back further.
You will never disprove what, almost by definition alone, will lie outside what can and can't be disproved. But then again, that's the point of this particular escape hatch.
In a less supernatural sense, this argument is similar to Russel's teapot - disproving things can be very tricky when the burden of proof doesn't actually lie with you. We cannot conclusively disprove a global flood or the claim that it made the Grand Canyon, all we can do is state that there is no evidence for it and conclude that in all likelihood, there is no evidence because it didn't actually happen.
"10: The Peanut Butter Argument: You say matter and energy sometimes create life, shouldn't Peanut Butter (matter), which is exposed to light and head (energy), at least sometimes create life? But millions and millions of us open Peanut butter jars every day, and no monkeys or birds flu out of them!"
Yeah. The problem with this, of course, is that Peanut Butter jars, at least in my experience, are generally not billion year-old volcanic environments rich in ammonia and methane, being bombarded by high energy cosmic rays. Also, the millions of times you've tested it pale in comparison to the trillions of times it's been tested over earth's billion year history. Finally, how do you know there's no life? Most likely, any life created would be immediately killed by the preservatives inside the Peanut Butter (that is their job), and any that survived were consumed and digested by you. So know, shining light on peanut butter will not magically create birds, but it may create single strings of organised chemicals. Seriously, when was the last time you tested it?
A Trampoline Is My Psychiatrist
Me, I'm your average teenager. I have problems, annoyances, pent up frustrations, things I hate. One thing I find incredibly therapeutic is my trampoline. Just jumping, becoming weightless. You seem stronger, taller, higher on a trampoline, where your every move is rewarded with a spring upwards. It just gets things out of your head, you know? On ground level, I may be Conor, totally inept at anything social and stuck in his own head. In the air, well, things literally fall away, and you can think.
Parents, if you have one of those death traps in your garden for your kids, try jumping. It feels good, relieves tension, which I imagine you have no lack of.
Over and out.
Parents, if you have one of those death traps in your garden for your kids, try jumping. It feels good, relieves tension, which I imagine you have no lack of.
Over and out.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Title
I never did tell you about the title of this blog. Raining On The Ocean, eh? Pretty weird. But also kind of romantic. I decided I wanted a romantic title. It was either Winter Winds Across A Summerscape or Raining On The Ocean. I settled for the latter, and I think I chose right.
The whole theme of he title is basically "Water Of A Duck's Back". I mean, life can throw storms at you, but though they wreak havoc and hell on the surface, the ripples are only skin-deep.
Wow, deep, philosophical stuff, huh?
The whole theme of he title is basically "Water Of A Duck's Back". I mean, life can throw storms at you, but though they wreak havoc and hell on the surface, the ripples are only skin-deep.
Wow, deep, philosophical stuff, huh?
Last Night Was A Good Night
So, my first blog post. This should be fun.
Maybe I should start with a story of how this blog came to be. The day before yesterday, my Dad and I pitched a tent in our back garden. It barely fit, we had only a few spare inches, but we did it. It was all for my brother. He had gone on a camping sleepover, and wanted to do the same, so he and his six ten-year old friends slept in the tent that night. Or, they should have, but they got scared out there and trudged into the sitting room, where I intercepted them and parked them firmly on the kitchen floor, in a bid to not wake up my parents. They were up all night. It was hell for us adults (or, in my case, semi-adult), but they loved it. So I invited all my friends to stay over the next night.
We faced one disaster after another, from dad's Swedish friends coming over to his american pall dropping in for a surprise visit. Two of the three I invited couldn't make it, and we were pretty fed up by the time we got to the intent. Cue three hours of the most epic conversation, music playing and game invention ever known to man kind. We discussed a wide range of topics, from Harry Potter to Twilight to our families to our tastes in music to whatever we could think of. And one of the things we discussed?
Blogging. Which is why this is here. So, in summery-
Camping+disaster+conversation=Blog.
Maybe I should start with a story of how this blog came to be. The day before yesterday, my Dad and I pitched a tent in our back garden. It barely fit, we had only a few spare inches, but we did it. It was all for my brother. He had gone on a camping sleepover, and wanted to do the same, so he and his six ten-year old friends slept in the tent that night. Or, they should have, but they got scared out there and trudged into the sitting room, where I intercepted them and parked them firmly on the kitchen floor, in a bid to not wake up my parents. They were up all night. It was hell for us adults (or, in my case, semi-adult), but they loved it. So I invited all my friends to stay over the next night.
We faced one disaster after another, from dad's Swedish friends coming over to his american pall dropping in for a surprise visit. Two of the three I invited couldn't make it, and we were pretty fed up by the time we got to the intent. Cue three hours of the most epic conversation, music playing and game invention ever known to man kind. We discussed a wide range of topics, from Harry Potter to Twilight to our families to our tastes in music to whatever we could think of. And one of the things we discussed?
Blogging. Which is why this is here. So, in summery-
Camping+disaster+conversation=Blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)