Musical Evolution

As I succumb slowly and painfully to this advancement of age, this creeping, crippling world of "getting older," I find that my tastes in music are becoming increasingly complex. This happens for many, if not all people in some capacity with whatever subject in which they take interest. Hence the pursuit of a career in that field, the practice of a hobby, or any other way one chooses to dedicate or invest a serious amount of their time. Musical discovery happens to be one of the fields that fall into this category, and I've noticed that, as I continue to uncover sounds I've not before heard, my standards are raised, making it increasingly difficult for me to be impressed.

One way that a band can easily keep my attention is by continuously developing their sound. This is a suspect phrase, because "development" doesn't necessarily mean "innovation" - that's an important distinction to make. When artists are able to continuously create new material that manages to adhere to the old ideal while pushing the boundaries of capability,  those artists are candidates for my loyalty and respect.

As long as they don't suck dick.

Once a band begins to meet spotlight status, they can go many ways; few are acceptable. Example: Deftones has, since their conception, evolved their music in such a way that it remains heavy (granted, of late, not as heavy as previous albums) and still breaks new ground, every time. It becomes more polished, more dynamic, wholly satisfying. This is due largely to their ability to maintain sight of what they enjoy, in lieu of how bogged down with copycats and dick-suckers their environment tends to be.

Sometimes I feel like a music elitist. Don't worry; I don't hate sound-blacks. ...Can you imagine if music was a skin colour? There's be 50 or 60 more races and it would be absurd. People would look like cows and zebras with all the genre crossovers. All my friends would be constantly screaming.

Another example: System of a Down began in a much different place than they ended. I notice that when a group wants to break up while remaining friends, but can't do both due to their popularity, they say "hiatus" with every breath and then never return to their cohesive form. I can't say for sure, but it's my belief that System is no more because of the direction they were taken musically. They lost their sound in the interest of a more coherent political message; this was unnecessary, since most of the die-hards knew what they were talking about at initiation.

Meshuggah is fairly genre-locked; progressive math-rock is extremely specific. Yet, they keep from suffocating within the limits of their style of music, somehow creating art from sources that others would deem tapped.

My point is that, much like natural selection (actually, it's literally natural selection, isn't it? I'm so terrible with similes because they always end up being exactly what I'm comparing instead of just similar to it), bands who don't at least attempt to evolve, develop, or innovate their sound - Disturbed's last three albums have been the same rehashed and remixed drivel and have caused me to listen to them so infrequently that I almost forget they exist - quickly become repetitive and boring. Bands interested in changing their sound so drastically that they're near-unrecognizable should either start a new band, or just not do that. The few and far between who succeed in evolving in the best of ways, well, they're gold to me.

"Sinister" is an All-Around Enjoyable Experience

This post may contain what some would consider to be "spoilers." If you don't like it, suck it. Suck it hard. But don't spoil it. 'Cause then sucking it would have spoilers which defeats the original purpose of sucking it.
You know what I mean.

It has been a while since I've watched a standalone horror film (as in, not part of a greater series) that I've been adequately satisfied with. Often a good premise will be squandered with poor pacing or a terrible ending, cliffhangers with no guarantee of salvation. Typically if a person can see a movie and immediately fathom a couple of better ways to wrap it up, or even a more effective method of overall execution, there has been some mistake made in the process of its creation.
Sometimes you get the feeling that a filmmaker has held back a possible outcome for fear of squandering their creation in the process; perhaps if some directors were bolder, or more willing to take risks that would jeopardize their operation, in the interest of a greater result, more films could be touted as pushing the boundaries of a genre. This is especially true of horror; many times I have encountered movies that could have been better if the creators hadn't erred on the side of caution quite so much.

Sinister, Ethan Hawke's latest good decision, took a chance, and pleased me thoroughly in the process. The loose synopsis is as follows: a defunct true crime writer moves himself and his loved ones into a house that was once the home of a family who was (all but one missing child) killed by an unknown person. He finds a series of films depicting the murders, discovering connections between them and planning a book around the results. Mystery and horror ensues within his family, as well as on the property itself.
Of course one can see the immediate danger associated with moving your wife and children into an abode where a family-targeting killer once chose victims, and there are many ways for the head of the household to react to that.
Many times, in classic "Paranormal Activity" fashion, the family decides to stick it out through the trauma and turmoil in the interest of preserving the unit, only to find out that their decision was a poor and ultimately irreparable one. People start dying, children are put in danger, maybe father goes insane. The nice thing about Sinister is that there is a hint of most of these elements, a satiating amount, but the characters don't plummet so far into a delusional perseverance that they don't notice their own lives crumbling in the face of the madness and exercise their ability to eject from a terrible situation.
There are many things in this vein that Sinister does right that other movies tend to overdo. When it comes to the horror genre, less tends to be more; you can imply a gruesome act without depicting it in its entirety. Many of the people murdered in the film are obviously dead, and yet one isn't forced to sit through the entire ordeal in stereo sound as some sort of cheap reach for a shock factor. This, to me, is more effective than a more direct method of conveyance. The mind is left to fill in the blanks of the footage which, depending on the creativity of your imagination, can be very colourful.
I've also noticed an increase in the ever-present "jump-scare" type of attempt to induce a fearful response from viewers. Sinister does employ this tactic, however it's achieved in a way that's much more tasteful than most movies. Whereas sometimes it's as if a caveman put a scene together, everything here is still very surprising, even if you're expecting the events to transpire.

The ending, without giving it away, is very unexpected, although it does fit the mood of the film. It is, to me, the most viable way to end a story of this kind; everything is nicely wrapped up and you're not left guessing many outcomes, if any at all. The creators of Sinister tried many new things and executed them successfully, while still managing to maintain a familiar mystery horror feel. Overall, I'm very satisfied., annd it gives me hope for titles to come.

Also, Ethan Hawke is an acting giant, not to mention a sex GOD.

Not that I'd know.

Marriage is Awful, Weddings Are Worse Pt. 2

In the interest attempting to maintain what little attention span is offered on this vast machinescape, I've separated this post into two parts of semi-equal length. Just makes things easier.

Part 2: Weddings

I've dissected the institution of marriage, extracting whatever emotion serves to cloud what is already a very unnecessary course of action. Weddings are infinitely easier to testify against.
We are a species that prides itself on selfish indulgence and false justifications. Gods are great because they say they are, obesity is a disease, and bigger is better, because it's bigger. That makes it better. Because it's bigger. Shit.
For many, weddings are a celebration created entirely to please family members, largely at the expense of the happiness had by the two getting married. This is a process that rivals Las Vegas for the title of "greatest time-wasting financial black hole." Many spend months in preparation for one or two days, organizing with and paying hundreds of people to ensure that everybody but them enjoys the experience for a few measly hours while cramped into chairs around tables full of people they rarely talk to. The ceremony itself is long and formal, which guarantees that people like me are going to hate existence for its entirety.

While couples could be hoarding their earnings, saving them for the purchase of a home or even for frivolities that are much more enjoyable for a much longer timespan, they instead (often due to direct parental pressure) opt to throw money directly into the garbage, with expenditures that flaunt price tags that shouldn't even be legal. Exploitation of what was initially designed as a day of conventional celebratory entertainment has effectively ruined whatever "sanctity" the ceremony intends to preserve. You're destroying as you create. When you think about it, though, you're not even creating anything good.
Sometimes, during the preparation stage, a couple will, under unbelievable stress and tension, discover things that they despise about each other. Perhaps one half of this partnership isn't as assertive as they could be, and subsequently loses a reservation and must resort to the second-choice venue. For some, this is so pivotal that the entire thing is aborted, and irreversible damage is done to the relationship (to one's "soulmate", as well as with their parents, because if you ruin this you might as well just dig up Grandpa Jones and fuck him right in the ass, since he's already rolled over in his grave). This is a situation that could be avoided entirely if there never was a wedding in the first place.

Included on the list of "reasons why this is more of an awful idea than a good one," is the expectation that the relationship is magically made better by these acts alone. There are no words that strengthen a bond between people, because it is not, and never has been, verbal language that ties two people together emotionally. Being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame won't magically improve your batting average. Wining an Oscar doesn't make your acting better than it was before you won it. If anything, it makes you sloppy, acting as a milestone in which you plunge your dick and leave it. Both marriage and a wedding will individually and collectively lower your self-imposed standards for relationship quality, over time.
As well, the presence of a minister directly infringes on many people's "keep your religion the fuck away from me" policy, an ideology that must be relinquished for literally no good reason whatsoever.

In case you weren't already convinced, I'll gladly remind you of the ideas behind the "bachelor" or "bachelorette" party. What we've concocted here is a night that is symbolic of one's transition from being unmarried to the horrible, restrictive alternative. Not only does this offer the opportunity to spend hours in the company of other sexually desirable people in a very suggestive and almost insistent environment, but it brings with it the implication that you can be, and up to this point have been, unfaithful to your significant other. You're insinuating that dating someone is so basic and loose that you could have and probably were fucking anything and everything, but you can't do that after tonight, or else you might lose your mate.
Well, fuck you then, for questioning my ability to commit to another, and assuming I haven't already.

I have yet to be presented with a reasonable use for the traditional wedding, unless your aim is to bankrupt yourself and ensure that whatever offspring you may produce during your "night of consummation" (another big issue; I and many other people like to keep their personal lives person, and your whole family knows exactly what you're doing and is happy about it) will be well-versed in the art of panhandling for years to come. I welcome any contrasting views, and wish anyone luck in trying to sway this giant novel of concrete absolution on the matter.

Marriage is Awful, Weddings Are Worse Pt. 1

The clarification is necessary, because many people will complain endlessly about marriage, when in actuality they dislike a traditional wedding ceremony. Often, the conversation will be the same, with the target being reversed.

I, on the other hand, hate both. Unequally, maybe, but there is definitely a hatred reserved for each as a separate entity.

Now, I understand that these opinions are not unknown or unpopular, and there's much I can't say that won't be reiteration. I'm not trying to provide a new point of vantage on the matter, instead I want to elaborate further, for those who may still be in favour of either institution, because they're both very silly.

Part One: Marriage

Marriage continues to survive as a mildly sexist idea. Though much of its male dominance has ceased to be part of the convention, it still exists for many on the pretence that a woman is leaving her biological family to join a new one under the supposed rule of her male counterpart. It's well established that this was once part of a tradition that included trading a woman for livestock and acreage. It hasn't developed much since then (other than the inclusion of marriage within the same gender), instead undergoing a sort of shrinking process.

It has (probably in the interest of saving time) mostly been boiled down to paperwork that serves the purpose of legally splitting your lifelong accumulations in half and ensuring consequence should you consider any infidelity or abandon any progeny. If you're feeling particularly bold, you can grab some more papers that instead promise that, wish you ever to part ways, you'll be able to do so with all of your belongings. A hefty gamble, as this request is so insulting to some that they'll end the relationship immediately, effectively ruining two lives for an undetermined, possibly indefinite period of time.

Is that an odd custom to anyone else?

What you're telling me, by requesting this certificate of partnership, is that you have moderate difficulty with commitment, unless you're presented with the opportunity to sign something that says you're going to be damn good at it. This is especially true of those who demand this as a form of affirmation; either they can't maintain a relationship without some sort of legal binding, or they're terribly insecure, and think that their significant other will just pick up and leave at any time.

Continuing in that vein, I get the impression that one's ability to connect emotionally isn't a sufficient adhesive with which to hold two people together. Aside from the aforementioned documents, there is no difference in relationship level or quality following the process of marrying someone. Being with someone isn't climbing Mount Everest; there's no peak, after which you never again need to worry about whether or not they're going to stick their dick into - or open their crotch-gape and welcome - another person. there's no "that's it, you're there," moment. It's a continuous investment in your own happiness (or if you're altruistic and sacrificial - you're not - the happiness of another). Marriage as an attempt to promise that happiness in the future is a fruitless venture, because nobody can guarantee anything about the future, regardless of how many dotted lines you handwrite upon. If someone's determined to be adulterous, they're going to do it. If they're presently unhappy, they're going to take measures to alleviate that unhappiness, possibly at the expense of others. Fuck your signature.

Failing all of that, you're saying that if someone ever fucked your life severely enough, you'd take their shit as punishment.

Ultimatums and consequences are no base upon which to build an endless connection with another human.

There are some evident exceptions to the rule that marriage is essentially a useless land-claim. Any couple who marries so that one can garner citizenship, wherever the agreement was conducted, is great. There are few ways to effectively give the middle finger to multiple people from multiple cultures simultaneously, and fucking the system for personal gain (from a third party, an important distinction) has and always will be an excellent example.

Note: many of these arguments rely on surface-level judgement, as some people do have their own, irrefutable reasons for desiring this method of partnership. I'm not trying to defame anyone based on their convictions; I'm trying to defame the principles behind the concept of marriage itself.

Part 2 later in the month.

Cyber-Bullying is a Big Joke.

What's more, people who are irked by internet "bullying" for longer than the 10 seconds it takes to read whatever hate comments they recieve are wasting valuable time and emotion.

"Cyber-bullying" is probably the worst way to classify what should, in reality, be called "wearing out your keyboard at no benefit to anything." The fact that I've dedicated this much time already to the topic causes me more emotional distress than any one of the seven and almost a half billion other people on the face of this vast, crumbling celestial rock ever could. There is no merit to the battle against this phenomenon, and continuing to pursue a means of preventing individuals with soft hearts from being perturbed at length by random, negative comments (no matter how great in number) is like trying to stop wolves from killing for sport.

That's another, completely unrelated issue. Some wild animals are indeed sport hunters and you have to be born deficient to deny that. Get off your towering animal-rights activism horse.
That's an oxymoron.
People who take cyber-bullying seriously are oxymorons. Wait, I mean they're morons who breathe oxygen.

I'm no humanitarian, so the things I say may be construed as hostile. However, I'm just one person, on one particular and isolated piece of the internet. Which is my point, really. There is inherently little risk in speaking negatively of someone from quite possibly hundreds of kilometres away. Subsequently, anyone with a working computer and a semi-functional brain can say just about anything they please, often in an attempt to get a rise out of another person, or to fulfil some sort of misplaced sense of inadequacy.
Even more, according to Occam's Razor, perhaps they just want to "start shit."
Those who sit down with the intent to defame someone completely alien to them have less value than the text they manage to type out, through what are most likely grotesque, disfigured and twisted fingers, hands, faces, maybe a third eye, etc. These people should, in turn, be given as much time as they warrant, which happens to be none. Surprise.

Simultaneously, however, I'm not in the business of pandering to those who take comments such as these with anything more than a grain of salt. There is a substantial difference between offering criticism constructively and trying to cause a person mental turmoil. Most people can recognize this and differentiate; the next step being to disregard the iterations that are simply for the sake of torment. Thus, they are able to keep themselves from harm. You wouldn't get all upset and cut yourself if some street-demon with no concept of your existence told you that you were ugly and your life choices were poor (at least not if you're intelligent and have any idea how rarely strangers care about you), so maintain your thick skin, especially against an ignorant online persona. Many people should learn to do this, and quickly, because the world is much less friendly than the seclusion granted by this generation's development process would lead one to believe.

In some cases, people are stupid right off the cuff, doing things they wouldn't ordinarily do, thinking that the anonymity provided by this great technological advancement will provide some sort of barrier between what they've done on their computers and the reality in which they live. The truth is, this is reality, and they coexist. To think that, for instance, getting your breasts and/or testicles out, live, with a webcam, won't come back to bite you in them, is absurd. Especially when your face is visible.
Imagine the internet as if it's one big amusement park. The only one. Now, imagine that when people come here, they can say/do anything they want, to whoever they want, with a mask on. They only have to pay once a month for unlimited access. Lastly, imagine that parents freely and willingly pay for this luxury, and that provides everyone they talk to with the ability to attend this park.
Now stop imagining it, because that's what the fuck this is.
You have to be a retard to get your tits out at Disneyland, and they don't even get half the business that the internet does.
My point is that some people get what they deserve when they act like an idiot.

Now, don't mistake me. It isn't fair to try and ruin the entire home and online lives of businessmen because they weren't smart enough to have more than one password. Nor is it acceptable to drive people to suicide if they like getting naked online. However, if people were to practice a little discretion, or had some common sense, outcomes like these can be avoided completely. It's not the internet's fault for capitalizing on the mistakes of others, because we've been doing that since the conception of this species. This invention has only made opportunities to do so more widely available and frequent. This wouldn't be the case if those victimized would exercise some caution and took steps to keep their internet lives and their "real" ones as separate as possible.

Remember in King Kong when it turns out that we're actually the monsters? Killing the gorilla isn't going to save us from ourselves. He was behind the huge fence until that fat asshole let him out. The tribesmen had a good idea, keeping him on that island, close enough for us to visit, but not so close that we had to see his big hairy dick all the time.

For those of you who are a little slow, King Kong is a euphemism for the internet in this instance.Try and keep up.

Remakes Aren't "better" or "worse," They're Different.

I'm getting tired of people who automatically write-off remakes as though there was no effort put into creating something new. Often, the film in question isn't trying to adhere to any aspects of its predecessor, except for setting, or loosely, the plot. Granted, there have been many so-called remakes that seek to out-do the original, or copy it verbatim, and are miserable as a result, but the list of successful recreations is much longer and can't be ignored just because it shares the name and concept.

Complaining that a remake of an original film tries to one-up the previous by, for instance, revisiting scenes portrayed in the elder film exactly, defeats the purpose of the film. It's not a race to make something better; it's a retelling of the same situation. Instead of imagining the new film to be a young generation's way of telling the old that they're no good anymore, go into a remake as if it's a new adaptation of an idea. Film is an art form; to say, after someone creates a piece, that nobody can imagine the piece in a different way and portray it as such closes doors to entire genres and everything becomes rigid and uniform.

Don't reflexively hate on a new movie because you really like the old one. Don't even treat it like the old one. It's a new movie. That's the whole point. The retardation involved in this decision is mind-boggling to me. It's not the same movie. Often, it's not even trying to be the same movie, at all. Pay attention.

Now, I'm not trying to argue that every remake is an untouchable masterpiece. I'm not defending cash holes that recreate the entry before it scene-for-scene as a money grab. Many are awful, and often on a grander scale because there is an established standard which it, at least, has to live up to. However, remakes should be treated like any other movie, and given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

If anything, good remakes are great because the scrutiny from the public is so demanding already, without your crass nay-saying. Dick.

It's absurd to think that a new idea can't borrow from, pay homage to or cast an old idea in a different light without people thinking it sucks without giving it any chance whatsoever. New ideas are formed on the backbone of older ones; it's innovation. 

If you want to miss out on a perfectly good experience because it's "been done before," I suggest you stop watching movies altogether. As a matter of fact, you should never leave your house. No, don't even HAVE a house. find a hole in the forest, grab some twigs and leaves, and live there. Actually no, because that's been done before too. You know what? Just die.

Just DIE.

Apologies to anyone who read this on my Tumblr already. Sometimes, I feel as though my opinions deserve a wider audience than the 5-10 individuals who visit this site bi-monthly. This is one of those times.