Tampitump

Ah, the first pop music video and it's still great.

Nah, I think Elvis in the Beatles had them beat.

My guitar is home built. I made it out of a piece of alder, and I made the neck out of maple and ebony. I had a guy I know who paints motorcycles do the finish work on it. Its silver (electric guitar). I also have a Takamine acoustic guitar. I'm in the market for a new amp.

Yes, considering he died around the time you were born.. He's not very well known except amongst blues aficianados.really. You have good taste anyway. Blues of that kind speaks to my soul.

He's well known in the US even among the youngsters. To get straight up cultural and musical cluelessness you need to look one age group below mine.

 

Also, I'm a guitar player, so I know much more than the typical person.

You like SRV?

Hell yes. Does that surprise you?

That's a genre called 'skiffle', innit?

 

A little Chateau Lafite '45....a good year...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGrz6U4979c

Now there you go.

 

Pantera is my highschool days and it rocks!

 

Also Tampitump...you sometimes sound like a real a hole with comments like the one above. I know that you are far from being one and I tested that empiracly by talking to you drunk on the phone last weekend but keep in mind that most people did not have the privilege of meeting the intelligent, pretty princess Tampitump live

You turn into The Dude when you're drunk!

Also, it kills me that the female artists of today are more edgy and kick more ass than the male artists. Lady Gaga kicks ass, and is edgy as f*ck. Yet these little indie, hipster alternative rockers sound like they eat estrogen for breakfast every morning. What is this cancer of femininity vitiating rock and roll now? Get yourself a damn Marshall JCM800 half stack, crank that bitch up to 11, and ROCK N ROLL! God, I'm turning into a redneck again! lol

Hell, a goodly portion of the newer hard rock bands are female-fronted. They have more balls than the bitchy men now. Lzzy Hale from Halestorm kicks major ass. What's her face from Paramore kicks major ass. The chick from Evanescence kicks ass. There are many more I know that are even newer. It just kills me. Where is the next good hard rock band that will take the world by storm? Am I going to have to form it myself?

You listen to old music. This music is great.

I'm glad you like it. These silly little artists like this need someone to like them. I feel bad for them that they will never be remembered 50-60 years from now, yet bands like The Beatles, Queen, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, The Eagles, Van Halen, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Nirvana, and Alice in Chains will still have their legendary legacies on top of the 30-50 year legacies they already have today, and people will still seek them out. I may like old music, but that's where its at as far as I'm concerned. I'm always open to new music, but the sound of most modern music is something I just have an intolerance to. I guess I'm an old soul in that regard. Oh well.

I have to diagnose you with age.

I'm 25, so how does that fit with your prejudices?

 

I happen to be quite accomplished musician (not that that has anything to do with it). I posted one of my own videos on here, but took it down for personal reasons. This stuff you posted has been empirically proven to be crap, just so you know. It objectively sucks. lol

There's literally nothing but a feed back hum for the first 12 seconds. Wait till you hear the music. It'll kill ya.

Oh boy...the possibilities of what I could say about this bit of music, about the artist, and about the state of rock music today would be such that I could generate enough dislikes on one post as to cancel my membership here. Boy that was some awful crap in that video and I never want to hear sounds like that coming from a male music artist again (or even female).

Listening to just a few short seconds of this literally made my auditory cortex bleed.

what do you guys think of Mumf?

Don't like them. Not my musical cup of tea. In order for rock to be good, it must melt faces and kick ass. Mumford and Sons does neither of these things.

 

Here's some real rock n roll

 

 

 

Always liked the Krokus version of Ballroom Blitz. Its just adds the hair metal I crave into one of the coolest punk songs.

...

Never anything in particular. I listen mostly to older rock. I like 60s-early 90s mostly. Mainly 80s metal and 90s grunge.

 

Alice in Chains

Iron Maiden

Extreme

Ozzy Osbourne

Kiss

Aerosmith

AC/DC

Metallica

Pantera

Guns n Roses

Motley Crue

Van Halen

Skid Row

Queen

The Doors

The Beatles

Elvis Presley

And the list goes on.....

Not a science poem, but here's one I wrote. It's called "Somber Life":

 

These days are dreary as the very worst I've known

Somber life, as if the faintest light not shone

Sidewalk pavement gray to match the cloudy sky

Paints of color only shows up black and white

 

Heart's without a bottom, so what comes of it?

Soul replaced with no more than an empty pit

A quiet solipsistic world to promenade

Make a move and never was there much ground made

 

Tired and sleepy, lie in bed and never move

Somber life, you live it, nothing much improves

Singing, laughing, meaning, don't the least come true

How can you love life when life does not love you?

Two rednecks decide they want to better themselves by getting a college education, so they decide to apply to their local community college. They schedule a meeting with an adviser to see what classes they will have to take. Upon arriving at the adviser's office, the first redneck goes in for his appointment, while the other redneck waits outside:

 

Adviser: Well, it looks like I've got your first handful of classes right here. You'll need to take an algebra course, an English course, and a logic course.

 

Redneck: Wha...wha...what's logic???

 

 

The adviser pauses for a second, trying to think of a way to explain logic in a way that the redneck could relate to. Then he finally thinks of the right words and says:

 

 

Adviser: Well, let me explain it to you this way.....Do you own a weed-eater?

 

Redneck: Well, yeah.

 

Adviser: Okay, well since you own a weed-eater, I can use logic to assume that you likely own a yard, right?

 

Redneck: Yeah, oh yeah, I see what you're getting at.

 

Adviser: And if you own a yard, logic tells me that you likely own a house. And if you own a house, logic tells me you likely have a family. And if you have a family, logic tells me you have a wife, and if you have a wife, logic tells me you are heterosexual, right?

 

Redneck: Yes yes, that's really cool! I can't wait for this logic class!

 

 

The redneck exits the advisers office to the waiting room where his other redneck friend is waiting for his appointment. His redneck friend gets up and asks him:

 

 

Other Redneck: Well, what classes you got?

 

Redneck: I gotta take this neat logic class.

 

Other Redneck: Wha..wha...what's logic?

 

Redneck: Well, let me explain it to you this way.....Do you own a weed-eater?

 

Other Redneck: Um.....no.

 

Redneck: You must be queer then.

Comment would have been better if it said, "good science" does x,y,z. Since it just said "science" without qualification, it was flawed and wrong. We could also explore the distinction between science and scientists (as anthropomorphizing science does us no good, but focusing on individual scientists does), but I won't.

I do not qualify statements. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not representing science. I'm a hawkish lay person and redneck with a slightly better understanding of science and philosophy than my fellow rednecks of the south, nothing more. The conversations I'm in usually end up with me attacking not ideas, but people themselves (usually verbally). I'm more of a reactor than a thinker, and I DO judge books by their covers. When I make statements, they are usually sweeping, and I'm operating under the assumption that the people reading them will connect the dots and understand what I mean by them. I'm a lay person through and through. No careful thinking going on here.

 

Lol, the above was slightly hyperbolic and meant as a joke, but it still not far from accurate.

 

 

Let's not pat ourselves on our backs too hard. I've seen 'science' be quite disrespectful while presenting its position, including on this site.

I don't represent science of you're referring to me. I've constantly warned members of my attitude and stupidity.

I'd say there is GREAT conflict between religion and science, unlike Gould would have you believe. The conflict comes when religion makes an assertion about how the natural world is (i.e. Parthenogenesis in humans, global floods, 6-day creation stories, resurrections, etc.), science and religion have competing answers to these questions. This conflict is easily solvable by weighing the evidence presented by both sides. Science respectfully presents its position with mounds of empirical data and observation to support its case, never tries to use force or threats to coax people into belief, and doesn't claim to have the ultimate truth. Religion, on the other hand, asserts the utter perfection of its words, provides little to no evidence of its assertions, claims ownership of the truth so you can't refute it (if you do, it's your flawed nature), and tells you that you are an unworthy sinner who must burn eternally if you disagree. The choice between the two is about as clear as day.

 

When there is a conflict between what science says and what religion says, it is religion that has to be "re-interpreted" to fit the evidence of science, and not the other way around. Science has never had to nuance or re-interpret its position to be reconciled with religion. We'll, at least not without force, and not outside of religious minds. There is a conflict, and science is the victor without exception.