assassin_696

Brand New Genre: Rock Label: Interscope Members: Jesse Lacey - Vocals/Guitar Vinnie Accardi - Guitar Brian Lane - Drums Garrett Tierney - Bass I first heard of Brand New shortly after they released their second album, Deja Entendu, and immediately passed them off as "just another punk rock band," however, after listening to Your Favorite Weapon a few times and then listening to Deja, my opinion of them changed dramatically. This is no ordinary band. They can hardly be described by a single genre of music, with songs ranging from 3-part harmony, pop punk anthems to almost depressing songs that seem to draw influences from bands like The Cure and darker genres of music. Shortly after releasing Deja Entendu, Brand New seemed to drop off the face of the earth. The only communication between them and the rest of the world was a mysterious website and rumors that they were recording a new album. Finally, in late 2006, they emerged again, this time with an equally ground-breaking album and a series of tours across the U.S. and Europe. I got to see them live twice in one week after 3 years of waiting. They have since released a number of B-sides off the new album, including aloC-acoC(copyright laws wouldn't allow them to name it Coca-Cola :lol: ) and (Fork and Knife). Discography Your Favorite Weapon Released: 10/9/01 Brand New's first full-length album. This is your typical pop-punk album about breakups and ex-girlfriends, with a few twists. For one, there is an extreme amount of bitterness and even violence in this album, with songs like Jude Law and a Semester Abroad, and Seventy Times 7. Lyrics from these 2 songs include "And even if her plane crashes tonight she'll find some way to disappoint me by not burning in the wreckage or drowning at the bottom of the sea," and "Have another drink and drive yourself home, I hope there's ice on all the roads and you can think of me when you forget your seatbelt and again when your head goes through the windshield." Amid the violent lyrics are a few softer songs that hint at more than just a simple breakup, such as my personal favorite song on the album, The No Seatbelt Song, and the acoustic Soco Amaretto Lime. There also seems to be some friendly banter between Brand New and Taking Back Sunday on this album as well as TBS' first album, Tell All Your Friends. Rating: 7.5/10 (relative scale based on their best album) Deja Entendu Released: 6/17/03 Literally translated, Deja Entendu means "already attended to" or "already heard" which seems to be a nudge to the majority of alternative or punk rock bands that seem to put out the same album over and over again. The first thing you notice about this album is that it has a distinctly different sound than the first album. Brand New ditched the canned pop-punk sound that YFW sometimes had for a more emotional sound. Higher highs and lower lows are all over this album, sometimes even in the same song. The bitterness from the first album carries over, but it's "matured" much like the album's sound. Instead of being directed at ex-girlfriends, it seems to be directed at society and the unfairness of life in general. It seems that every song has a meaning and the lyrics are completely original and heartfelt, not just recycled garbage like a lot of bands nowdays are putting out. I don't think I can pick just one favorite song on this album, but Sic Transit Gloria... Glory Fades, Okay, I Believe You, But My Tommy Gun Don't, and Me vs. Maradona vs. Elvis are some of the standout tracks, in my opinion. Rating: 10/10 The Devil and God are Raging Inside Me Released: 11/21/06 After a 3.5 year hiatus, Brand New returns, stronger than ever, and yet at the same time, seemingly broken beyond repair. I don't know what happened between these 2 albums, but it must have been life-shattering, because the album's title explains exactly what the songs are about. Every song has an introspective, almost cynical tone to it. Jesse has obviously taken a good hard look at himself and his own beliefs and began questioning everything. In the 3 times I saw them live, they only played one song off YFW, and it was the song that most resembled their later work, which makes me think they resent the pop-punk sound they started with. Jesse also seemed very depressed, and the last time I saw them, he said "This song is about a girl that died in my house" before playing Limousine which might explain some of the lyrics that come with this album. Songs such as Millstone and Jesus Christ immediately reflect some cynicism and self-loathing even, with lyrics like "I used to be such a burning example, I used to be so original... I used to pray a God was listening, I used to make my parents proud..," and "Jesus Christ I'm alone again, so what did you do those three days you were dead?" almost as if he's questioning his own faith. Not the Sun and The Archer's Bows Have Broken are the only real upbeat songs on the entire album, and even they carry some religious overtones, such as the lyric "you're beating with a book everyone that book tells you to love." Overall, a good album, but I wish they had just included the 2 B-sides that have been released since then instead of the 2 instrumental(read: filler) songs, Welcome to Bangkok and Untitled. Rating: 8/10 Other Songs: Moshi Moshi Am I Wrong My Nine Rides Shotgun - these 3 songs were on a split EP with Safety In Numbers aloC-acoC - on the Sowing Season single, available by pre-ordering TDAG (Fork and Knife) - released on iTunes Links: Official Website Myspace Purevolume Wikipedia Article Videos: Sic Transit Gloria... Glory Fades - probably the best music video of all time _______________________________________________________________________________ Past Archive Thousand Foot Krutch by kalphiteman4

Bound To Get Caught - PlayRadioPlay!

You look like a startled Keira Knightley there.

They wouldn't be properly invisible, just hard to see. And tanks aren't exactly the quietest of beasts either. Still, easy to scare any threatening superpower, just give them a picture of some empty fields and assure them they are swarming with tanks.

If you had kids and they started when they were still in their teens, would you have any objections?

Because that 7 years between being an adult and an adult with a mortgage makes all the difference.

Just because you might be ignorant of the scientific evidence doesn't mean we have to assign an equal probability to all the different theories.

Baby Please Don't Go - Muddy Waters

Save us all the time and don't even bother trying to prove God with science. If you want to believe in God on faith, then that's absolutely fine, i'm not going to argue with you, but as soon as you start trying to prove the big guy with conservation of energy/matter you are going down a dead end road.

I will digress, but only because it includes science. A deity would not exist in material form, and would not be bound by material rules. The Universe, however, is made up of matter and must follow the rules. You mean rules like the conservation of mass/energy?

Wash Your Face In My Sink - Dream Warriors

Yeah, as far as I know I think the thermodynamics is the biggest problem with the cyclic model. I'll have a look into various aspects when I get a bit of time. But as for the time must be finite thing, not so sure about that. I can't see the logical link between the two.

Wrap the paper round it so that it's not tight against the egg, what you need to try and do is allow the egg some time to decelerate when it hits the ground so the force on it acts over a longer period of time, it you kind of crumple the paper sufficiently it might be able to cushion the egg when it hits the ground.

This is different again though. Richard Dawkins (I believe) coined the term Einsteinian God. When Einstein was talking about god he was just using it as a term for the governing forces and laws in the universe. Yeah, it's a bit like Stephen Hawking, who's an agnostic, but uses God's name a lot as a metaphor for a lot of things.

Can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic, but that's a misnomer. It actually means "submission". I'll say no more.

Sorry, I hate to respond to a post as considered and reasonable as yours with a YouTube video but i'm so busy at the moment I think this is better than nothing. This speech/debate puts forward what I feel to be the best defence for the freedom of speech for all. It's split into two videos and they shouldn't take much more than 10 minutes to watch, and they really are worth it. Hitchens covers all the points I would and many more in a much more impressive and eloquent way than I ever could.

I know you didn't mean it, but your first point is a bit of a strawman, you can't just outright claim that all fascists or extremists aren't open to reasoned argument and debate if you never give them a chance. And even if they can't see their errors maybe external observers might be able to if they were going to have been otherwise swayed by their arguments. But at the end of the day you're still just denying freedom of speech (surely a bedrock of any liberal society?) to anyone who explicity disagrees with you. Isn't disagreement and difference of opinion ultimately what gets people thinking about their views? And if we don't allow these people freedom of speech where do we draw the line?

You begin to go on to a separate topic there, the one of lashing, which, in my eyes, is barbaric. No other way to explain it. I think that whilst I take your points raised earlier about me being an external observer, irrelevant of the specific punishment charging a teacher for allowing her class to call a teddy bear a certain name is simply madness. It wasn't called The Prophet Muhammad, it's just an arbitary name, it could have been named after anybody called that. Even if she's just been arrested and then released it would have been frankly ridiculous.

You've contradicted yourself, you state that "people who's words and actions will inevitably lead to death and suffering should not have that right afforded to them", yet go on to say: "It's either freedom of speech for everyone". I think what you're getting at is what I believe as well: Everyone is granted the freedom of speech - but people can abuse it and lose it. Sorry, I did actually contradict myself, but yeah what I was getting at was that when you start inciting sufficient hatred/violence to lead to actual physical harm to other persons it goes beyond freedom of speech and they (the inciter) needs to be restrained for the safety of society.

I didn't get into this guy until I started listening to his Saturday night BBC2 radio show, which is just comic genius. Part of the brilliance of it though is his co-presenter and friend Matt Morgan, who provides the perfect comic foil for Russell, often deflating his ego and mocking him for various things at just the right point so that Russell never gets too above himself, it's all very lighthearted. I haven't seen a lot of his stand-up, I watched his Channel 4 tv show earlier which was great but fairly well rehersed and scripted. A lot of Russell's brilliance lies in his improvisation.

I don't care what the religion is, I don't care how much it means to them, I just wish people would wake up and realise that whipping someone, a fellow human being, a teacher who's educating our children, over calling a teddy bear a particular name isn't right. But they won't, people will still plead tolerance and respect because it's their religion. That would be fine, but this teacher isn't buying into it so why should she have to suffer for their faith? Disgusting.

So we only afford the freedom to express opinions and points of views to those who agree with us? I agree, people who's words and actions will inevitably lead to death and suffering should not have that right afforded to them. But, when it comes to people making fascist claims isn't it better to beat them with reasoned debate than simply banning them from speaking? If they're cut to shreds in the public view won't that stop people from being persuaded by their lies? It's either freedom of speech for everyone, or no one.

Bypassing firewalls that were put in place for a reason isn't exactly something we condone around here. Locked.

Shame on some of you for bashing him and acting superior just because he's new, we all have to start somewhere, and a bit of constructive criticism and helpful first advice never did anyone any harm. I've removed any spammy, flaming comments on this thread. rowls, welcome to TIF and good luck with everything. Please don't bump up your topic, just let it die if it doesn't get any replies, as much you might not want it to. :P

Recently, the Oxford University Student's Union invited two people to debate at one of their famous meetings, Nick Griffin, Chairman of the far right British National Party, and David Irving, a holocaust denier (see his Wikipedia page for more details of what exactly he's denying). The students invited these two people to their debate in the interests of freedom of speech. But many anti-racism campaigners were angry that these people should be given a platform to express their views. I'm sure many of you living in the UK have seen the headlines in the news, for those who haven't here are a selection of BBC news articles covering the protests/incideny, 1 2 3 4 My question is, do you think that these people should be given such a platform to express their views? Or not? My views can be summed up by one post on the internet, replying to the controversy which astutely said "Always remember kids, freedom of speech is too precious to be given to those who disagree with the liberals" Christopher Hitchens on freedom of speech ( ) Discuss.